Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-07-31 BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS July 31, 1962 A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on July 31, 1962 in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building. Present were Chairman Nickerson, regular members Hoyt, Ballard and Ripley and associate member Wadsworth The following petitions were heard. Carrig Realty Trust for permission to erect a house on lot at 130 Concord Avenue, dwelling to have front entrance on Chadbourne Road with a frontage of only 95 ft instead of the required 125 ft Ruth B Armknecht to modify common lot line of property at #7 and #27 York Street, thereby creating three new lots each having sufficient area and frontage; and also to maintain existing non-conforming dwell- ings at #7 and #27 York Street. Kennecott Copper Corporation to install kitchen unit on the third floor at 128 Spring Street to convert sleeping quarters to a three-room apartment for resident caretaker. Itek Corporation for a finding and determination that the proposed construction of shops and office buildings in a CM 1 district will consti- tute a suitable development and will not result in substantial detriment to the neighborhood; and for a variance to allow a front yard on Maguire Road of 55 ft rather than 100 ft. required. At the close of the hearings an executive session was held during which the following decisions were reached Carrig Realty Trust - granted Ruth B Armknecht - granted Kennecott Copper Corporation - granted for one year Itek Corporation - denied All pertinent material with regard to the above petitions is on file under the name of each petitioner. Ruth C. Brodhead Clerk ITEK CORPORATION IllNickerson. Read notice You have submitted a plan by Fulmer & Bowers, dated December 15, 1961, showing the existing offices, etc. Where is Maguire Road? Brown. This is Maguire Road Nickerson. This is the proposed shop and offide building? Brown. It looks as though it will be the next building to be built These three now exist This is another future office. Nickerson. Your petition says 55 ft, but this is marked . Rep. From Itek. Years ago our future building was in the neighborhood of 60 ft from the road Our utilities were set accordingly. We are asking for a variance ko build within 55 ft Nickerson: Is the Planning Board aware of the fact that your facilities are in now? Brown: We should have brought the letter we had from them two years ago. Michael Duval (from Cabot, Cabot & Forbes) I am interested in this Nickerson. I want to read this letter from the Planning Board. (Reeds) Rep. from Itek. What we are asking for is a variance to bring it up in order to utilize this building as a shop building Nickerson. This letter from the Planning Board doesn't seem to substan- tiate your statement Itek: We would like a variance to the new drawing. Nickerson. We have either to grant your petition or deny it, or grant it on the• basis of the Planning Board's suggestion Itek: Our services are out to the limit Ripley• How terribly important is that? Itek: The original building was designed as an office building. Last summer we did a reorganization on this building. As per the latest prints, this was now a three story building Ripley. You have almost exactly 25 ft which could be put on the side Itek: This piece exists. That is the service wing (on plans) Nickerson. You made an agreement with the Planning Board. Why don't you Itek -3- were just about ready to go on it Nickerson. Further questions? Anybody in favor? In opposition? Wheeler• (from Cabot, Cabot & Forbes) I would like to ask what do they propose for the use of the ground between. Itek: Lawn and shrubs. Wheeler Well then, I think we would be in favor We feel that we will have to be before your Board at times because of topo- graphy problems. The 55 ft setback from the street, as long as it is lawn, etc does not detract We are in favor Itek: Based on the original law we did go and have the building de- signed 75% of the way Nickerson. The hearing is closed. Executive Session Ripley- The notice says "instead of 100 ft " The Planning Board has recommended 80 ft. so they are getting 20 ft Ballard. At the time they approved that site they were operating under the then existing by-law. Nickerson. They set it back 80 ft. by scale They had talked with the Planning Board at that time. Ballard. I am in favor of granting what they asked for. Nickerson. Is that a motion? Ripley I don't feel that way about it. It seems to me that on a thing like this I wouldn't want to go against the Planning Board They created this zone. They say they have their plans 75% drawn, but they will get that space somehow I don't think you would ever notice the difference. Nickerson: Next time Cabot, Cabot & Forbes come in they will want something Hoyt You are going to have these fellows on your neck all the time. You have to put up a stiff front. Ripley It seems to me that they committed themselves to 80 ft in 1961. Hoyt I move this be denied. Ripley Second it Nickerson. Any discussion? You are moving that it be denied Ballard. I will vote against that motion Vote taken. 4 in favor, Ballard against