Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-08-01 BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS August 1, 1972 A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 1, 1972 at 7 30 p m in the selectmen's meeting room of the Town Office Building Present were Vice Chairman Sheldon, who presided in the absence of Chairman Nickerson, regular members Wadsworth, Dawes and Mrs Morey and associ- ate member Cataldo A large audience of townspeople interested in the public hearings scheduled for this evening filled the room to capacity and also many waited in the hallway outside the meeting room Public hearings were held on the following petitions, notice having been mailed to the petitioners, to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, to town boards who will or might be affected by decisions made, and also adver- tised in the Lexington Minute-man Frederick D and Julie A Miller - petition for a variance to maintain the existing dwelling at 51 Taft Avenue with a frontage of 26 7 ft instead of the required 30 ft Dr Darwish R Yusah - petition for a variance to maintain an existing dwell- ing at 12 Circle Road with a rear yard of 12 ft instead of the required 15 ft Honeywell Inc (Radiation Center) - petition for permission to maintain on the premises at 2 Forbes Road, in accordance with section 25 94, up to 18 mobile offices, positioned according to plans submitted, for a period not to exceed 12 months The applicant is the lessee of the premises involved with an op- tion to buy Nancy and Chi-Hua Wang - petition for a variance on the property located at 106 Pleasant Street to permit the construction of a tool shed of the dimensions 6 ft by 10 ft by 7 ft with a 2 ft side yard instead of the required 15 ft Lexington Interfaith Corporation - petition as follows under c 774 of the Acts of 1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction of six attached town-house type dwelling units upon approximately 16,000 sq ft of land located northeasterly of Hickory Street and Southeasterly of Garfield Street at the intersection of such streets and shown as Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and part of 25 upon a plan made by Miller & Nylander, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, dated July 6, 1966 Construction of this housing is proposed to be financed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and it is intended that the dwelling units will be leased to persons of low and moderate income, with- out regard to age, eligible for federal or state subsidy programs Lexington Gardens Inc , E Lee Schneider, President, for a special permit to replace certain old buildings with a new structure on the property currently owned by S Arthur Peterson, Inc , 544 Lowell Street, Lexington, Massachusetts: Removal of aged structures including a greenhouse, the attached showroom, of- fice structure, work area, furnace room, and portions of a garage and replace- "! ment with a landscaped clapboard facaded structure in keeping with character of the neighborhood and occupying slightly less area than the structures being replaced The new structure will be used as a horticultural area, garage, and furnace area It will be set back further from Lowell Street than the present f August 1, 1972 hearings continued -2 structure; vehicular building access will be at the southern end of the building Following the hearings the Board made the following decisions, all in open meeting Frederick D and Julie A Miller - granted, unanimously Dr Darwish R Yusah - granted, unanimously Honeywell Inc (Radiation Center) - granted, unanimously, the right to park and maintain for one year on the property at 2 Forbes Road no more than 18 trailers (mobil offices) of the dimensions shown and located on plan sub- mitted at the hearing and entitled "Locations of Mobil Offices" Further- more, the area adjacent to Route 2A shall be suitably screened by evergreen plantings, expires August 1, 1973 Nancy and Chi-Hua Wang - denied The Board discussed the petitions of Lexington Interfaith Corporation and Lexington Gardens, Inc at length No final decisions were made on either The following motion was made and voted The Board of Appeals will meet one week from tonight (August 8, 1972) in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at 7 30 p m at which time we will discuss and presumably decide the cases of Interfaith and Lexington Gardens All voted in favor (Detailed minutes of the deliberations of these two hearings may be found in the legal records of the Board of Appeals ) A notice will be filed with the Town Clerk that a meeting to discuss both of these hearings will be filed and posted All pertinent material is on file under the name of each petitioner in the Board of Appeals' office The meeting adjourned at 10 58 p m Evelyn F Cole Clerk I LEXINGTON INTERFAITH CORPORATION HEARING Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building 111 Tuesday, August 1, 1972, 9 00 p m This hearing was the fifth on the agenda for the evening Others were Miller, Yusah, Honeywell Wang Board of Appeals' members acting on this petition were Vice Chairman, presiding as Chairman, George Sheldon, regular members, George P Wadsworth, Howard H Dawes and (Mrs ) Ruth Morey and associate member Robert Cataldo Also present in the audience was associate board member Woodruff M. Brodhead At 7 55 p m the Chairman, Mr Sheldon, read the notice as follows July 13 and 20, 1972 The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the applica- tion of Lexington Interfaith Corporation under c 774 of the Acts of 1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction of six attached town-house type dwelling units upon approximately 16,000 sq ft of land located northeasterly of Hickory Street and south- easterly of Garfield Street at the intersection of such streets and shown as Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and part of 25 upon a plan made by Miller & Nylander, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, dated July 6, 1966 Construction of this housing is proposed to be financed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and it is intended that the dwelling units will be leased to persons of low and moderate income, without regard to age, eligible for federal or state subsidy programs The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 1972, in the selectmen's meeting room, Town Office Building at 7.45 p m Donald E Nickerson Chairman, Board of Appeals Chairman This notice was published in the Lexington Minute-man as required by law and persons deemed interested notified Mr Lund (Erik Lund, Presid- 1 ent of Lexington Interfaith Corp ) you have the floor Mr Lund Your rules, Mr Chairman, require submission of a certified vote to the effect that I'm authorized to present this and I have such a vote The letter and vote follows July 20, 1972 I, Marilyn Cravis, Clerk of the Lexington Interfaith Corporation, certify that the Board of Directors of Lexington Interfaith Corporation on March 13, 1972 adopted the following vote That the President of the Corporation, Erik Lund, is authorized on behalf of the Corporation to seek financing from MHFA for the construction of six town-house units on the corner of Garfield and Hickory Streets and to submit to and prosecute with the Board of Appeals an application under Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction thereof Is/ By Marilyn Cravis, Clerk Lexington Interfaith Corporation Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -2 Mr Lund I don't know that I want to go through all the details of the plans The architect is here to present the plans themselves and I think you have copies of the proposal and the layout, but I thought that I might describe, because there seems to be a number of people here who are interested, the bare outlines of our proposal We propose to build, on 3 parcels of land at the corner of Hickory and Garfield Street, 6 units of attached town-houses to be rented as subsidized houses We have a preliminary approval from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency which has looked at our plans and have looked at the site and is awaiting our submis- sion upon your approval of the special permit There was some question as to the exact dimensions of the site, I think, that was raised and I have several copies of a Form A that was submitted to the Planning Board in January of this year which contains a survey by Miller and Nylander which I'll submit to you now, which I think shows that the net land area is about 15%zthousand square feet Chairman Pardon me How many people are outside there in the hall that can't come in? (There was some interruption while more chairs were brought to the room and a discussion, as to whether we should move to a larger hall to accommodate the large crowd which had assembled, was held ) Someone It's awfully stuffy in here ' Chairman It's supposed to be air conditioned (Time out again, while the secretary checked to see if the three switches