Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1929-06-21 rri BOARD OF APP7ALS HE RING - JUNE 21, 1929. The meeting of the Board of Appeals was held June 21, 1929, Town Office Building at 8 P 7. Messrs ^-..rthur N. Maddison, Theodore A. Custance , Roland W. Baldrey, Town Counsel, Sydney R. 'Vrightington and Mrs . Helen C. 'AJhittemore were present. The Board of Appeals organized as follows Arthur N. Maddison, Chairman, and Roland V. Baldrey, Clerk. Discussion arose es to w?-,ether '4r. R. '". Baldrey, being an interested party at the hearing scheduled at 8 ' M , could properly serve as a member of the Board of Appeals when only three members out of 'ive of the Board were present. Town Counsel advised that this would' disqualify Mr. Baldrey. Chairman Arthur lv. Maddison called the hearing on the application of Olive E. Hilton, Executrix, Estate of Minnie A. Hilton Tillson which was scheduled at 8 P M The application was for the hearing, use of property on the southeast corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Plainfield Street to be used as an Inn for tourists in accord- ance with sub-section 2 in R.2 Districts and Section 9 of the Zoning Law of the Town of Lexington and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 1924. The Chairman explained that the hearing, owing to the disqualification of Mr. Baldrey, could not be held, and therefore it would be adjourned until July 1, 1929 at 8 P M. The Chairman then called the hearing at 8 30 P M upon the application of Peter and. Martin Semonian to use the property at `Semon- 137 "Woburn Street, Lexington, owned by Peter and. Martin Semonian ian as a two family house, in accordance with Section 9 of the Zoning hearing Law of the Town of Lexington and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 1924. The Secretary, 4. 7 Baldrey, read the notice printed in the Lexington Times-Minute Man of the hearing. Mr. Daniel J. O ' Connell appeared as 'ttorney for Semonian Brothers. He stated that the present occupants of the house at 137 "'oburn Street had lived there for about 16 years To identify the place, he stated that it was the old Gibbs property. The applicants have lived there an pre nog living there , and because o" the age of some of th, relatives they 'elt it necessary to change the house over by the sim-'1P means of installing another kitchen. rowever , he stated the building on the outside will not be changed in apneerance . He also state that it was intended that the same people should live in the house after it was changed over , and he did not see how it could affect the neighborhood, inasmuch as there are similar houses in the vicinity, and as far as he could ascertain none of the neighbors had any objection. He felt that they could almost have made the changes in the house without making an annliaation andstill comply with the law. It was their intention to install a kitchen on the second floor. "hen asked if there would by any change in the stairway, he stated that there would be a change in the staiDway. It would e be moved into the center of the house. The Chairman asked bother or not there were now two stairways in the house, and .4r n 'eonnell st^ted that t fere was only one stairway an the apnlination only called for the change in the location of this stairway. Mr O ' Con ,ell stated that there are several s res in the piece of property owned by the -,emonian Brothers . He stated that there are five rooms on each floor. In answer to Mr Custance 's question a, to whether or not if two other families moved in would it impair the t.atus of the neijhborhood , $iir. n ' Connell did not beli`tie it would inasmuch as it would '.e convenient for two families . He also stated that the house looks like a large house and for that reason it would not change the locality in any way, that the house sets back about 35 ' from the line and about 150 ' from the line of the Harlow nroperty so that the houses were s'parated by at least 100 ' "r. O ' Connell stated that he owned property in the vicinity himself and that he personally had no objection. "r Leonard 7`. Dunham appeared and stated that he lived on the street a number of years and as two families now live there, be could not see any reason why they should not continue to live there inasmuch as the outside anti^arance of the house would not be any different, it simply would make the house more convenient inside for 1 ' ing purposes He stated that he lived within sight of the house in question He was, therefore , in favor of the application. Mr. Christen Bentsen state-' that he owned l house at 1)2 'Ioburn Street located at the corner of Utica Street, and his house was a two family Tau e but used as a sie_gle house, the same being the old. O ' Connell nroperty. He stated that inasmuch as the outer appearance of the house at 137 7oburn Street would not be changed and the same occupants are to remain there , he was in favor of the petition being granted. Mr. Ro ,ert L. Ryder stated that he owned some land in the vicinity and he wished to ask the -iuestion as to whethe ^ or not this Y$ermit was only meant for this particular piece of property at 137 , ohurn Street , or whether it included the area in that section. The Chairman informed Mr Ryder that this application was just on this one niece of property and did not define any district . Mr. J. L Smith stated that he had 'mown the Semonian Brothers for about 15 years , and he could not see any objection to their making the '-ouse more convenient Yr. rharles "'cloy stated that he aid not see any objection to the house einem changed if the same families were to remain there . 