HomeMy WebLinkAbout1946-01-112b4
BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING .
January 11, 1946
A meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the Select-
men's Room, Town Office Building at 8;00 P. M. Chairman Bowker,
Messrs. Locke, Brown, Redman and Associate Member Ripley were
present. The Clerk was also present.
At 8;00 P. M. hearing was declared open upon the petition
of John F. Rich for permission toerect a two -car garage on the
premises located at 27 Merriam Street which will not have the
required distance from the street line. Mr. and Mrs. Rich and
Mr. Walter Black were present at the hearing.
The notice of the hearing was read by Mr. Locke.
Mr. Rich stated that he assumed the first thing the Board
would like to know was where the proposed garage is to be located.
He presented pencil tracings of the lot showing the location of
the lot which is on the corner of I'Leriam Street and Chandler
Street. He said that the house faces Meriam Street and is
number 27. Mr. Rich said that he proposes to build a two -car
garage at the rear of the house, facing on Chandler Street and
in line with the main structure of the building.
The Chairman asked if the garage would be in line and Mr.
Rich replied that it will be in line with the main front of
the house.
The Chairman asked how much space the garage would occupy
and Mr. Rich presented a plan showing the detailed nature of the
proposed garage. He said that one corner will be twenty feet
or more and the other corner will be fifteen feet. He said that
he had an architect make drawings of a garage which will be in
keeping with the home that is already there. Mr. Rich showed
the Board two sets of drawings.
Mr. Rich said that he understands the reason for the denial
of a building permit wb.s that Mr. Wrightington, Town Counsel;
ruled that if it were a corner lot, one would not need to have
the distance from the two streets. He said that Mr. Cann, the
Building Inspector, feels that because the frontage is on a curve,
the entire lot is on Chandler Street and the requirement of twenty
feet must be applied to Chandler Street as well as to Meriam Street.
Mr. Rich said that the lot looks like a corner lot, but the de-
scription on the deed describes it as being bounded on Meriam
Street and it has been taxed by the Town as 27 Meriam Street.
Mr. Rich said that he has endeavored to have the garage care-
fully designed so that the structure will be in keeping with the
neighborhood.
No persons appeared in opposition to the petition. The
hearing was declared closed at 8;12 P. M. and the group r etired.
At 8;15 P. M. hearing was declared open upon the application
of the New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, 50 Oliver Street,
Boston, for permission to enlarge the present telephone exchange •
located at 27 Muzzey Street, Lexington.
•
Inasmuch as Mr. Bowker is associatbd with the Telephone
Company, he retired and Mr. Locke acted as Chairman.
Mr. Hogan, attorney for" the petitioner, three engineers
representing the petitioner, and eleven other persons were
present at the hearing.
Notice of the hearing was read by Mr. Redman.
Mr. William M. Hogan, Jr., 50 Oliver Street, Boston,
attorney for the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company,
stated that undoubtedly the members of the Board were all familiar
with the present location of the telephone exchange building. He
presented a sketch of the proposed extension, together with plans
showing dimensions, etc.
Mr. Hogan said, that in general, the company is asking the
permission of the Board to vary the zoning law of the town as they
apply to this locality to permit the Telephone Company to extend
its present.building toward the rear to the extent of thirty feet,
with a slight ell of twelve feet on the left-hand side. He said
that he would like to explain why the request'is being made.
Mr. Hogan said that at the present time the exchange building
is completely filled as far as space for switchboards is concerned.
He stated that it is not possible to put any more switchboards
in the present building. Therefore, it is impossible to have any
more than the present number of operators. He stated that as a
result"of the number of telephones'in use at the present time in
Lexington, there are more calls being handled on one board by one
operator than the company desires to have handled by one girl;
in its attempt to accomplish a maximum quality of service. He
said that in the interest of improving the quality of service, it
is necessary to have more switchboards which, in turn, can be
operated by more operators.
Mr. Hogan said, in the second place, the limit or capacity
of the present number of switchboards will be completely'filled
by some time next summer so that if, on the present limited
amount of equipment, any new individuals want service from the
telephone company after the middle of next summer, there will
not be the equipment to handle the lines.
Mr. Hogan stated that there are two reasons for the appli
cation. First, it will enable the company to use moxe.operatovs
and improve the service and secondly it will give the company
an opportunity to take care of the number of telephones which
will come during the next five years.
