HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-01-07BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS
January 7, 1964
A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on
Tuesday, January 73 1964 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Room, Town
Office Building. Present were Chairman Nickerson, members Hoyt, Ripley,
Wadsworth and Associate Morey.
The following petitions were heard:
Craft Cleansers for permission to erect a sign at 201 Massa-
chusetts Avenue, East Lexington.
Cabot, Cabot & Forbes for permission to erect four signs on
private property which are longer in length than allowed under the Lex-
ington Sign By-law.
William L. Potter, Trustee, for permission to use land in an R 1
zone to build a semi -private golf course.
Corazzini Brothers for permission to construct a one-story brick
nursing home of approximately thirty-five to forty beds, with plans for
possible future expansion.
I
At the close of the hearings an executive session was held during
which the above requests were discussed, and the following decisions
reached:
Craft Cleansers - Granted
Cabot, Cabot & Forbes - Denied
William L. Potter - Granted
Corazzini Bros. - Granted, with Mrs. Morey in opposition.
All pertinent material with regard to the above petitions is on
.file under the name of each petitioner.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 P.M.
Louise M. Macomber, Clerk
1
CORAZZINI BROTHERS HEARING - January 7, 1964
Mr. Tropeano, representing Corazzini Brothers, submitted a plan
showing the layout of the approximately three acres under discussion,
with the location of the proposed nursing home on it; also a larger draw-
ing showing the topography and lot layout of the same piece of land, and
a colored drawing showing the proposed building.
Mr. Tropeano: This petition is presented by the Corazzini Brothers,
Richard of 253 Concord Avenue, Lexington and Fred of 143 Howard Road,
Arlington. Both the young men are married and have children. The peti-
tion they have filed is under Sec. 5 subject to the Board of Appeals.
The Corazzini family have owned a tract of approximately 1,295 acres in
Lexington at this Concord Avenue site for many years. It is occupied
in part by greenhouses which these two boys operate. The land which they
propose to use for the nursing home, if granted, is 2.95 acres.
The names of abuttors who have, either on a signed petition or
orally, consented to the granting of their petition so all these names in
here include those across the street on Blossom Street who have signed
or orally consented and may speak in favor.
It will have a 250 ft. frontage on Blossom Street. The driveway
to the home will enter from Blossom Street at about opposite the homes
of Shelner and Craig. The portion of the nursing home that will be next
' to Blossom Street will have 250 ft. setback. It will from Blossom Street
be partially obscured by the greenhouses. The building itself, including
two 12 ft. porches on each end will be 200 ft. long and 50 ft. deep,
covering approximately 10,000 sq.ft. One story. On the end at ground
level they pick up for a kitchen and storage room, following the contour
of the land. The corridors under state regulations have to be a minimum
of 8 ft. wide. All subject to the 1964 regulations which require a nurs-
ing home building to be built expressly for a nursing home. The build-
ing must of course be of first class construction. Roof can be of wood
and second class construction.
The building is designed to accommodate �O beds, all in accord-
ance with the state regulations. Central dining and recreation room.
Nurses station and doctorst examining room. Administrative office, and
a kitchen down on the ground floor. The estimated cost above ground,
including furnishings, would be $150,000 to $175,000. The schematic
sketch proper shows only 20 parking spaces, but they have ample room to
add plenty more. On a nursing home, 20 might be a little light - probably
a minimum of 30 to be on the safe side.
I could dwell on the need for nursing homes in the town, but I
think we all realize this. This would be rigidly supervised by the
State - the State will have to approve the appearance of thz, home, in-
spect as to qualifications, etc. I know there will be some objections.
Some may say there will be noise from sirens on ambulances, it will
increase traffic, it will decrease the value of the neighborhood - these
are the objections we usually get on these hearings.
If this is granted it cannot of course be changed nor can it be
Mr. T. We intend to hire a R.N. to administrate. It will be managed by
the Corazzinis under an administrator and staff, and they will be qual-
ified by the State.
Mr. Nickerson: Does anyone wish to speak in favor?