'iss Nora Teary ststea that she also lived in the ,,icinity and she had no objections . Yr Leslie J ''Mood stated that he owned property at 136 Thburn Ztrect , across the street from the property in question. 4 He stated th-t the question ,asked by Mr. 'Ryder was the one he had ro in mind to ask -bout this property, and since he was s'tisflied that the aprlic^tion was only for this one particular house and would not be for the rest of the neighborhood he had no objections . Mr Custance asked the question to the meeting of whether or not thy feel that if this permit were granted it would give the neighbors in the vicinity special privileges on their property, as to whether or not it would be an opening wedge for others to make application for similar use of their proprty. Yr. ,"food and Mr. Smith explaine that they did not understand that they were assured by the meeting that this did not give any authority for other changes in the neighborhood and they were. satisfied with that assurance. The hearing was closed at 8 45 P M. The Board discussed the matter and decided to await the meeting of the full Board before making their decision. Holland The application of Miss monica Holland for permission to have e tea room on her property n Massachusetts Avenue, East Applica- Lexington was laid on the table. tion. The meeting adjourned to Yonvay evening, July 1 , 1929 at 8 P. M. Rerta.04/ 4`2"e1A-c7 1 Clerk. BOARD OF APPEALS HEnRING - JULY 1, 1929. The meeting of the Board of Appeals on the application of Olive E Hilton, Executrix, Estate of Minnie A. Tillson for an Inn to accommodate tourists was held at the Town Office wilding, Hilton Selectmen 's Room July 1, 1929 at 8 T MMessrs. Arthur N. -e�ri .Maddison, Theodore A. Custance, Roland '% Baldrey, C. Edward Glynn, and Curlys L. Slocum were present , also Miss Evelyn Small . The Clerk, Roland 'qT. Baldrey, read the notice sent to the Lexington Times regarding this application, and also Miss Hilton ' s application. Mr Eugene C Kratsrtzer, 9 Forest street , appeared representing the applicant. He stated that miss H-1lton felt it would not be detrimental to the community, as it would be conducted in a satisfactory manner; He. 'adman conducts tourists Inn on Hanco^k Street and there was no complaint. She had foreign people apply for the place but she did not want to sell to them as it would not fit in with the neighborhood ; also that a large family would be more 17 S objectionable than tourists . Mr. Kraetzel stated that Miss Hilton would take in school I teachers in the winter time. He stated that the size of the pronerty was 13, ')00 feet , 90 ' frontage. "'hen asked if in his judgment the nublic convenience and welfare would be substantially served and if such exception were granted would it intend to impair the status of the Seip'-borhood, Mr. Krnetzer did not see how it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. When asked if Miss T Ilton was to run this Inn, Mr ' raetzer said "no " When asked if there was anyone that was interested in having an Inn there, ivir Kraetzer stated that there was a prospect ready to buy the place , put was asked not to disclose the name He stated that probably a two car garage would be erected in the rear of the premises ; there would be room enough in public garages for tourists ' cars. Mr Daniel R Knight who li es at the corner of Mass l've . and Plainfield Street, opposite the house under discussion, stated that he was proud of the neighborhood , but the c_ aracter of it is changing, and not changing for the better. Mr. Moulton started a filling station at the corner of Maple Street, and since that time it has changed hands many times, growing more objectionable and noisy. He stated that the color of the station was hideous ; that a block of stores went up on Mass . Avenue opposite his house without " chance to object to them. Mr. Knight stated that the I Inn might develop into an ordinary road house and automobiles would be parked along his rremises and there'rronld probably be trees- passers . Mr. Knight , in conclusion, stated. that he objected to anthing in the neighborhood that would tend to make it anl-thing but . strictly residential community. Mr. Custance stated that the Toning Law had not come into effect when the stores were put un in 1924. Mr. James G Robertson, 8 Plainfield,"treet stated that he would be v-ry much interested to know rho was in back of the reouest for a change he objected to any change taking place , and endorsed Mr. Knight 's statements in regard to the gasoline station and stores ; he did not want to see any change made that would lower the value of the residences he brought attention to the number of accidents on Plainfield Street, probably caused by the narro•rrn width of the street, it being only 301 in width. he stated that the tourist 's cars would block the street and cars left on Mass . Avenue which is none to wide at that point. Mr. iilbur F. Atwood, 3 Plainfield Street, also objected to the petition. He stated that the Inn might start in very