were turned to high on the air conditioning unit ) Mr Lund The density which would ordinarily be permitted in this area, where there are 3 separate building lots, pre-existing, or non-conforming lots, would be a density of 3 on these 3 lots We are seeking a density of 6 So we are seeking double the density which would ordinarily be permitted We are seeking an exception to the use of the Lexington Building Code and permission to use the State Building Code, the national Boca Code, as amended, by the Board of standards of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts We are seeking your approval of a single off-street parking lot in place of 11 parking spaces per unit of housing In addition I submitted to your Board last week a revised or amended plot plan which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Board which would move the buildings closer to the street line of Garfield and Hickory streets, which would also require variances from the nor- mal setbacks and side lines Chairman Well, it's a 10 foot variance of the front, isn't it? Mr Lund I believe so Now, we prefer the alternate site plan, but basically we'd leave it up to you, if you grant our permit, as to which site plan you prefer Prior to submitting this proposal we requested of the Chairman of the Board of Appeals, Mr Nickerson, a waiver of the submission of the detailed plans, the construction plans for this proposal and agreed that there would be attached to the permit if it is granted a condition that such detailed plans be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector Mr Nickerson indicated that those plans would not be required at this hearing Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -3 Mr Lund As far as water and sewer is concerned these are in existence, I believe; a 6 inch main and an 8" main at Hickory and Garfield streets, which abut the lines of these lots and there's also in existence a sewer line with- in 300 ft on Hickory Street which feeds into an 18" line trunk sewer which also abuts this property and I believe that there is no question that the capacity is there and it's possible to tie into these lines As far as the remainder of our presentation is concerned, I received a copy of the Planning Board's Majority Report I think it contains virtually all of the information that we would ordinarily present with respect to the regional and local hous- ing needs and the objectives of the Town of Lexington We would rely on that report We have in addition to that a Census Computer Readout that I obtained from the MAPC, which indicates the following statistics which you might be interested in They are these that there are some 265 families in Lexington whose incomes are less than $4,000 This is according to the 1970 census and some 1321 families in Lexington whose incomes are less than $10,000, represent- ing 16 8% of the families in Lexington All of these families would be elig- ible for subsidy and the housing which we would propose to build I submit that computer readout to you I have indicated that readout where the statis- tics appear I think with that I'd like to introduce Herb Eisenberg to explain the construction which we propose to put up, he being the architect Chairman. Before you start I would like to make certain that I have a copy of the latest revision I have 2 sets of plans here, one of which is dated July 20th, that presumably is the one you refer to Secretary Those are the latest Mr Eisenberg I think you'll find that the first two sheets of the first set are still valid, those two sheets not having been changed The latest change is on the third sheet The alternate site plan is shown Chairman The major change is the enlarging of the rear yard and the reducing of the front yard That's the only essential change, isn't it? Mr Eisenberg That is the only essential change Chairman Proceed Mr Eisenberg We propose to construct a two story building, approximately 3,000 square feet on the ground, containing six 2-bedroom units These will be two story, so-called town-houses with living room, kitchen and dining room on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms and bath on the second floor The construc- tion would be of wood frame with concrete foundation with wood cedar shingle exterior and asphalt shingle roofing The aspect of it would be like a large ranch house or effectively, as you can see by the rendering on the first page Chairman Pardon me You don't have a larger rendering other than what is shown here? Mr Eisenberg Only the one that 's on the first page We have provided a garage which we have termed a coach house for 6 cars and an off-street parking space which would come off the paved street on Hickory Chairman Pardon me I think it would be of some interest if you would hold that up so people can see it while you are talking Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -4 Mr Eisenberg The construction, as I said, would be of wood frame We would have fire rated partitions between the units The area would be landscaped I think the plans we have submitted show the layouts of the rooms The sizes of the rooms are self evident These comply with federal MIA minimum require- ments and as Mr Lund has said, they have been submitted to the agency for preliminary review I'd be glad to answer any questions It is a standard type of multi-family housing that has been proposed to be built and we think this particular type of unit is quite in scale with the area in terms of size and dimensions on this lot Chairman First, we'll have questions from Board members Mr Cataldo What is this structure going to cost? Mr Eisenberg We estimate that the units will cost between $20,000 and $25,000 a unit for a structure of $120,000 to $150,000 Mr Cataldo If you complied with the Lexington Building by-laws what would this unit cost? Mr Eisenberg Probably a 20% increase to build of the second class construction Mr Cataldo So, you'd say $180,000? Mr Eisenberg; That's correct Mr Cataldo What is the difference between what you're proposing vs what would be required in order to get this building variance? Mr Eisenberg Under the Building Code in Lexington all apartments, so-called garden apartments, require second class construction That means solid masonry exterior walls Mr Cataldo Okay, running this through, can we agree that a masonry building would probably have a life of 30 years, maintenance free? Can we agree to that point? Mr Eisenberg Are you asking me to agree? Mr Cataldo A brick building is what we are talking about Mr Eisenberg It might last longer Mr Cataldo What would be the comparable cost of the two buildings? That is taking into consideration the maintenance over 20 years Where would this end up? the two buildings? Mr Eisenberg You mean the wood cedar, stained cedar exterior? Mr Cataldo Comparison with construction throughout? Mr Eisenberg If you are requesting a comparable comparison, you'd have to paint or treat the block in some fashion in order to make it water tight otherwise you'd put a brick veneer on it Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -5 We're talking of having to build it of masonry wall exterior, solid block and putting some covering over it If you plaided it with wood cedar shingles, which would be strapping and wood cedar shingles, you'd have the same mainten- ance problems as you would have with wood shingles with stud frame If you put brick on the face of it you could add another 10 or 15% to the cost, which over the life of the building, might add to the maintenance Mr Cataldo What you are saying is that this building with the variances would cost approximately $50 a square foot to build? Mr Eisenberg It would be $20,000 to $25,000 a unit and $20 to $25 per square foot to build Mr Cataldo Maybe I didn't understand You are building 3,000 square feet of building Mr Eisenberg 3,000 square feet on the ground, two stories Mrs Morey 6,000 square feet, counting the second floor Mr Cataldo In other words a 6,000 square foot building Mr Cataldo About your utilities (aside to secretary Did we have a report from Public Works Department? Ans Yes, there's a copy there for every member of the Board ) Mr Cataldo to Mr Eisenberg The sewer elevations would be no problem? Mr Eisenberg. Well, the first floor would be approximately 8" or 10" above grade We'd be able to turn all utilities within 18" of the grade level and I would assume since there are other 2k story structures on Hickory Street that the sewer is far enough up Hickory Street Mr Cataldo Then you are saying that the sewer will be at the first floor level and not below the basement floor level? Mr Eisenberg That's optional depending on the ground conditions At the moment we're building without basements If cost warrants and ground condi- tions warrant, basements would be put in but at the moment we plan to build without basements Mr Cataldo You still say at that rate that the cost is $25 a foot Mr Eisenberg Without basements Mr Cataldo What is the rent schedule going to be? Mr