Mr. Hogan then presented a sketch outlining the present
building and the proposed extension, which will run an additional
thirty feet in the rear. He also presented a plan of the first
floor. He stated that the ell will be used for stairs to go up
to the operatorst quarters, and the new equipment will go behind
the area of the present building. He said that the plans call
for the same scheme architecture that is being used at the
present time. He stated that, while going back thirty feet,
the extension will be thirty feet from the telephone company
lot line in the rear. He said that they desire to extend
thirty feet to the rear and twelve feet tin the end towards the
Old Belfry Club. He said that the structure will be such that
it will appear as one building, and the outside of the building
will be finished in keeping with the present building.
265
1;Ir. Hogan said that the telephone company endeavors to keep its
premises in reasonably good conditions
All persona present at the hearing were given an oppor-
tunity to look at the sketch and plans.
The Chairman mentioned that there is no space for parking
cars.
Mr. Hogan stated that there is no provision for parking
vehicles at the present ti3he.
Mr. Hogan said that there are, at the present time, a total
of fifty persons connection at all hours of the day which vary to
a peak, possibly of twenty-five to something less. The new ex-
tension would add no more than another twenty-five and that
number would be broken so that there would be no more than one-
half of them there at any time. He stated that, while there is
no provision made in these plans for parking, it is something
that he will be very glad to take up with the company immediately
and he stated that he felt certain some satisfactory arrangement
could be worked out.
The Chairman asked how long the proposed facilities would
be sufficient. One of the company engineers replied that they
expect it would t ake care of their needs up to possibly 1955 and
beyond that there may be possibilities for further extensions.
Mr. Redman asked how much area there -is between the exchange
and the Old Belfry C1ub'and Mr. Hogan replied fifteen feet.
Mr. Redman asked if the roof of the proposed extension
would be higher than the roof on the present building and Mr.
Hogan replied that it will be the same as the present roof line.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of
granting the permit, No persons present were in favor.
Mrs. Henry W. Robertson, 4 Raymond Street, said her property
will be affected by the proposed extension. She said that she hs
looked into the matter very carefully, and appreciates the fact
that the telephone company does need a larger place in which to
work. She said that she lives in a one -family residential zone
and this is a business building. If it is enlarged upon, it is
a larger business building. She said that she understands the
company only expects to stay there until the dial system is set
up in Lexington and then they will move which will leave a
businessb uilding open for another business which might not be
as desirable as the telephone company. She said that the selling
valuation of her property will decrease and the extension will
take light and air from her house. She said that she does not
want the addition.
Mrs. Mary E. Tarbell, 2 Raymond Street, said that she, like
Mrs. Robertson, is very much opposed to having any enlargement
of the telephone company building. She said that it will shut in
the light and air from her home and'decrease the valuation. She
said that the parking problem has been brought up and she was
going to mention it herself. Mrs. Tarbell said that cars park
directly in front of the entrance to her house, all along the side •
of the street, and dovn the entire length of Muzzey Street.
She said that she very often has to go to the exchange and
ask the owners of the cars to move them. She further stated
that frequently there are several large telephone trucks
parked in the way and often back into her driveway. She
said that she wondered what will happen if more cars are
brought in, and stated that she is very much opposed to
the granting of the permit.
TT—. William Lyon said that he was present on behalf of
his sister and her husband, Mr. and Taus. Harry Coleman,
6 Raymond Street. He said that the back of the telephone
pro perty borders on Mrs. Coleman's property and they are
definitely opposed to the extension of the building. He said,
that they are opposed to parking in the rear of the building
which will be on their lot line. He stated that such an
extension would tear down the resale value of her property
X2,500. He said that she has two small children and there is
a hazard unless she goes to the expense of putting up a fence.
Mr. Lyon said that the telephone company, while a public
utility, is a business and belongs in a business zone. He
said that the measure was only temporary and that sooner or
later the company will have to go off Muzzey Street or Muzzey
Street will have to be zoned for business.
Mr. Walter Ballard, S Raymond Street, said that he was
speaking for Mrs. Ballard and himself. He said that they
objected to the petition for the following reasons. They
do not believe that any existing business property should be
allowed to enlarge within a one -family zone. They feel that
such an enlargement would definitely affect the value of the
abutting properties. He said that the other reason is def-
initely in regard to the traffic hazard. He stated that
complaints have been made relative to parking cars and the
complaints have had attention, but only for a short time and
the condition still exists.