nicely, but it might change hands and develop into a nuisance . He also inquired about the partvcontemrlating buying, the property. Mr. Yraet7er stated that he nersonally had no objection to disclosing the name of the party, but was not in a position to mention the name but he said that the gentlemen was a very respectable party. He thownht that the name would not make any 'ifference 4-0 mr. James Holt, 1083 Mass . Pvenue , corner of Maple Street, r73- diagnally opposite the house in nueetion also objected, and wished to endorse what Mr. K-ight said. He stated that hardly a week goes by but what there is an accident at one of the corners there and if an Inn were put at the corner of Plainfield Street, that it would increase the number of accidents , seeing a sign "tourists accomodated" they would stop short, thus causing accidents. Mr. Louis J Reynolds , 6 Plainfield Street , objected also. He owns the property on the east and south side of the property involved. He did not see how a garage was going to be put in between his line and the house in question even though it was to be a one car garage. The cars coming in ill night long would disturb people and he v> ished to protest to anything going in along that line. 7r. J. Henry Puffy, 25 Maple Street, was another objector. He stated that he Was somewhat remote from the property in question but was generally interested in the pri_ncleal underlying in the matter, that is, the necessity to stabilizing values , that the community was very seriously impaired by the in-roads of the filling, station and stores . mhe Inn might be conducted in a very genti and proper manner, but they would have no guarantee of this. The other objectors were Edna H. Atwood, Clara Reynolds, Mrs. James G. Robertson, Mrs. Jane P. Knight , Mrs. Eliza B. Schofield, Charles H. Schofield, R. "Wiggins, Norton Hood, M. C. Hood, George D. Foster, Essala Foster and Albert G. Ross. Mr. Roland W. Baldrey , 1071 Mass. 'venue, also objected endorsing Mr. Duffy's statements . He felt that this change would be a mark of deterioration rather than progress. He objected to automobiles being parked in the street at all times of the night and delivery trucks meking their necessary deliveries . Mr. Baldrey was informed by Mr. Kraetzer that delivery trucks would not deliver there any more than to any other private residence. Mrs Knight thought that there was nothing to keep them from adding on an ell to the building Mr. I. L. Doirle sent in his objection by letter, as he was unable to he present at the meeting. The hearing was declared closed at 8 45 F . M. Discussion arose as to nether Mr. Baldrey should vote on the application as he was an ir_tereste party. It was decided. that he should not vote. It was voted that the petition of Clive E. Hilton, Executrix, Estate of Minnie +, Tillson to permit the use of the property situated on the southeast corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Plainfield street as an Inn to aceommodate tourists be not granted, all members of the Board being present and voting against the granting of the permit with the exception of r Roland . BalTrey 7 who, although present, did not vote on the petition es he was an interested party he owning nroreety opposite this location and asked to he excused ,,nr9 that the following be recorded as the decision of the Poardr ( See page 13 ) The Board then discussed the apnlic-tion of Semoninn Brothers to alter their house , making it eonitenient for two families. The "oa.rd read the form drawn un and approved same. Semonian It was voted that the Fallowing is the decision of the matter. Board of (ppeels on the petition of °emonian Brothers regarding change in use of hnuse nt 137 iohu'n Street, Lexington, all members of the Board being present and voting in favor. The Board of 4ppeals of Lexington , acting under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27 , having received a written petition addressed to the Board by the Semonian Brothers , a copy of which iA hereto annexed, held a public hearing thereon of which notice was mailed to the Petitioners and to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to tie affected thereby as thea appear on the most recent local tax list , and also advertised in the Lexington Times-Minute Man, a nexsnaper published in Lexington, which hearing was held in the Town Office Building on Friday, June 21, 1929 at 8 30 P.M. Three members of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hearing the representative of the petitioners offered evidence tending to show that the building which they nropose to alter and use is located in Lexington. They further offered evidence tending to sho''• that the building which they now intend to alter and use for a two-family dwelling is loc- *ed upon the same property which it is now located uron; that the building which they are now living in is not sufficiently convenient to enable them to live as they desire that the alteration of the house will not in any way interfere with the status of the neighborhood; that the external appearance of the building will not be any different than in the past; that the building which they intend to use is now and has ^een occupied by the same two families for the past sixteen years. No persons appeared to offer evidence in objection to the hearing. The hearing wes then adjourned. At the close of the hearing the Board of Appeals in private session, gave considerat on to the subject of the petition, and thereafter, after consideration, the said Board at a meeting duly called and held in the Town Office Building Monday, July 1, 1929 at 8 P M. , all five members of the Board being present at this meeting , voted unanimously in favor of the following findings 1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not be materially affected by the making of this exception and the alteration and use of said building as a two-family house 2. That the alteration and use of said building will not tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. 