Eisenberg I though you would ask that Rent schedules in situations like this are determined by a number of factors For one, you can go to the MHFA and fill out a form for application of mortgage plan consisting of 4 pages which gives you the construction cost breakdown, annual operating expense schedule, project development cost, total annual operating expenses and you fill out a monthly rental schedule, which would give you the statutory rent computations from the market rate and when you complete all of this you come up with a figure and then when you go to an agency and you ask for subsidy assistance you ask for Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -6 the 236 subsidy assistance The federal government comes in and determines what the income eligibility is If you ask for low income assistance they will then determine what the low income limits are If they have the low income limits than the rent schedule will be 25% of the income of the family renting and the federal relief housing subsidy will make up the difference in cost computed on this monthly rental schedule If it's under the 236 sub- sidy than the rent schedule reflects the difference between the market rate Market rate is determined by the cost of construction at the time and that sort of thing and the savings and interest that you get in the 236 program by the availability of the mortgage and the availability of the subsidy I can only give you a comparable in another community The community is Salem where a 2 bedroom unit in a rather larger project nets at a rent of $185 and the schedule upper income level for that unit would be approximately $8,000 to $8,500 annually for a family of 2 children Now, this income eligibility varies according to the number of people in the family and their total income The difference between the market unit and a subsidized unit in terms of rental of what the unit at, say $185 renting under a subsidy, the difference in this interest and subsidy availability is usually $100 more per month So the same unit built for the market would be $285 per month Mr Cataldo I think my question is, "What are you going to apply for"? Mr Eisenberg At the moment we have asked for 236 Mr Cataldo The $185? Mr Eisenberg I didn't say $185 for the unit rent I said they are compar- able to one which is that These figures change according to the community and according to inflation and times as the federal government determines I am not saying here that these will rent for $185 Mr Cataldo In other words you don't know for what they really will rent? Mr Eisenberg That 's correct, sir Mr Cataldo As far as these buildings here are concerned and this area is concerned and you say this is an $8,000 ceiling income, taking that area from Garfield Street up, Reed Street over, wouldn't you say that that would be the average income of the families that are living there now? Mr Eisenberg I wouldn't have the vaguest idea I haven't conduct a census of the area Mr Cataldo Would you say so, Mr Lund? Mr Lund I haven't conducted a census of the area either Mr Cataldo In other words, you are applying to put this in without knowing what the area is like; you are not familiar with the area? Mr Lund I'm familiar with the area As I recall it the houses down on Garfield Street, one or two on Earl Street are older houses that are probably, between 20 and 24 years old in terms of their age The houses down on Hickory Street are in a relatively new subdivision which I believe was built within the last 15 years Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -7 (There was a short discussion between Mr Sheldon and Mr Cataldo about the possible sewer problem and the fact that they are not certain about sewer conditions in this area Mr McSweeney, who was present at the beginning of this hearing, was not avail- able to answer any questions at this moment ) Chairman Are there questions from other Board members? Mrs Morey I would ask a question There are three legal building lots there Three houses (single) could be built there on those lots Could you apply for a subsidy on those? You could build three individual houses for $25,000 apiece with probably six rooms, not 5, and a basement Has this been given any consideration? It would be more in keeping with the neighborhood Could you get a subsidy? Mr Lund I don't know We have applied for a subsidy for a six unit town- house The reason we are going for the six units is because the land cost obviously doubles when you're talking about three units The land cost is not varied to us depending upon the number of units built We have a fixed land cost and we are trying to keep the cost down in order to come within the subsidy range If the cost is too high we are not going to be eligible for subsidy Mrs Morey $25,000 a unit with no basement is really kind of small It seems a lot, when you can build the same amount of house without so much work Mr Lund Well there is a question as to whether we can build the same amount of house There are certain savings by having common walls ("party walls") I think I'll call on Mr Eisenberg He had better answer that Mrs Morey We had a case last week down on Webb St They were putting up a lot of houses on 50 ft lots Chairman Further questions? Chairman Board members having no further questions, I'll ask if there are those here who would like to speak in favor of this proposal THERE WAS NO RESPONSE Chairman Are there those here who would like to speak against it? If so, please rise and give us your name OPPOSITION Mark Lichtenstein, 9 Augustus Road, TMM Pct 3 May I inquire first whether the minority report of the Planning Board member has been filed? Chairman Yes, we have it here Mr Lichtenstein It wasn't here this morning At least I didn't have a chance to see it Chairman Yes It's the pleasure of the hearing, but I don't think you'd want me to read the Planning Board Report The majority report has about 20 pages The minority report is about a half a page I'd be glad to read that (Majority Report received by Board of Appeals July 28, Minority Report received August 1, evening of hearing) Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -8 Mr Lichtenstein If I may point out to members of the Board the following in relation to this area Back in 1970 at our Annual Town Meeting, Article 98 was passed for a Study of Meagherville Now, of course, this area which we are discussing tonight is not within that study It is just on the other side The study by the Justin Gray Associates for the Meagherville area which is 75 acres, that study recommended that a subsidized housing project or program be initiated within that area Now that was Article 98 In 1971, Article 70 was presented to the Town Meeting and that was specific- ally to establish the RH district or subsidized housing district for 9 83 acres, which ran from Hickory to Ash Street Again it was not the area under consideration but just on the other side of the street This was at the Town Meeting in 1971 This Article was defeated The other Article in 1971, which I don't recall the number, it might have been called Article 69, was indefinitely postponed In 1970, Article 53 was passed, which approved the land opposite the area in question, a play area for children, Garfield Street play area This now has been leveled, grass is growing on there and children playing and again, this is directly opposite the plans of the land for this building It's my sug- gestion that this type of housing in this location will seriously affect and may cause serious danger to children playing directly opposite Everyone in the area and, of course I live on Augustus Road, the next street over from Garfield Street, everyone in the area knows that the water table in that area is extremely high Come the Spring many of the back yards and basements are flooded, mine in particular What effect building, even without basements, on this area will have upon the water in this neighborhood, I'm not certain, but it can't help it Another consideration is the vehicular traffic in the area There are (pause) just going through in my mind how to get into this area into Garfield Street, we would have to proceed (pause) well everything is from Bedford Street, of course There are many, many cars running on Bedford Street But, you go down Reed Street, either Reed to Vaille, which is an approved street, onto Augustus Road and into Garfield That is the first way The second way would be going down Reed Street to Kimball Street, which is unpaved, I don't think approved, following Kimball down into Hickory Street onto or into Garfield Street land The third way of getting into this area is going down Reed Street to Augustus Road, an approved street, directly into Hickory Street And the fourth one is from Reed to Garfield, taking a left off of Garfield into the area, Garfield being a very rutty street, I don't believe approved It seems that the area itself is, other than Garfield Street area, but Hickory Street and the surrounding streets being Vaille, Kimball, Augustus, this area was built up in 1962 and 1963 of one family houses Most of the houses in the area are one family There are a few on Garfield that are two family, but the proposed building is totally inappropriate for this area If that type of housing is necessary, a turnkey type of housing, whereby the tenents will have an opportunity sometime to purchase the housing is much more appropriate This would more likely keep up the area for what it is worth Chairman Anyone else who would like to speak or would like to be recorded? Mr Costello? Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -9 Thomas Costello, Lexington Planning Board TMM Pct 2, author of minority report The petitioners, I feel, have failed to show, that the Town of Lex- ington has made subsidized housing financially unfeasible to its Building and Zoning Codes so that I see no reason for granting this COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT Robert W Arthur, 40 Garfield St I'm the immediate abutter to this pro- posal I oppose this This area is now zoned for single houses The lots are only 5,000 sq ft , which I think was the object of the anti-snob hous- ing bill, which was to reduce the artificially high sq ft area for housing, not to vary housing zoning laws which are now zoned for single family and I stand opposed Richard Bush, 4 Kimball Road I am opposed to this I think the density is quite high All I've heard is that it's twice what it would otherwise be I think it works out to greater than 15 per acre I think it amounts to spot zoning I think we have already more than enough of it I'm opposed to it Ethel Wright, 17 Hickory Street My property comprises the 3 density lots, existing lots It's adjacent to mine In fact the stone wall designates the entire 3 lots including Arthur's and the one beyond and I oppose apartments in preference to single family houses Chairman (referring to plan) You are right here Mrs Wright You have that, you know Thank you Jerome F Garrity, 30 Garfield Street I'm the second house away My house, I don't consider an old house I built it 15 years ago on this piece of property There is one 2-family house on the street, refuting this interpre- tation of a number of 2-family houses and that's got a 250 ft frontage In my opinion and I've lived here in town for 50 years, maybe that's not impor- tant, but to me it is important I would be the last one in the world to be opposed to perhaps some of our poorer neighbors not having a place to live I got out of High School and 2 or 3 years later got married, couldn't find a place to live and consequently lived out of town for 3 or 4 years I don't pretend that I live in a lush neighborhood at all Garfield Street is a roughly paved street and all, but in my opinion a 6 apartment house there is only tokenism It's not really doing anything and if we get up to $185 a month rent we certainly are not doing anything, frankly I'd like to stand opposed Mr Arthur I'd also question how many families 2-bedroom units could offer any housing solution Six units, it's pretty small Mr Reisenberg, 16 Garfield St : We've heard nothing this evening about the management arrangement of the group proposing this development I'd like to point out that traditionally in public and subsidized housing there's an agent that we've heard nothing about will it be either in escrow or plans for maintenance funds? Nor were we told who was going to be responsible for main- tenance I'd like to note that this proposal if it were carried through would approximately double the number of families living on this street Chairman I'd like to give Mr Lund a chance to answer that maintenance question, if he wishes Mr Lund As far as the maintenance is concerned, it is a part of our require- ments for the MHFA that we submit to them a management and maintenance proposal designating the people who would manage and maintain the property Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -10 It would be our intention to utilize local people who are running present apartments in this town to do that It would be our responsibility to do that, but we haven't selected anyone, we have not talked to anyone, we are taking this a step at a time A part of any financing which the MHFA grants here would be a program which would meet their standards Mr Reisenberg Do you have any plans to finance that maintenance? Mr Lund Out of the rents Yes That would be covered as a part of the proposal to the MHFA bank It would be financed out of that Mr Reisenberg The mortgage application? Chairman If you would, please ask the Chair the question and we'll ask Mr Lund to answer if he can Do you have any more questions? Mr Reisenberg Who's going to administer this, the Interfaith Corporation? Mr Lund The management and maintenance would be handled by the same people Mr Reisenberg Who are these people? Mr Lund There's a lot we have to consider first We don't have permission to build as yet Before we select anyone it would have to be approved by the MHFA Someone May I ask who is going to write the check for these people? Mr Eisenberg We are We have worked on a project in Lowell The developer does not have to be the management and maintenance firm In Lowell, which is one of the first done by MHFA, the management and maintenance is actually run by a firm called John Paul Managements Associates of Cleveland, Ohio They in fact collect the rents in Cleveland as contractors for maintenance locally 1 and have a local manager The developers, who come from Bedford, have absol- utely nothing to do with it The rents go into the management company and at the end of the year the 6% dividend is paid out to the developers and whatever is left over in the fund is returned to the tenants to reduce their rents 1 Mr Reisenberg Today, you have no provisions, is that right? Mr Lund We would not be able to close our mortgage with the MHFA without a plan Mr Reisenberg But, to date you have no plan? Mr Eisenberg That's true Mr Wadsworth Wouldn't it be true that with this plan there would only have to be one low income family in the units? Mr Lund No The proposal with MHFA would be that all six units would be subsidized Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -11 Questioner But moderate and low income? Mr Lund Yes, but low and moderate Questioner But to be approved there would only have to be one low income family In other words 20% Mr Lund That's right Questioner Which is 1 2? Someone It's disturbing to hear you talk about out-of-town management Could we have some assurance that the management at least would be local? Mr Lund I think I've given you what our intention is and I can't do much more at this point Mr Eisenberg The other MHFA projects that I'm aware of, the developers themselves have their own management and maintenance company I'm simply pointing out to you an example of another developer that does not have its own management and maintenance company and contract it out to a firm which does this nationwide Mr Lund Not only that but in our discussions with MHFA they specifically suggested that management and maintenance be handled locally because of the small number of units involved Mr Eisenberg I assure you they won't come from Cleveland to manage this one Chairman Anyone else opposed? Paul Plasse, 193 Cedar St , TMM, Pct 3 I have many objections to this pro- posal One is that we've had a great deal of harrassment in the area It's been almost continuous It began back when Mr Meagher in 1890 tried to (? parcel) his land; most of it is marginal This is probably one of the poorest sections of Lexington in consequence and it is probably the least (?densible) as far as population is concerned Most of these people are hard working people, spending a great deal of their time away from home to earn a living They don't have the luxury of exploring all the possibilities and ramifications of subsidized housing and so forth One of the things I object to is the motivation of this proposal I believe the motivation is not the 6 units but the motivation is to establish a precident to use as a wedge to the rest of the Town Meagherville and the area down there at the end of Reed Street is also vulnerable to this If 6 units are allowed to be put on those building lots down there, the houses in that area are low enough in value so that they would be,jeopardy of being sold and more 6 unit houses would be put up in the area Therefore I would question the motivations of the petitioners I think that this should be looked at very seriously and that before a decision is made on this petition the Board should be advised to wait until the State ruling on some of the cases pending on this type of block-busting 11 Mr Lund The motivation, Mr Chairman, is being called into question I should like to respond that the motivation is to seek out open land in Town on which we can build small units of subsidized housing This is such a place Lexington Interfaith Corooration wearine 8/1/72 (cont ) -12 It is in keeping with the policy expressed at