Mr. William A, Barnes, 11-13 Muzzey Street, said that
he just recently purchased this piece of property and is
making his home there. He said that he is opposed from the
standpoint that he has just been faced with a notice from
the insurance company stating that his premiums will be in-
creased 1/4 over the present rate due to the fact that he
is living next to a blacksmith shop which is located in a
single family zone. He said that the insurance company may,
because of the enlarged exchange, increase the rate another
0.00. He said there is nothing to keep them from having
picket lines on Muzzey Street do not want picket lines, bricks
being thrown, etc. He said that he believes the telephone
company belongs in a business zone and that Muzzey.Street
should be definitely settled as either business or residential.
Mr. Henry Raymond, 16 Clarke Street, said that he is
definitely opposed to any enlargement of the present building,
and he believes the lot is too small. He said that theproposed
addition will be temporary and they will have to eventually put
an addition on the right-hand side and that two wings would be
a detriment to adjacent property.
Mr. Thomas Lynah, 32 Muzzey Street, said that he owns his •
house and would like to go on record opposing any extension
of the telephone exchange or any other business property on
Muzzey Street. He said that when he purchased the property in
1937, he understood that he was in a residential area. He said
that he then accepted the telephone company as it is, but he is
opposed to the extension for two reasons. He said that he agrees
with Mr. Lyon that the telephone co-rlpany is a business. He said
that the telephone company is a wealthy corporation and can well
afford to locate in a business area. He, and the residents of
Muzzey Street, are ordinary property owners and it is difficult
if they don't like it, to move. He said that the second reason
was pertaining to traffic. Mr, Lynah said that one really has
to live on Muzzey Street to appreciate traffic conditions. He
said that they have the overflow of traffic from the center of
Lexington, from the Davis shop, the bank, Dr. Pyle's office,
and the telephone cars are parked days, nights, and all night
on both sides of the street. He said that parking is supposed
to be on one side of the street only.
Mr.,Lynah said that he can appreciate these gentlemen
representing the telephone company, but that no one could exag-
gerate the traffic conditions on Muzzey Street. He said that he
has seen telephone trucks parked in front of the building many
times, and very often with long telephone poles.
Mr. Lynah said that he was not criticising the telephone
company but he is definitely opposed to the telephone company,
or any other business, extending itself in a residential area
and thereby reducing the valuation of the property in that •
area. He said that he hoped the Board would not permit any
enlargement of this property.
Mrs. Charles Beaudry, 5 Raymond Street, said that she
would like to speak on the fairness of the proposition and
read the following paper;
"My property does not border the line. This is a business
in a residential area. The type of business is a service the
public wants, needs and appreciates. I believe the'public wants
to co-operate. The neighborhood has co-operated in allowing
without complaint, the growing outside business. By that, I
mean more trucks, more crew, more automobiles for the officials,
as well as employees, to be parked in front of and beside their
property, often in front of the driveways. Many times it has
been impossible to park in front of my own house because of
telephone trucks. The time has come apparently, in order to
meet the public demand, when larger quarters are required.
If the permit is granted, to allow the present quarters to
enlarge, I feel they are the only party in the neighborhood
benefited. If granted, have they arranged parking places
sufficient for this increased business or do they plan to
continue to use the street? There is no room in the back
yard for the trucks. Is it fair to assume the town will grow
and the demand for telephone service will increase, and again
will arise the situation of another enlargement which, they
say tonight, will be another addition.
The present property is architecturally of such design
that it could as is, be easily converted into a residence and
conform with the neighborhood, At the time it was built, I 0
understand that they were required to build a structure to
look like a residence and it does. It definitely won't with
this suggested enlargement. If the time has come and they
have outgrown their present quarters and business demands
expansion, and if this permit is granted, it does not prevent
further expansion. They can move into a business area which
would permit expansion for the future as well as the present,
together with the ability to arrange a parking area sufficient
to take care of their own equipment in the proper place.
Therefore, I ask, is itafair proposition? Is it fair'to
sacrifice an entire neighborhood when the neighborhoodis an
established redidential area for the convenience of one, that
one being a business which could not be built there today? I
wonder if they think it is fair to the neighborhood and would
they want it to happen in their neighborhood? For the reasons
I have given, I trust this permit will not be granted."
tIrs. William P. Wright, 26 Muzzey Street, said that she
lives opposite the exchange and very often when she looks out
sxi.e can see not only one but sometimes as many as six trucks
parked on Muzzey Street. She said that the extension would mean
a depreciation of her property and increased traffic hazard.