8 3. That the alteration made in the use of said building will be in hnrmony with the general purposes and intent of the district regulations in the Lexington _ oning By-Law. 4. That the making of the exception and the alteration of said building is a use obviously intended but not specifically mentioned because harmonious compatsble and/or necessary for the public convenience. Pursuant to said findings , the Board, so far as may be nec- essary for the alteration of said building, hereby varies the application of said Zoning By-Law on the ground that its enforcement would. involve practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the said Zoning By-Law, and hereby varies the application of the distPict regulations established by the said By-law in harmony with their general purpose and intent so far as is necessary to permit alteration of the said building from a one-family to a two-family dwelling subject to the following conditions ; namely, that the exterior of the said building shall not be altered . The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its proceedings relative to such petition and hereby sets forth that the reasons for its decision are contained in the foregoing paragraphs which recite the substance of the testimony presented at the said hearing by the representative of Peter and Martin Semonian, and direct that this record immediately following this decision shall be filed in the office of the Town Clerk and shall be open to public inspection and that notice of this decision shall be mailed forthwith to each party in interest. Board of Anpeals under General Lnws , Chapter 40, Section 27. Arthur H. Maddison BOARD Roland. ''I. Baldrey C. Edward Glynn OF Ourlys L Slocum Theodore A. Custance APPEALS I, Roland "1. Baldrey, Clerk of the Board of krneals of the Town of Lexington, under General Laws , Chapter 40, Section 27 , hereby certify that I mailed a notice of which a copy is hereto attach- ed to 7emby & Co. , Arley A. ''urgess, Nora E. Leary, Charles E. & Ellen M. Moloy, Clara J. Pratt, James L. Smith, Sarah C. Van Deusen, Leslie 0 . ood, August Young, Mary A . Garvin, Cresenzio Sperandio, John Rudd, James L. F-chnare, heirs of Ethel r= Barbour, Extrix. , Charles N. Ryder, Albert E. & Marion C Olsen, Frank 0 . Nelson, Howard , , unroe , ?lmina Munroe , Asunfia o on 'ohn h. cTonneil, argaret -Cart'-y heirs of; William Ludden, heirs of "'Tari. J --elley, rhester A Fogg, 'Leonard K Dun' am, Catherine runhqm (Tarles H Cuurrier, John T Collins , Johnson S. Armstrong , Elizabeth & Simon Latter, James i 5 . Etter and lien A. Harvey, James T . Conway, Hilda Sor- enson, Corneliu OtLeary, heirs of; Bridget Leary, Patrick Geoghegan, John Gorman, heirs of; Patrick Hennessy, Ella M. Bentsen, t>alvatore Caso, arthur C. & Isabella D Readel, H. Irving '{. Helen G. Currier, Countryside Inc. and Peter and Martin Semonian, on June 7, 1929 and that a copy the 'eof was published 9 in the Lexington Times- inute Man on June 7, 1929 ' . . . R010.110. . P2J 'oy. . . Clerk N 0 T I ^ E Lexington, Mass June ti , 1929. The Board of Appear will hol a hearing on the matter of vary i g the aprlication of the Zoning_ Law by rermittinr the alteration and use or the nront,rty situated at 137 oburn street, Lexington, n4 owned by Peter and Martin vemonian, as a two family house , in ae- e dance rith -ction 9 of the coning Taw of the Town of Lexington and Chanter 133 of the Acts of 1924. The h-arinc, will ,e held on Jun 21, 1929 at 8 30 P Theodore , rus ,`.ante ember n^ the Board of Appeals . Discussion was held or 1-be aprli-ation of venica -Holland for a tea room on the Holland Est'te on Prassachusatts venue opnosi `e Pottier lvenue Yr. C. Edward fll rnn moved that the annli cation of ^friss "nnica Tolland for a frame tea room on the Holland st - te feeing Massachusetts Avenue be referred rack to the Planning Toard with th.- suggestion that it can be nccomnlished only by an Holland aprlication for amendment to the Zoning Lw, which roes not Application. come within the province of the Board of Appeals . The Board too'; up the annlication of F. A. Bradstreet, Blossom Street, for a bottling business The Chairman felt Bradstreet that the Board of Appeals were without authoity to act upon this matter. Aprlication. It was voted that the Clerk be instructed to write F. A. Bradstreet ac'rnowledging his letter of July 1st relating to use of building on his land on Blossom Street or boiling business and advise him that his desire cannot be accomplished unless by petition to the Planning Board for amendment to the Zoning Law The meeting closed at 10 30 P.M. 2 true record , Attest A4`41i Gleru.