the Town Meeting of the scat- ' tered site housing program in the Town which called for 38 single site homes Mr Eisenberg The only distinction between that program and this is that there are 6 units involved which is not an undue concentration I don't see how it can be termed block busting We are simply trying to build housing Chairman: Are there other people here who may not like to speak but would like to be recorded against this Article by raising their hand I don't insist that you all make a speech (chuckle) Those who have spoken please don't raise your hands We already have you recorded Now, I'm trying to see how many are not in favor but who are not going to speak, I hope 31 were counted in opposition (Nancy Ersy, not against, made it known that she thought those who were in favor should also be given a chance to raise their hands and be counted ) Chairman We'll do that We already asked those in favor to speak and no one rose to speak We'll give them a chance to register in favor But, first, does anyone else wish to speak against? We'll clear that up first We'll give those in favor a second chance Bernice Crocker, 138 Reed Street I'm opposed because of the lack of informa- 1 tion available I've been to other hearings and much more has been presented, like the RH proposal I think it's ridiculus to expect people to make a de- cision with so little information Hsi-Ching Liu, 4 Shaw Place The area in question is 16,000 sq ft Right? Chairman Slightly less Mr. Liu My back yard is bigger than that Would they allow me to build a house back there? -Laughter- Someone, who did not give name I wonder if Mr Lund would appeal that? Mr Liu I'm sure that that is too much building on that piece of land I oppose Chairman Have we given everyone a fair chance to express their opposition? Someone I have just one question I wonder if Mr Lund expects to appeal the ruling if the Board votes no on this petition? Chairman I can't answer that Mr Lund? Mr Lund Yes Eric Clarke Mr Clarke made an apology for the Planning Board, saying that the Planning Board has a legal report We are sorry that we were forced to be late getting it to you The Board was 4 in favor and there's a minority report Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -13 Chairman We have the report It's a long one We should perhaps study it some more I know that I want to do that Nm4 we were going to allow those in favor to raise their hands for the record Nancy Ersy, 32 Parker St I didn't come prepared to speak I thought those presenting the material presented it well I'm in favor Chairman If no one wants to speak, we 'll count the hands 23 hands were counted by the chairman in favor Jay J Schlickman, 15 Hickory St I'm opposed Someone You counted the votes against and for It's unfair, I think to consider those in favor, who don't live in the area Chairman We are not deceived Those in the area are generally against and those outside the area are in favor Now, Mr Lund Mr Lund Sir? Chairman We are coming to the close of this particular hearing is there any- thing else you want to say? but Mr Lund I think not I don't/if there are any questions raised I'll try to answer But I have a question Did you get responses from any particular Board? Chairman Yes I'll come to that Thomas Small, 26 Earl Street I'm opposed Chairman Didn't we count you? Mr Small No Chairman Okay, now we have you Mr Small You called for votes here against and for We don't know where any of these people come from Those in favor don't live in the area Chairman This vote is merely an expression of opinion It's not a vote to decide whether this project will be approved or disapproved It's merely to give us some indication of how people feel We are thoroughly aware, having listened to the addresses of the people and know exactly what you are talking about We are not deceived Mr Small Thank you Chairman We've received a number of communications Number 1, in order of importance, The Planning Board Report Certainly because of its size we can't read it here It's a very detailed report, showing a good deal of study and they recorded themselves quite definitely in favor That is a majority of the Planning Board, 4 of them Mr Costello, as he has already indicated filed Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -14 S a minority report which wasn't quite as long We had communications from Donald Irwin, Building Inspector and John McSweeney of Public Works What else do we have, Evie? Sec Letter from the Board of Health Mr Wadsworth What does the Building Inspector have to say? Chairman You want to know what the Building Inspector had to say? I'll read it July 25, 1972 Gentlemen The zoning aspects of the proposal I will refrain from commenting on for I am sure they'll be fully covered by the Planning Board The three sheets of descriptions of the proposal I've seen are very limited in detail and are not condusive to any in depth comments The plans do indicate wood frame construction for multi-families which is not permitted under the Lexington Building By-Law It is my understanding that the proposed construction would use STD- 10, Dept of Public Safety, Board of Standards Building Code, the regulations to be used in the construction This STD-10 is an adaptation of the BOCA basic Building Code It is a mandatory but minimum code used within the Commonwealth, not as restrictive as the Lexington Building Code As pointed out above, without adequate and complete construction plans, my comments have to be limited to these general remarks If this petition is granted under the conditions and wavers re- quested of the Board of Appeals, it should be understood that com- plete and detail plans would have to be presented and approved by this Department under the conditions that are set by the Board of Appeals Sincerely yours, /s/ Donald K Irwin Building Inspector Chairman I'll read the letter from the Board of Health Dear Mr Nickerson The proposal of the Interfaith Corporation to build six attached town house type dwelling units, located at the corner of Garfield Ill and Hickory Streets on approximately 16,000 square feet of land, has been reviewed The following public health considerations would have to be satis- fied before the Board of Health could approve a building and occu- pancy permit Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -15 (Board of Health Letter, continued) 1 Town sewer and water service must be provided 2 The building construction must meet the requirements of the State Sanitary Code Article II, "Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation " Yours truly, /s/ Robert C Heustis Director of Public Health Chairman The letter from the Public Works/Engineering Department July 12, 1972 Gentlemen We have reviewed the plans for the subject project and make the following comments 1 Existing street line and edge of pavement should be shown and dimensioned 2 Driveway dimensions should be shown 3 Size, type, and location of water service should be shown 4 Size, type, and location of existing water main should be shown 5 Inverts of both existing sewer and proposed sewer service should be shown The service should be A C , not V C pipe 6 Type of pipe, appurtenances, and connection for storm drain should be shown Inverts and slope should be shown 7 Proposed final grades should be shown in relation to exist- ing ground Very truly yours, /s/ John J McSweeney, Director Public Works/Engineering Chairman We have some letters in favor I'll read them into the record Dr Harold L Brehm 14 Parker Street Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Dear Board of Appeals I am writing this letter to support the application submitted by the Lexington Interfaith Corporation to build rental units on Hickory and Garfield Streets which would enable people of moderate means to live in Lexington Trusting that you will approve this application, I am Yours sincerely, /s/ Harold L Brehm Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -16 Chairman And we have a letter from Richard E Harding July 28, 1972 TO Members of the Board of Appeals I am writing you in relation to the scheduled hearing on the Lexington Interfaith Corporation's application for a compre- hensive permit under chapter 774 for low and moderate income families As it will be impossible for me to attend the hearing I wish to register my wholehearted support for this application Some of us in Lexington had a dream a few years ago when the Interfaith Corporation was born that our community would lead the way in breaking down "snob" zoning in Boston's suburbs The rhetoric and good intentions have produced no visible demonstration of this to date The need is as great if not greater than it has ever been and we now have another great opportunity as a community to act It is my personal hope that Board of Appeals will now take the lead by approving the application of the Interfaith Corporation I would hope that the application will not have to be taken to the Department of Community Affairs If this becomes