Mr. Hogan said that he appreciated of most of the neighbors
of the telephone exchange building in their very natural in-
terest in'the future of their property. However, he is not sure
that he could share with them their pessimism as to what the
extension may do to their neighborhood. He said that it seems
• generally admitted that the building is in keeping with the
neighborhood and it is well kept. He said that he believes
that the experience of the past has indicated to the neighbors
that the company has endeavored to keep the property in good
condition. He said that first of all the extension is within
the present lot lines and it is not a new building. The ex-
tension will be made in the rear which still leaves it thirty
feet from its own lot line and thirty feet from the actual
building which joins on the rear.
He stated that the extension will be in compliance with
the present architecture of the building and it will not affect
the appearance of the building with the exception of an ell on
the side, and that the entire outside will be refinished so
that a newcomer would not know that the addition had been made.
He said that the problem seems to be parking of cars and that
is something about which, insofar as he knows, no official com-
plaint has been made. He said that he is sure the company will
be willing to take steps to correct the parking situation, and
it is somethi" that he believes should be corrected. Mr. Hogan
said that he did not think the addition of employees would
affect the parking.
He said that as far as the question of light is concerned,
only two buildings would be affected. Hesaid that it might be
pertinent to note that the house on the corner of Raymond and
Muzzey Streets was the one mentioned and the extension will be
in the rear.
1�
u
me
R
270
He said that there still exists eighteen feet to the lot line •
and another area of fifteen feet to the edge of the building.
He said that as far as the second house is concerned, it is
some distance from the lot line and the building, not being
very high will not cause any tremendous loss of light.
Mr. Mogan said that in view of the fact that the proposed
extension is in absolute compliance with the present architecture
of the building, he does not feel that real estate values will be
decreased.
Mr. Hogan said that, having no personal knowledge of the
neighborhood, it appears to him that this is not the only kind
of business in the area. He said that the telephone exchange
has been there for thirty or thirty-five years without any
great objection, and that the area was zoned as residential
with the building existing in it. He said that the company
is satisfied that the present requirements of Lexington are
such that if they continue to render the qua.ity of service and
take care of the extension of telephone service, which appears to be
eminent in the next few years, it just cannot be handled unless
the switchboards are put in. He said that he could assure the
Board that there will be no other extension of the building.
He said that the extension would be adequate to take care of
increased traffic until 1955 and by that time the overall plans
of the telephone business are such that nothing can be forecast
as to what will be done with the business at that time. He
stated that for the preseht, there is no other way to take care of the
telephone requirements except by putting in more switchboards,
and this was planned for in 1942 but the availability of switch- •
boards and equipment was negligible.
Mr. Barnes asked why the company couldn't move to a business
area and put in a dial system. Mr. Hogan said that the program,
as far as the expansion of the dial system is concerned, is one .
outlined in a`very general way and does not carry any specific
plans for placing dial equipment in this territory for the next
few years at least. He said that is the reason they want to take
care of the period over the next five years. He said that it would
take over a year to move the present exchange and that it was con-
venient for the company to extend the present building, but it is
also for the convenience of that public that it is being extended.
He said that it is up to the people, through their representatives,
to control things that can be controlled and this is one propos-
ition that can be controlled. He said that he hoped the permit
would not be granted.
The hearing was declared closed at 9:30 P. M. and the
group retired.
Mr. Bowker returned to the meeting for consideration of
the Rich application.
Upon_ motion_ of Mr. Redman, seconded by Mr. Brown, it was
unanimously voted to grant the Rich petition in the following
form:
0
271.
•
BOARD OF APPEALS PERMIT
The Board of Appeals, acting under the Lexington and
Zoning Building Laws, having received a written petition
addressed to it by John F. Rich, a copy of which is hereto
annexed, 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 which hearing was held
in the Selectmen's Room, in the Town Office Building on
the eleventh day of January, 1946.
One associate and four regular members of the Board of
Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of notice
is hereto annexed. At this hearing evidence was offered on
behalf of the petitioner tending to show: That he wished to
vary the application of the Building Law by erecting a garage
on the premises located at 27 Meria.m Street which will not have
the required distance from the street line. The petitioner
stated, and showed by plan, that one end of the garage would
be approximately fifteen feet from the street line instead of
the required twenty -feet, as prescribed under the Lexirfton
Building and Zoning maws.
