Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1934-10-1973 BOARD OFAPPEALS :MEETING ' OCTOBER 19, 1934. A meeting of the Board of Appeals was held at the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, on Friday,.October 19, 1934, at 8:00 P. 1. Messrs. Glynn, Ferguson, Hatoh and Robbins were present. The Secretary was also present. Tine Chairman not being present, l+ir. C. Edward Glynn was elected Chairman Pro -tem. Hearing was declared open on the application -of Pasquale Moretti of 80 Bow Street for permission to alter the one family house owned by him and located on delrose Avenue into a two family dwelling. The Clerk, Mr. Robbins read the notice of the hearing as printed in the Lexington Minute -Man. Mr. Pasquale Moretti and daughter were present and represented by Jacob Weinberg, Attorney, of 27 School Street, Boston. Mr. Weinberg proceeded to review the conditions surrounding the present application explaining that when Mr. Moretti applied for a permit to build a house on Melrose Avenue, he applied for a permit for a one family house and for some reason he built a two family house, then the Town through its counsel brought proceedings in the Superior Court against Mr. Moretti. The counsel for idr. Moretti at that time was Daniel J. OtCorinell. There was a decree entered in 1930. From 1930 up until about one month ago nothing was done by either the town or Moretti. SAddenly for some personal reason a tenant of Mr. Moretti's was in Court on a snit for rent, and action was immediately started, and the case was heard before Judge Walsh on Sejtember 5th of this year. He exy)lained the case to Judge Walsh and it was left with him to see if he could adjust the matter before the Board of Appeals. He instructed his client to change the house from a two family to a one family house by removing the set -tubs, and everything required by the decree, and he understood that an inspection had been made by the Building Inspector. He called attention to the fact that the house had been built and was occupied by two families for four years. Setting aside the question as to whether he did right or not, he stated that when the order was made four years ago Ir. Moretti was never in Court and since the house had been occupied for four years as a two family house he felt that the matter was settled. He realized that Mr. Moretti should have applied to the Board of Appeals who have the right under Chapter 40 of the General Laws to authorize a change from a one family to a two family. house. The Building Inspector, Mr. Fred Longbottom was present and stated that Mr. Morettils original application was taken ' out for a one family house and nothing was said in the permit about a double house. 74 Cn INC Mr. Glynn asked the size of the house, and Ir. Wein- berg presented a picture of the dwelling and called ' attention to the fact that it is one of the best looking houses in that locality. Mr. Weinberg quoted from the Bankers and Tradesman a decision which related to the Board of Appeals acting in a similar instance. He stated that he was familiar with the neighborhood, having worked on a farm in that location thirty years ago and he felt that the Board of Appeals could not determine that the change was injurious to the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the Judge had given him two months to adjust the difficulties. Mr. Moretti, in response.to the request of the Chairman, stated that there were eight rooms in the house, four up and four down, and that it had been used as a two family house for about seven years; that his son and daughter lire there. He understood when he came before the Selectmen from Mr. O'Connell that he got the permit to have two families there. Mr. Weinberg stated that there had never been any trouble with Mr. Moretti and the town and he had lived here twenty four years and always paid his taxes. Mr. William Aquaro stated that he had a two family house and he applied for a two family house when he built it and was given a permit for the same and he felt that if ' laws were made they should be upheld. He was opposed to the permit being granted. He stated that his house had been built about fifteen to seventeen years. Mr. Longbottom stated that his attention had been called to the fact that the house had been used as a two family house about one year ago, but he'had correspondence about this case that had been written prior to the time he became Building Inspector. The hearing was declared closed and :dr. Longbottom presented the correspondence which was read by the Clerk on the past history of this case. After discussing the matter it was voted unanimously to deny the petition of Pasquale Moretti to alter the one family house owned by him and located on Melrose Avenue into a two family dwelling in the following form: The Board of Appeals, acting under General Laws, Chapter 40, sec. 27, having received a written petition addressed to it by Pasquale Moretti, a copy of which is hereto annexedy held a public hearing thereon of which notice was mailed to the petitioner and to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, and also advertised in the Lexington I'Ainute-Man a newspaper ' published in Lexington which hearing was held in the Selectmen's Room, in the Town Office Building on Z. W October 19, 1934 at 8:00 P. M. ' A majority of the members of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hearingevidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to shove: that in 1930 the Court restrained -the owner from using this house for two families. With the exception of a short period the house continued to be occupied by two families after the issuance of the restraining orders; that in 1934 contempt proceedings were taken out and are still pending. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings the house had been altered to conform to a single family residence. That: the house is well constructed and presents a more pleasing apearance than most, of the neighboring residences. Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting of the said petition tending to show that the original permit granted by the Building Inspector was for the erection of a single family residence; that the variance from the requirement of a single family house should not be granted as it would set precedent for other changes of a similar nature. At the close of the hearing the Bo rd in private session gave consideration to the subject of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the following findings: ' 1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not be substantially served by the making of the exception requested. 2. That the exception requested will tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. 3. That the exception requested will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington Zoning By-law. 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington Zoning By-law as to the locus in question would not involve practical difficulty and unnecessary, hardship and the relief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington Zoning By-law. Pursuant to the said finJ ng.s, the Board hereby denies the said petition of Pasquale :doretti for the reason that a two family house is not required at this location by public necessity and convenience and that under tine circum- stances set forth in the evidence no undue hardship is proposed upon the petitioner. 76 The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its proceedings relative to such petition and hereby seta forth that the reasons for its deeision are its findings hereinbefore set forth and the testimony presented at the said hearing, including that 'herein summarized, and directs that this record immediately following this decision shall be filed in the office of the Town Clerk of Lexington and shall be a public record and that notice of this decision shall be mailed forthwith to each party in interest. BOARD 01' APPEALS OF LEXINGTOPJ (Appointed under G. L. Ch. 40, sec. 27) A. N. Maddison C. Edward Glynn Charles E. Ferguson Howard W. Robbins George C. Hatch, Jr. I, Howard W. Robbins, Cleri. of the Board of Appeals of Lexington, appointed under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27, hereby certify that I sent by postage certificate of mailing on the 5th day of October, 1934, to Frank & Louise C. Caprio, Concetta Cataldo, Mary A. Cataldo, George H. Chown, Donizio and Annie DeMarties, Benjamin and Josephine Santosuosso, Ida T. Waite, Hannah E. Waite, Felecia J. Vozella, Marie Videtta, Raffael Tribuna, et al, Benigno Santosuosso, Pas:luale and Carmella Moretti, Concetta Mongiello, John F. Shaw, Hattie W. Squires, James S. and Helen L. Sencabougn, Frederick and Bessie M. McMillen, Albert J. Egan, Romaldo Datoii, Annie D. Adams, Bertha M. Roberts, Eli Roberts, William E. and Gertrude A. Willson, Charles A. Cummings , Pellegrino Ferri, Louis and Antonetta Cecere, Martian Cardillo, Sanislano Mallgname, Peter yenta; Anthony J. and Julia Raciti, Marian A. Richardson, Mina Smith, Charles S. Squires, Carl E. Swenson, et al, Edward J. and Annie S. Harkins, Gustaf S. and Vanja Julin, Mary J. Kenney, Leo Datoli, Farrar Cobb and G. Philip Wardner, Tr., Mary E. Coghlar�, Raffaela LaConte, William M. and Antonetta Aquaro, Salvatore Picariello, William Martinson, August Poma, Harry E. Walker, Katherine Waters and Ida D2dot, Raffaele and Caroline Ardcline, Angelina Mercadante, Carmene Pizzella, Do_riato and Anuria Pierro, Emilo and Talina Rosa, ixuisseppina J. Vitale and also advertised in the Lexington Minute -Man on October 4th, 1934, a notice of which the following is a true copy. Howard W. Robbins, Clerk, Board of A ,t:eals. J 1 1 77 October 3, 1934. ' Lexington Board of Zoniiigg tippeals Town Office Building, Lexington, Mass. Gentlemen: The undersigned hereby petition the Lexington Board of Appeals, appointed under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27, to vary the application of section 9 (c) of the Lexington Zoning By-law, respect to the premises at Melrose