necessary I will be in full support of this action with my presence and resources Sincerely yours, /s/ Richard E Harding (Rev ) 286 Marrett Rd (the address was not read at this time) Chairman And another letter July 27, 1972 Dear Sir We would like to express our support for the subsidized housing proposal under consideration by the Board of Appeals There appear to be no substantive reasons to oppose this proposal on the usual issues of poor drainage, traffic congestion, or over crowding of the schools If the town really means to realize its responsibility in the area of housing this proposal certainly could be a low risk, very modest, first step in that direction Sincerely, /s/ Bonnie Jones /s/ James Jones Chairman And we have this one (addresses read Star Island later in the Isles of Shoals, N H hearing) 29 July 1972 Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 -17 I III Dear Mr Nickerson (see page 16) I shall, unfortunately, be out of town at the time of your hearing on the proposal by the Lexington Interfaith Corporation for a housing project, but, on the basis of the information available to me at this time, I would like to be recorded in favor of the project, and I hope the Board will give favorable consideration to an effort to satisfy an obvious need in the community Yours sincerely, /s/ Weiant Wathen-Dunn (address read later) 44 Maple St Mr Small Of these letters you have read, I haven't heard any addresses would you please tell me where some of these people live? THE CHAIRMAN COMPLIED WITH THE REQUEST BY GOING BACK TO THE LETTER AND READING THE ADDRESSES Mr Cataldo Mr Lund, when you did your survey, could you tell me what area you did? I'd like to study that and come up with a need Mr Lund I think you'll find that the Planning Board report deals with two areas, one of which is the regional area, the other is the Metropolitan Boston area Also submitted tonight was a census computer printout which indicates 1320 families in Lexington who are eligible for subsidized housing Cataldo Yes You submitted a census report? I mean you people as Lexington as Lexington Interfaith Corporation Mr Lund That is the extent of the study Cataldo In other words, you are relying on that census report (census com- puter printout) of the regional area and the Planning Board report? Mr Lund That is correct Mr Cataldo You are relying on income, not housing needs? Mr Lund I think that the Planning Board deals with housing needs The census computer putout deals only with income Mr Cataldo Mr Clarke, can you answer my question? (Clarke from P1 Bd ) Mr Clarke Yes, but I think that Mr Lund stated the facts in the case We considered the regional, which is this end of the state basically, and the sub- regional needs, which is 16 towns situated in the northwest of Boston We con- sidered that the need for housing is a regional rather than necessarily and purely Lexington Mr Cataldo You're looking at 16 towns In your survey how many private Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -18 apartment complexes have 2 bedroom apartments available at $185 00? Mr Clarke I couldn't tell you Somebody Could you please summarize? Somebody mentioned a majority report and a minority report Could you summarize? Chairman The majority report was issued by the Planning Board and it's a very detailed comprehensive study and it took some 20 pages It took the act almost section by section and it gave their opinion on it as they went along Their conclusion was, well four of the members were in favor of the proposal You don't want me to read the report here now, do you? There is also a minority report by one member (rec'd evening of hearing) (majority report rec'd by Board 7/28/72 in afternoon) Mr Small I've been denied police protection up there because I was told it was an unaccepted street, for the past ten years People race cars up there and itb jeopardizing my children's lives The main sewer line was surging last winter Now you tell me that the Planning Board thinks it's a good place to put the housing? Who told you? Chairman Please, don't argue with me That's a Planning Board report Mr Small Why should we consider this when we can't get anything here He went on in that vein until the Chairman terminated this display of dismay by stating that the argument belongs before another Board Mr Lund I want to renew my requestn gr the waiver we asked for to the extent that the amount of expenses did/amount to the fee Chairman You sent your check in, didn't you? Mr Lund Yes, but we hope to get a refund on the part that doesn't cover the expenses Chairman We'll take that under consideration Chairman Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen We'll declare the hear- ing closed and notify Interfaith of our decision and we'll take a 5 minute recess This hearing closed at 9 07 p m Evelyn F Cole Clerk LEXINGTON GARDENS, INC HEARING (re 544 Lowell Street) Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building IIITuesday, August 1, 1972, 9 00 p m This hearing was the last on the agenda for the evening, the sixth hearing Others Miller, Yusah, Honeywell, Wang, Lexington Interfaith Corporation Board of Appeals ' members acting on this petition were Vice Chairman, presiding as Chairman, George C Sheldon; regular members, George P Wadsworth, Howard H Dawes and (Mrs ) Ruth Morey and associate member Robert Cataldo Also present, in the audience, was associate board member Woodruff M Brodhead At 9:07 p m the Chairman read the notice as follows July 13 and 20, 1972 The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the petition of Lexington Gardens, Inc , E Lee Schneider, President, for a special permit to replace certain old buildings with a new structure on the property currently owned by S Arthur Peterson, Inc , 544 Lowell Street, Lexington, Massachusetts Removal of aged structures in- cluding a greenhouse, the attached showroom, office structure, work area, furnace room, and portions of a garage and replacement with a landscaped clapboard facaded structure in keeping with char- "' acter of the neighborhood and occupying slightly less area than the structures being replaced The new structure will be used as a horticultural area, garage, and furnace area It will be set back further from Lowell Street than the present structure, vehicular building access will be at the southern end of the building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 1972, in the select- men's meeting room, Town Office Building at 9 00 p m Donald E Nickerson Chairman, Board of Appeals Chairman This notice was published in the Lexington Minute-man as required by law and persons deemed interested notified Mr Schneider (E Lee Schneider) you have the floor E Lee Schneider, President of Lexington Gardens, Inc and Vice-President of Pepperidge Farm Thank you, Mr Sheldon, Mrs Morey, Gentlemen At the outset I want to thank you for putting us on the agenda this evening I know it's been a long and trying one and I'll hope to make my comments brief, but I do want to make sure that any questions you have or the people present have will be answered It 's under Section 25 31 of the zoning by-law of the Town of Lexington that we are requesting a special permit to alter the existing com- mercial greenhouse structures The new structure as shown in the prints sub- mitted to the Board will be set back from the road some 6 feet from the present III structure and will be 62 square feet less in area I would like to show you a sketch at this time of the building You saw the building and this will be the section facing Lowell Street There would be no vehicular access to the building from Lowell Street The vehicular access will r Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -2 11/ be next to the dwelling to be occupied by an employee of Lexington Gardens It will eliminate the entrances that would be close to a residence on this side of the building Chairman I think you should hold it up so all can see (The large "rendering" of the building was displayed for all to see with Mr Brodhead, associate member assisting Mr Schneider ) Mr Schneider As I said, this is the section on Lowell Street The vehi- cular access will be from this end of the building facing the residence, actually being shielded from the present residence which will be occupied by an employee and it would eliminate the vehicular activity close to the neigh- bor on this side It is our understanding that the structure is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood At our last meeting questions were raised concerning the potential traffic problem created by this structure I'd like to comment on that for just a moment According to our best esti- mates, we estimate that the vehicular use of the facility will be less than the present use as operated by Peterson We made a traffic survey by count- ing the vehicles on Lowell Street on a 5 day period between July 20 and July 26, We have copies of that survey for the Board members In summary the traf- fic on Lowell Street during that 9-hour period which is from 7 30 a m to 4 30 p m totalled between 6,500 and 6,700 vehicles of which between 5,800 and 6,100 were cars, 130 to 156 were dump trucks, 85 to 102 were tractor trailers, 63 to 98 were medium size trucks, 330 to 358 were small trucks We would anticipate our vehicular usage would be almost identical if not less than that of Arthur Peterson and would not in any way complicate that traffic situation I do want to stress that this new building will be less in area than the buildings it would replace I would also state at this time, there is a statute under the laws of Massachusetts that would allow a rebuilding and expansion of this type of greenhouse Of course this really isn't neces- sary because the by-law of Lexington allows this I have copies of this statute for the Board members * I certainly would be glad to answer any questions (*see 40A §5 end of paragraph- Applicability of regulations to existing structures and uses- Chairman What is the building area? the square footage? 