Loading...
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 They are opposed to it but they have withdrawn the second paragraph of this letter.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.