No one appeared in opposition to the erection of the
said garage. Two letters were received from neighbors stating
that they were in favor of varying the application of the
Building and Zoning Laws to allow the erection of the said
•
garage. Evidence was also offered showing that the proposed
_
garage would be in keeping with the existing building, and that
the garage would not extend beyond that section•of the residence
nearest the street line.
At the cl<se of the hearing the Board in private session
on January 11, 1946, 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 be substantially served by the making of the
exception requested.
2. That the exception requested will not tend to impair
the status of the neighborhood.
3. That the exception requested will be in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the
Lexington Building Laws.
g g
4. That owing to conditions especially affecting the said
parcel but not affecting generally the districy in which it is
located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Lexington
Building Laws as to the locus in question would involve sub-
stantial hardship to the petitioner and that desirable relief
may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent
•
or purpose of such Lexington Building Laws.
272
Pursuant to the said findings, the Board hereby unanim- •
ously decides that the application of the Lexington Zoning and
Building Laws are hereby varied so far as may be necessary to
permit the erection of a two car garage on the premises owned
by John F. & Dorothy Rich, located at 27 Meriam Street,
Lexington; said garage to be lactated approximately fifteen
feet from the street line.
The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its pro-
ceedinE;s relative to such petition and hereby sets forth that
the reasons for its decision are its findings hereinbefore set
forth and the testimony presented at the said hearing, including
that herein suimnarized, and directs that this record immediately
following this decision shall be filed in the office of the
Town Clerk of Lexington and shall be open to public inspection
and that notice of this decision shall be mailed forthwith to
each party in interest.
BOARD OF APPEALS OF E XINGTON
(Acting under the Lexington Building
Law and General Laws)
Winthrop H. Bowker
Errol H. Locke
Lester T. Rddman
J. Milton Brown
Aiden L. Ripley
I, Hazel J, Murray, Clerk of the Board of Appeals of •
Lexington, appointed under General Laws, Chapter 409 Section
27, hereby certify that I sent by postage certificate of mailing
on the 27th day of December, 1945, to Belle P. Casce, Ira J. &
Edyth E. Ilymal, Edwin & Althea B. Sadler, Sarah E. 5choenhut,
James H. Fc Blanche C, Lewis, Ralph C. & Catherine M. Shorey,
Leone M, N rthrup Edith C. & Lauristo gg Ma gge zie E it J
Emery, Eve?yn T. Aubley, Leland H. & Lillian M. hnert, �a�orcl
L. & Agnes A. Fisher, Mahala C, Russell, Fred N. & Agnes J.
Blaser, Jessie Forbes, Marion L. Howe, Josephone G. Childs,
Charles A. Whipple, Margaret G. Taft, and also advertised in
the Lexington Minute -Man on December 27, 1945, a notice of
which the following is a true copy.
Hazel J. Murray
Clerk, Board of Appeals
N 0 T I C E
The Board of Appeals will hold a hearing on the matter of
varying the application of the Building Laws by permitting on the
premises owned by John F. & Dorothy Rich, a nd located at 27 Merriam
Street, the erection of a garage, which will not have the required
distance from the lot line, under the Lexington Building Laws.
The hearing will be held on January 11, 1946, at 8;90 P. M.
in the Selectments hbom, Town Office Building, Lexington.
WINTHROP H. BOPKEf
Chairman, Boar o= Appeals
December 12, 1945
Lexington Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Office Building
Lexington, Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby petitions the Lexington Board
of Appeals, appointed under General Lav's, Chapter 40, Sections
25 to 30 as amended, to vary the application of section of
the Lexington Zoning By-law with respect to the premises at
No. 27 Merriam Street, owned by John F. and Dorothy Rich of
Lexington by permitting the following: To build a two -car
garage, 15 ft. from the street line on Chandler Street.-
John
treet.
John F. Rich
41 Woodland Road
By Walter C. Black
Upon motion of Mr. Redman, seconded by Mr. Brown, it was
voted to approve the records of the hearing held on November 16,
1945.
Decision relative to the petition of the New England Tel-
ephone and Telegraph Company was held over until January 25th
subject to five members of the Board being able to attend. The
Clerk was instructed to send a copy of the minutes to Mr. Nickerson
and arrange for a second meeting on the application.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P. M.
A true record, Attest:
273