1 Mr Schneider 4,000 square feet Chairman How many cars and/or trucks would be used by you? I know there are other uses of the building The furnace is located there and the soil area, and you are doing something with soil there Mr Schneider There's a soil storage area and horticultural work area and a garage Chairman But how many cars and trucks would you use? Mr Schneider We anticipate one tractor and one truck and there was a mis- understanding that I would like to clarify at this point concerning the furn- ace room The greenhouses require the output of one furnace to maintain it We would plan to put in a second furnace strictly as a standby There would Illbe no need to operate two furnaces at the same time In case one goes out we have the other to support the life of the plants Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -3 Chairman Well, do I understand that the furnace in the new building is the standby or the original? Mr Schneider Well the original furnace which is down a pit in the basement would be brought up to ground level and be side by side with the new furnace and of course these furnaces will meet air polution requirements of the State of Massachusetts Chairman I have no further questions Do other Board members have questions? Mr Wadsworth These plants are going to be for sale over at Hancock Street? Mr Schneider They'll be for sale at Hancock Street Right now we are pur- chasing a fair number of plants outside Mr Wadsworth I see There'll be no retail business elsewhere? Mr Schneider There'll be no retail business on Lowell St Eventually, we may grow some plants there for a retail outside this immediate area There'll be no wholesale Chairman Well there's no show room or sales room there Mr Schneider There is no showroom or salesroom There is one now which will be eliminated It's a small one Chairman Howard? Mr Dawes No Chairman Ruth? Mrs Morey No sales at all on the property, just an adjunct to Lexington Gardens? Mr Schneider This is correct Mrs Morey If you build another ? we hear you may be building another garden somewhere, I suppose plants here will service that other garden? Mr Schneider This very likely would be outside the city limits Chairman Well, why don't we develop some questions First, I'll ask for those who may be in favor to either raise your hand or rise to make a speech Mr Schneider In this regard we have a petition with some 31 names in favor Chairman We'll read that into the record Does anyone wish to speak in favor? Chairman Hearing from no one in favor, I'll ask for those in opposition Ephraim Weiss How about questions? Chairman We generally follow through like this If you have a question, we Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -4 can answer it now or later I'll ask if there are any questions? However, if you'd like to ask a question, well, let's ask it Mr Weiss (462 Lowell St ) It appears that the building doesn't seem to be substantially different from what's there now I think the major concern is the traffic pattern Is there going to be an increase of trailers going in and out? The other is could the Board of Appeals place a restriction on traffic someway? In other words) that the incidence of traffic shall not be increased? Chairman Well first, let's get at it this way, will the use of his property generate more trucking? It isn't going to generate passenger traffic because of the nature of the business A certain amount of truck traffic will be necessary hauling plants and soil back and forth, I suppose Mr Schneider A certain amount, but we think it will be minimal The survey of the traffic on Lowell Street already, in a 9-hour period, shows 6,700 vehicles That's only 9 hours, not taking the rush hour Chairman You have only one truck and one trailer You must intend to use some other trucks parked in other areas to bring the stuff back and forth Schneider Seasonally we would have to bring in top soil from our present location to fill our soil storage room This is sterilized soil which must be kept indoors, but we are not anticipating major truck routes because it takes so long to raise the plants The plants take 3 to 4 months to raise from the time they are cuttings to seedlings These would be moved periodi- cally from there over to Lexington Chairman To answer your other question Mr Weiss It's possible to write in a condition or any number of restrictions of which that might be one Mr Weiss I'd like to make a comment In other areas where permits have been granted, as farm stands, they have turned into major traffic centers for large trucks and in fact one has turned into a trucking center I simply would hope that the Board in its wisdom would make such a restriction Chairman So now how do we record you? Mr Weiss Conditionally in favor Mr Wadsworth His question really boils down to, do you intend to use trailer trucks in there to move this stuff? Mr Schneider We have no trailer trucks Mr Wadsworth You have none Mr Schneider No Some of our materials come by trailer We certainly can't change that, but we arn't anticipating major movement in and out of there because our primary use of the property would be for the propagating of small seedlings These are readily handled in small vehicles Arthur Burrell, TMM Pct 1, 2 Thoreau Road I'd like to make a statement, if I could I'm appearing here tonight as a Town Meeting Member representing a sub- Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -5 stantial number of constituents who have indicated to me to oppose this pro- posal I think there are a number of items that make me a little uncomfort- able about this proposal Primarily they are in the long-range projection as to what is going to happen as this business develops It does not limit itself to Lowell Street This particular property in its entirety impinges on a large number of residences and if there were, as could likely happen be, the additional growth would affect many more people There is a large parcel of land involved here nearby and adjacent to it that I think has to be considered There are a number of reasons as I said before, why I'm before this Board opposing it but I'm concerned mostly because of the introduction of what is a commercial enterprise into the heart of a fine residential neighborhood This is proported to be, and I think with some reason that it is, an agricultural activity But I'd like to suggest to the Board rather strongly that what we are really looking at here is a commercial, wholesale, retail mercantiling operation which just happens to deal in agricultural products and the retailing merchandising is the primary business I do under- stand that there will be no retail operations at this location I think this has been stated but I think the Board has to look at how this is going to fit into the whole scheme of the operations It seems clear to me that what really is being proposed here is not an agricultural operation as existing but a warehousing and trans-shipping point where merchandise will be brought in and also shipped out to retail locations It also appears to allow a large garage to be built in this location would be the first break into what is a primarily residential section of Lowell Street Now Lowell Street has been under rather intensive pressure from Burlington and I think we are all aware of this However the Lexington end of it has maintained its residen- tial character Through the efforts of the Planning Board the commercial areas have been concentrated at Countryside and a small section of North Street So this would be a substantial break in this line and I would like to be recorded as opposed to this proposal and I would like to request the Board to turn down this request Thank You Chairman You don't have a petition? Mr Burrell I think these people speak for any petition I could bring Chairman Anyone else? D Marshall Semonian, 504 Lowell Street It seems to me that we were here a few weeks ago for this particular petition and as far as I can see the struc- ture has not