Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-081 1 BOARD OF APPEALS January 8, 1976 Prior to regularly scheduled hearings for January 8, 1976 a meeting was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. At 7:20 p.m. regular and associate members, as listed below, were present for a photograph for the Annual Town Report and to sign an acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of the Open Meeting Law from Mary R. McDonough, Town Clerk. Regular Members Associate Members Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman Robert Cataldo George P. Wadsworth, Vice -Chairman Haskell W. Reed Woodruff M. Brodhead Thomas G. Taylor Ruth Morey Irving H. Mabee Not present: r,. Logan Clarke, Jr. Robert M. Gary Natalie H. Riffin Also present at 7:20 p.m. were Town Counsel, Norman Cohen, and Building Commissioner, Donald K. Irwin, both at the Chairman's request, for the purpose of discussing an issue raised by Mr. Cataldo as to whether the building permit held by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc, was properly issued or not by the town's building department. Background The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc. petitioned the Board of Appeals to construct 16 townhouses for low and moderate income families on a 2.5 acre parcel of land abutting St. Brigid's Church. A hearing was held by the Board of Appeals and the permit was denied by the board on August 7, 1973. This denial was overturned by the State Housing Appeals Committee on August 29, 1974. The Housing Appeals Committee decision was upheld, in turn, by the Superior Court on February 27, 1975, Justice Raymond R. Cross presiding. The Judge's order and the comprehensive permit subsequently issued by the Board of Appeals were both made subject to certain conditions (exactly the same). The condition which Mr. Cataldo and others felt had not been met reads as follows: "Prior to final financial commitment, the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency shall as part of its project review, comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, General Laws, Chapter 30, subsections 61-62." No environmental statement has been issued since the Judge's order in February 1975, or the Board's comprehensive permit in May, 1975. As a result, a majority of the Board has concluded that the Planning Office of Urban Affairs, Inc. has not complied with its conditional approval and that a building permit obtained from the town was issued prematurely. It is claimed that the MHFA, as part of its normal processing of the Plan- ning Office application, investigated the potential impact of the project on ' the environment and determined that its impact was not significant and that an environmental impact report was not required, a so-called negative assessment. On January 3, 1974, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs concurred in the negative assessment determination by MHFA,apparently, and a loan closing January 8, 1976 -2 for the subsidized housing project was held in October, 1975. Members of the Board, however, reason that Board members and Justice Cross were both aware of the 1974 determination of "no impact" but nonetheless made their 1975 approval subject to and conditional upon compliance with the state's environmental protection act. The Board's position is that the intent of this condition was to require a new environmental impact statement, thereby giving the public its first and only opportunity to respond to the plans from an environmental standpoint. Certain Board members feel that public input could even be assured, if the Planning Office would simply resubmit its 1974 determination of "no impact". This entire meeting was public and reported in the Lexington Minute -Man newspaper. The Board is expected to discuss the matter further with Town Counsel. At approximately 8:05 p.m. Town Counsel and Building Commissioner and others left the meeting room and the regularly scheduled hearings were held. Regularly scheduled hearings: Present and acting on the public open hearings scheduled for January 8, hearings which were duly advertised as required by law and notices mailed as specified in the law, were: Chairman Nickerson, Vice -Chairman Wadsworth, W. M. Brodhead, H. W. Reed and R. Cataldo. ' David G. Ahern - Petition was withdrawn by letter from the petitioner after it had been advertised, etc. as follows: "David G. Ahern for variances of the zoning by-law to construct a garage at 26 Dewey Road with a 17 foot setback and a 5 foot sideyard." All who had been notified of the hearing were notified that it was withdrawn. Alden L. Webster and Judith A. Webster - permission to vary the zoning by-law so as to maintain the existing non -conforming dwelling with its easterly side yard of 8.80 ft. to 9.26 ft. and front yard of 15 ft. on the property known as 113 North Street, and to construct a proposed extension of said dwelling con- tinuing the non -conforming easterly side yard ranging from 8.42 ft. to 9.26 ft. reduced by the proposed roof overhang of up to 1.5 ft., all as shown on plans submitted to the Board of Appeals. Christos Kontos - special permit under Section 25.69, pursuant to Section 12.2, to operate a restaurant at One Meriam Street, in the Giroux Building, Store Number 5. The petitioner has an option on this space with Minute Man Park Realty Trust, Ernest A. and Chadwick A. Giroux, Trustees, for the period re- quired to obtain the special permit herein requested. Joel G. Berman - variance in the required setback between an RS Zone and a CB Zone which under Section 27 of the Lexington Zoning By-law, Schedule of Dimen- sional Controls, is required to be 20 ft. In the case under petition the act- ual setbacks are 10.6 ft. at the nearest point and 16.8 ft. at the farthest point from the property line. These distances relate to a new addition being ' added to the Berman Liquor Mart, 55 Massachusetts Avenue. The existing premises consist of a lot of 30,432 (plus or minus) square feet totally within the CB or Central Business Zone. The rear lot line for a distance of 225 feet (plus or minus) is the southerly boundary of the Boston and Maine Railroad right-of- way. However, the Boston and Maine right-of-way is in an RS Zone. The pro- posed addition will meet the building code and zoning requirements in all January 8, 1976 -3 other respects. ' Patricia Calogero - variances of Sections 26 and 27 to build a house on a lot described as Lot #271 Blake Road (land between numbers 36 and 48 Blake Road), the area being 10,380 sq. ft. instead of 12,500 sq. ft. and the frontage measuring 94.90 ft. instead of 100 ft. The Petitioner has a firm Purchase and Sales Agreement contingent on the Board of Appeals approval of these variances. The Board made the following decisions, all in open public meeting: Ahern - Withdrawn by the petitioner. Petitioner states he will build accord- ing to plans he submitted with an earlier petition which the Board granted on October 23, 1975. Webster - granted unanimously with the condition that construction shall start within a period of 18 months. Kontos - granted unanimously, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Board has no objection to the requested 7 days a week, hours not to exceed 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., subject to Selectmen's approval when a victu- aler's license is obtained. 2. The rules and regulations of the Board of Health must be followed and an appropriate ventilation system shall be installed. 3. No more than 13 tables seating 52 customers shall be permitted. ' 4. Extreme care shall be exercised in the disposing of waste material (gar- bage and rubbish) in accordance with the town's specifications. Berman - Granted unanimously, subject to the condition that the canopy shall be removed as stated and the ice -machine relocated as described. Construc- tion must begin within one year from date. Calogero - Denied 4 to 1 (Chairman voting in favor): That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not be substantially served by the making of the exception requested; it will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington Zoning By-laws; that the enforcement of the Lexington Zoning By-law as to the matter in question would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, since she merely holds a purchase and sales agreement on it; and the relief requested could not be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Lexington Zoning By-law. The restrictions in the deed, stating how a house must set on the land, and placing a house of the dimensions proposed might impair the status of the neighborhood. All pertinent material is on file in the Board of Appeals' office. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' Evelyn F. Cole, Administrative Clerk