HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-09-22Sept.
22nd. McCormack --Professional Bldg.
Nicks
Stevens amazed at Planning Board action. Had made no state -
went. Talked Sept. 11th with Snow and Planning Board and
told them they should never transmit to Board of Appeals any
off the cuff statements of his as to legal steps. Planning
Board based opinion of Sept. 11th on off the cuff advice at
former hearing. He would never do this unless in writing.
No excuse for this. Situation had changed since last advice
and rules of 1959 by-law deleted the words „professional
building" as a thing we could allow. If our Board chooses to
grant this we could. We have right to grant this even though
it isn't spelled out. No situation of spot zoning so further
discussion necessary.
Ripley:
Were these remarks of Stevens regarding this particular thing?
Nick:
Yes, in this particular thing. June 1958 petition for this
very thing. He made his presentation. He was denied because
it was spot zoning. Sept. 30, 1958 he again reiterated, but
withdrew it.
RLpley:
Was it ever clear 4"sbU- whether or not Steve said this
was beyond Planning Board jurisdiction?
Nick:
He advised them that a variance is beyond legal jurisdiction
of Board of Appeals. At that time it was beyond our province.
He has advised'me that if we choose to grant a variance like
this it is still not beyond our jurisdiction even though the
words "professional building" are not written in. If anybody
wishes to take us to court they have a perfect right to do so.
He seemed to think they would be loath to do this.
Charlie Abbott seemed apologetic.
Norris:
Is Planning Board conscious that house next to Wardrobe's
is zoned for this?
Nick:
Fe his letter to Abbott: No quarrel about this with Abbott.
Let's discuss matter again on this basis. Disregard the
letter of Planning Board as a U&4 -the th yes that
we could grant this. They are opposed to it but they have
withdrawn the second paragraph of this letter.
Ripley: Why are they opposed to it?
Nick: Steve has told me that that second paragraph doesn't go.
Ripley: What was the other general reason?
Nick: No specific zone for professional building. Steve said if
you grant this wrap it up. Make it specific: what the size
of building, how many rooms, the use., etc.
Ripley: Everybody in neighborhood knows 44- and raised question supposing
in 3 or 4 years they want more room. Legally they could come
back at us.
Nick: I suppose they could, but if we deny it definitely for what
they want it for it would be a itretch of imagination.
Redman:
-2-
!Gould they change it after we specify without coming before
the Board?
INick: No.
N orris: This is really an advantage over rezoning. I was favorably
impressed by the purpose of the building. YV concern was
with the parking aspect. I think we discussed the possibility
of requesting that they acquire a right of way so that they
could put the dr entrance on Mass. Ave. and the exit behin#
building on side street.
Ripley: We couldn't make that a condition. I don't think there is
much room.
Norris ; I don't know the situation but it is tight enough, but I would
be concerned about two access ways at that point. I would
prefer to see only one on Mass. Ave. Could it be phrased
in this way that there could only be entrance off Mass. Ave.
unless they could acquire this right of way they couldn't use
this building and would have to corse back again?
Nick: From notes of plans there is substantial area for parking and
a lane back there.
Ripley: Has only about six houses on it and comes about behind old
parsonage of Follen church. Very narrow. It might serve
to some extent. Barnes Place I think is the name.
Nick: I would think he might have quite a time arranging for a
right of way.
Ripley: Did he ever show us a plot plan showing what he intended to
do about a driveway?
Nick: No, I think not.
Ripley: In the first hearing we talked about parking and estimated
how many cars he could get in there, but whether or not it a
called for two entrances on the Avenue I don't know. I don'T
see that it would be much different.
Redman: 'Couldn't we make it a condition for a rear parking space for
those who have offices in the building?
Nick: That is what he wants to do and have customers in front.
In first presentation, 1958, he had black -top driveways, etc.
but nothing about where they would go out. Assumption being
they would go around the building.
Norris: There must be some space in back of Wardbobe's.
The thing that concerns me is that you come along there at
busy hours and there is always congestion in this area. It
would just be two more spots in a bad area.
Ripley: Getting in and out is the problem. I do not think it would
be tough at those hours, but isn't that true of every house
on the Avenue?
FIahniag Board t ee— _ -
peal - to the d�tiai district, and is situated Sept. 'E9th. �"i7ie. defendan4'.in
has taken an appeal next to a C-1 (local district) at the proceedings are the Lexing-
Superior Court in Middlesex the south easterly corner of ton_ Board of Appeals and G.
County on the decision of the Curve at. and Mass. ave. Ruth McCormack, the owner of
`Lexington Board of Appeals The Board of Appeals, held a the property.
4j which granted to G. Ruth and hearing on the application on The Lexington Planning Board
Paul J. McCormack a variance Sept. 19 and filed its decision on is represented by Town Counsel
from the zoning, by-law s per- _ in ion THarold E.sM otfor pey who is als tteverim, and the -
mit the erection of a professional in top Board of App y
office building at 789 Massa ave.,
Lexington. This property is in -ed Special Counselp
an R-2 (two famiry house) resi- pose by the Lexington Board of
(Continued on Page 2) Selectmen. Mrs. McCormack is
represented by Mark Gallagher
of Medford,
The case has been: assigned
— : for trial on Nov. 16.