Avenue owned by Pasquale Moretti of Lexington by permitting the following: Alteration one family house to accomodate more than one family. Pasquale Moretti, Signature 80 Bow Street, Address Lexington. N 0 T 1 0 E Lexington, Mass. October 3, 1934` The Board of Appeals will hold a hearing on the matter of varying the application of the Zoning Law by permitting ' on the premises owned by Pasquale Moretti of Lexington and located at Melrose Avenue, the alteration of a one family house into a two family house, under the Lexington Zoning Law or in accordance with Chapter 40, Section 27A of the General Laws and amendments. The hearing will be held at the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building on October 19th, 1934 at 8:00 P. I. Arthur N. Maddison, Chairman, Board of Appeals. Mr. Maddison desired to be recorded in favor of the denial. The records of the meeting of September 18, 19:5)4,, were read and approved. Letter was received from John S. Valentine in which he wished to protest for Mary S. Valentine -on the decision of the Board of Appeals and desired to have the records contain his protest. The letter was as follows: John S. Valentine 1698 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, Mass. September 25, 1934. Robert P. Trask, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Offices Lexington, Massachusetts. 78 (Cont.) ;. Gentlemen: I have read the Report of the Board of Appeals in ' the matter of the petition of Mary S. Valentine to maintain a filling station on her property and as a matter of Town record I wish to protest said report on the grounds that the extract of evidence incorporated in said report is inadequate and biased, in that a. A full and fair extract of all evidence against said petition is included therein, whereas b. The extract of evidence for the petitioner does not show important points offered. Vide. 1. A petition signed by abutters and others requesting that this petition be granted and stating that it would be• an advantage to the town. 2. Evidence submitted by one abutter that granting this permit would improve the neighborhood and his property. 3. Evidence submitted by a citizen that the granting of this permit would create a substantial advantage to the town. 4. Evidence submitted that the granting of this petition would increase the taxable value of the land in question and other parts of the same property. 5. Evidence that Tars. Valentine, the petitioner, desires to dispose of all of her property which is zoned for business, and not just a part as stated in the record of evidence. The foregoing sets forth the omissions and inaccuracy of the report which might tend to show that public conven- ience and necessity require the granting of the petition and which fairly should be incorporated in the report filed which becomes a matter of town report. I had assumed that the Board of Appeals were acting in quasi judicial capacity and that they were an impartial and non-partisan body. In all fairness to the petitioner I submit that the report should have contained a more detailed statement of the objections and a statement that the chief objector to the granting of the petition was an adjoining abutter who is engaged in the gasoline business; that the damage to him would be that of a competitive business only. The report fails to contain any reference by the Board of Appeals of persons or abuttors approving the granting of the petition. No reference is made to the fact that by a fair preponderance of the evidence submitted to the Board of Appeals the petitioner was entitled to the granting of h:er pet=ition. The majority favoring the petitioner are citizens who are owners of substantial taxable property in the town and no reference is made to them in this report. In other words, the reading of the report to an impartial and unbiased body at some future date would tend to create the impression that the petitioner alone sought this change and that'every- thing weighed heavily against it as stated in the report. It is not a fair and impartial report of the evidence sub - mitted„ 1 1 79 Yours very truly, (s) John S. Valentine. No action was taken on the matter. A true record, Attest: ' Cler I will appreciate your incorporating this objection in your records. It should be recited that the owner of one piece of property on Vine Brook Road who objected that "the usual array of lighting of the filling station would be injurious to her propertyTP is not an abutter to the property in question and that her property is removed from any possible filling station in question by a minimum of 263.5 feet plus the width of Vine Brook Road. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Board of Appeals in order that they may make a note of the fact that their report is objected to. I am also re4uesting them to reconsider and revise their report in order that it may make reference to the matters herein referred -to. Yours very truly, (s) John S. Valentine. No action was taken on the matter. A true record, Attest: ' Cler