Edward Gourdeau, 133 Blossom St.; Mr. Burns, Concord Avenue; Mrs. Doris
Potter, Walnut St., Mr. Misco, 19 Concord Avenue; Mrs. Edward Gourdeau,
Blossom Street; Robert Shaffer; Francis Peters, 31 Webster Road; Henry
Zieman, 187 Blossom Street; Edmund Tocci, 27 -Webster Rd; Olive Murphy,
267 Concord Avenue, and Mrs. Zieman, Blossom Street all made a statement
that they were in favor.
Mr. Nickerson Anyone opposed?
At this time Mr. Robert W. Hallgring of Boston, attorney,, presented
a petition bearing 11 signatures in opposition.
Mr. H. I would like to ask some factual questions to clarify the operation
which have not come out in the discussion so far. I would ask how many
patients they expect to have and how many people on the staff and their
occupations.
Mr. T. I cannot answer, but I think a lot would depend on the condition
of the patients, how ambulatory. There will be a registered nurse in
attendance at all times and three to five other full-time employees to
' operate the building.
Mr. H. What type of service will be rendered and the costs, above and be-
yond furnishing lodging? Will some kind of medical service be on the prem-
ises?
Mr. T. Some of this is regulated by the State. Patients will have their
own doctor.
Mr. H. Any facilities for furnishing surgical or medical treatment as
opposed to treatment in their home? Is there space for a major or minor
operating room?
Mr. T. This isnot a hospital.
Mr. H. I have two questions for the Board - one is the little question of
whether this type of use can be permitted under the ordinance, and if it
can be is it prepared to permit it. I believe the answer to the legal
question is conclusive, although I will attempt to present both. (Steno's
note: Here Mr. Hallgring produced a written treatise on the legality of
the authority of the Board to grant the permission. Since the hour was
late, Mr. Hallgring read rapidly, and not being a court stenographer I was
unable to get enough to make an accurate record, so depended upon seeing
Mr. Hallgring1s papers later, which he was supposed to leave with the Board.
I did not see a copy, however.)
After reading 5 or 6 pages the Chairman said; I believe, Mr. Hallgring,
that since the hour is very late and we still have to hold an executive
and �.nfirmary uses. As a resident with children I don't like the idea of
having my child on the street in that neighborhood.
Mrs. Stavenhagen. I would like to say that there is already this commer-
cial enterprise and I don't think it is fair to have another commercial
enterprise. When we moved here I assume the greenhouses were built be-
fore, but I think the introduction of another commercial enterprise is not
right.
Mr. Nickerson: The operation of a greenhouse is a permitted use in an R 1
area. All these greenhouses are operating under that.
Mr.,Dillaway, 149 Blossom Street. I am opposed.
Robert H. Sproat of 64 Prospect Hill Road. Although I do not live in the
area I would like to point out I am opposed and point out that there seems
to be a very basic question. We learn from the proposed owners or builders
there would be no restrictions placed upon them. Obviously, the people
who come will be the ones who can pay and not for Lexington.
A letter was read from Mr. Beaver and also one from Mr. Sproat.
The hearing was declared closed at 10:40.
During the executive session following it was noted that ofthe31 families
in the immediate neighborhood who were notified, there were only five who
objected. The petition in favor was signed by 44 persons. A petition in
opposition was signed by 11 persons. Letters in duplicate were signed by
Mr. and Mrs. Beaver and Mr. and Mrs. Stavenhagen, and a third letter from
Mr. Beaver. These four names were also included in the 11 who signed the
petition.
The plans were again studied. It was generally felt that the
location was a good one for the purpose and that the building would be
partly obscured by the greenhouses. Mrs. Morey objected to the appear-
ance of the building, feeling that it might have been made more attractive,
as did the other members of the Board. It was also felt that the operation
of such a project would be strictly supervised by the State as to necessary
and competent personnel, cleanliness, requirements, etc.
Mr. Nickerson stated that with regard to the question of the Board
having the right to grant the permit, he felt that the Board did have the
right to do so. The Board has done it before, and not too long ago granted
an extension of Fairlawn. In the exact interpretation of the word
"sanitaria" there might -be a question as to the inclusion of TMnursingn or
"rest" homes, but he felt that certainly the intent was there and he felt
in a court decision this would be taken into consideration as well as the
fact that this interpretation had always been accepted by the Town. The
Board concurred in this opinion. It was decided that Town Counsel should
be contacted for an opinion.