Court Upholds Decision
Of Board Of Appeals
Judge Stanley W. WisnioskiF ---
of the. Superior Court entered a I
decree on I)ec, S in the case of,
the appeal to the Superior Court
taken by the Lexington Planning
Board on the decision of the Lex-',
f iingten Hoard of Appeals which
grants G. Ruth McCormack a,
anoe�n-the aoniag g aw to
the permit the erection of a pro-
fessional office building 'at 789
Mass. ave., Lexington.
The decree says in part "The
Board of Appeals of the Town of
Lexington was within its juris-
diction in granting a variance
froom the zoning by-laws to G.
Ruth McCormack by its decision
dated Sept, 22, 1959 and no
modification of that decision is
required."
1
1
1
-3 -
The other thing is coming out at 5:00 o'clock. It can be
done but it is not good.
Nick: A store would be far worse than a professional building.
Redman: Would most of the business be between, say, 8 and 6 o'clock
at night?
Lynah: A professional building would cover a lot of occupations,
but it could also include engineers and accountants and
lawyers who work overtime, etc. You can't limit hours.
Nick: No lawyer or engineer would be a traffic hazard, but a
doctor with office hours might be.
Norris: The reason I am so concerned about this is that we are
considering granting a variance to the normal use of this
property , and unless we are pretty sure this is not going
to inconvenience the neighborhood, we should be careful.
Ripley: Did we have any opposition at all on either hearing?
Nick: Five appeared in favor. Planning Board against it. They
have maintained their position.
have
Ripley: Another thing I ala wondertdg about it since this new ruling
when they took this use away from a two-family zone. What
is the difference?
Nick: They wanted to prevent the indescriminate use of land in
residential area for professional use. In 4 estimation
is a reasonable use and a controlled use without a change
in zoning.
Lynah: The easiest thing would be to grant this petition, but I am
not going to agree. We denied it when we were in a position
to deny it. When was it re -zoned?
Ripley: I think it was all along.
a
Lynah: We are dealing with the same facteac and our position is
inconsistent. If we grant this we are going to have to do
some more in a residential area.
Ripley: We don't have the power to extend, the Town Meeting does.
We have power to grant a variance,, but I will go with the
majority.
Redman: What is this 4-1 ruling?
Nick: If 9 members vote against a motion...... Somebody would have
to second it or it. Two "noes" would deny it either way.
If we decide not unanimously we will all sign.
Ripley: Would it be a good idea for the Board to have some kind of
pow -wow with Planning Board on this thing and see if we could
change thiir thinking?
Lynah:
-4-
The Planning Board is against it and have some
Ripley: Do you think it might be a good idea to talk to'Charli.e Abbott
for a few minutes and ask him if he knows what the objections
are that the Planning Board has? They must have some other
other reasons and I would like to know their thinking and
reasons.
Nick: I would get the definite inference that it was now in our laps
and should we grant this there would be no lawsuit from the
Planning Board. No further discussion? Those in favor?
It is a unanimous vote.
Nicks
They didn't know that that house was "M
Ripley:
They took a stand and won't change, and I wonder if they
have given it any special consideration in the light of what
has happened.
Iynah:
I think they think it is spot zoning. They can't do otherwise.
It is up to the Town Meeting to change the zones.
Ripley:
Is there any fundamental difference between this and the other
professional building?
Lynah:
Yes. This is a variance and that was a permission.
Nick:
Wby couldn't this be a permission? He has asked for a variance.
Lynah:
He couldn't. This has to be a straight variance.
Nick:
I am positive Steve told us we were not exceeding our powers
but we would open ourselves to suit.
Redman:
It has been suggested that we go before the Town Meeting and
get a business zone change, but it seems to me that this is a
proper place for such a building and would be much more desire -
able than a two-family which it isn't zoned for.
Nick:
Do you feel strongly enough to make a motion?
Redman:
Yes. I so move.
Norris:
Second it.
I am against spot zoning but if this building is to be put
in there it is much better to do it on a permitted use than
an expansion of the zone to a'D-2 which would permit any use
of this property. It just permits an extension for this
particular use. The only thing that disturbs me is this
parking aspect. I wish there would be soma way to explore
it and put all possible pressure to work out a good arrange-
ment for less hazard on Mass. Ave.
Ripley: Do you think it might be a good idea to talk to'Charli.e Abbott
for a few minutes and ask him if he knows what the objections
are that the Planning Board has? They must have some other
other reasons and I would like to know their thinking and
reasons.
Nick: I would get the definite inference that it was now in our laps
and should we grant this there would be no lawsuit from the
Planning Board. No further discussion? Those in favor?
It is a unanimous vote.