Loading...
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