changed one iota It's still the cement block building The dimensions are identical The change has been mostly on the face of the build- ing and it has not been set back any further from Lowell Street then it was previously I personally believe there are other ways for this corporation to get around this situation without putting this commercial type structure right within 30 or 40 ft of Lowell St I'm definitely against this structure Dr William Fraser, 533 Lowell Street I have several points to make First, I take objection to the fact that they say that the building has less square footage With the measurements they gave at the last hearing and the ones they give here, I don't see how they can possibly do it and say that this is less square footage I'd also like to ask when and where the traffic study on Lowell Street was taken It's a long street and not knowing where the lo- cation was well Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -6 Chairman If you'd like to know now I'll ask Mr Schneider to answer that for you Mr Schneider Mr Schneider It was taken right in front of the Peterson property between the hours of 7 30 a m and 4 30 p m on the following days Thursday, the 20th of July, Friday, the 21st, Monday, the 24th, Tuesday, the 25th and Wednesday, the 26th Dr Fraser Some of the other things I would like to say They mention that it would be 6 ft less back If they have the same square footage this means that in the last petition they were going to be 12 feet further back They had moved the building 6 feet further forward to the street then this time? Chairman Back? Dr Fraser They moved it 6 feet back from the existing one I believe the last petition said that with the same square footage they were going to move it back 12 feet Chairman I doubt it Dr Fraser I don't know quite were the differences come in, in this thing I wonder if somehow the traffic in the summer varies from that in the Spring time, which is their major planting time In the Spring time it seems to me there would be far greater traffic, far more going back and forth to Lexington 111 Gardens and during the Summer time, right now, when people are through planting, there are very few people going over there buying and purchasing Chairman Let 's pause and ask Mr Schneider what the square footage was on the other application Do you recall Mr Schneider? Mr Schneider Yes It was 4,000 square feet The wording of that was mis- leading It was probably our fault because we mentioned specifically the dimension of the greenhouse to be demolished and the wording then said and portions of the adjacent building, and the greenhouse dimensions were 2,100 square feet and the portions of the adjacent building were 1,900 square feet and this was not in the newspaper release The square footage dimension change is a matter of fact and it's about 62 square feet less than the building which would be fixed Dr Fraser They also say that as far as this building ----going along with what is in there -- Well, when Mr Schneider gave me a copy of this plan or architect's drawing I left it on the table and my son and two of his playmates, who happen to be 6 years of age, took one look at it the next morning and wanted to know why we had a picture of Howard Johnson's and if a six year old child feels that way it's pretty obvious Chairman Next? Rebecca E Semonian, 504 Lowell Street I'm a little bit concerned As I understand it, all the dirt they are going to use is going to be stored in this building and brought to a certain temperature and perhaps sterilized That I don't know, but they must be going to truck it all back and forth to all their other places, if that's the primary use of that building Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -7 Chairman I can't answer that Mr Schneider will have to answer that one Mrs Semonian They certainly are going to be busy if they are trucking all that dirt Mr Schneider I didn't get the question Chairman She's concerned about how much soil you are going to be transport- ing back and forth Mr Schneider I don't have the cubic footage that's required in a period I would imagine that I would have to guess I would imagine that 3 truck loads would last 3 to 4 or even 5 months because the pots in which these plants are to be potted are going to be small plants and we are going to be doing the propagating and seeding and this is not the warehousing and fast (?) or trans-shipment of merchandise Mrs Semonian But it is of their dirt Right? I understood that from their last meeting that it was going to be the trans-shipment of their dirt Mr Schneider Potting soil It will be potting soil for our own use Chairman Not for sale, for your own use Chairman Someone in back had their hand up Paul Farrington, East Street I'd like to ask Mr Schneider what the size and the thickness is of the garage floor Mr Schneider The size of the floor? I don't really know the exact thickness of the floor Mr Farrington I wanted it clarified If it's any where from 6 to 12" it seems kind of thick for a pick up truck Mr Schneider Currently there is a flooring which is about 12 inches thick and this is over the existing furnace room but there would be no need for putting a 12" floor in I don't have those specifications Actually, I imagine it's about 5 or 6" Mrs Semonian Also, I meant to mention the driveway It was bad enough before but now it's going to be closer to East Street which is really going to be terrible Especially if they're going to put a traffic light there They are going to be right on top of the traffic light Arturo J Gutierrez, 567 Lowell St (the man who came to the office just before closing time and asked to see the plans which I had taken to the meeting room I escorted him up to the 2nd floor and into the room, which had been locked, to show him the plans) He said If the floor is more than 6" it would take up to 1000 lbs per sq ft of soil That's quite heavy Chairman You are merely stating information? You are merely stating infor- mation, you are not speaking for or against? Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -8 Mr Gutierrez I'm also speaking against, because that's too heavy Chairman The gentleman in the yellow shirt Charles Cole, Pct 3 I want to speak in favor I feel that here is a project ba k to the same use it was before For many years it hasn't changed It'll beibetter looking building than it was before, up to date, and the use will be the same I can t understand the opposition whatsoever Someone She didn't give her name but began to talk as follows I object I have lived in Lexington a long time, except for a short time when I moved out of town I didn't even know Peterson's existed I've gone done there and didn't even notice it until a couple of months after I moved in and I took a walk down there and it's a very lovely site to just look inside and see the carnations It's not, well, it's in keeping with the neighborhood just the way it is It is very nice to look into a green house I'd rather look at a greenhouse instead of the funny looking building they are going to put up, another Howard Johnson's, or what ever else it looks like and I also feel that as Lexington Gardens has grown also this building will produce more and more traffic for transporting plants out and as Mr Schneider said they would be increasing their business perhaps taking it elsewheleand they'll be increasing the traffic And the traffic survey was pretty bad but it 's worse at other times I know a lot of people come by in the morning It's quiet now because people have gone on vacation We have to put up with plants , we have to put up with Burlington Mall and I understand there's going to be another Mall I don't know the plans, but I've tried to check into it We're being pushed by Burlington Now Lexington has a new Mobil Station with a Mobil sign We have a few other business and it's rolling up the street to Lord knows where We have a lot of open areas in Lexington We have no green areas except private land around here I don't see that anything about this building is in keeping with the area Chairman Pardon me, did we get your name? Gloria Silva (responsible for all the verbage above) Louis Levine, Attorney representing Dr & Mrs Fraser I'd like Someone and the whole group, the whole group You represent the whole group Mr Levine I'd like to submit this letter now There are copies for the Board I'll try to keep my comments short I'll just try to address those legal points which I feel are pertinent to this case First of all I was here on June 20th and at that time I also spoke out on behalf of residents in this area against this petition and when this was re-published and being here tonight I'm sort of in a quandry to say the least Chapter 40A, Section 20 prevents a re-peti- tion of either a special permit or a variance Chairman Time out The Town of Lexington has not accepted the particular amendment of that law under which a re-petition would be presented therefore this re-petition is legal Mr Levine With the Board's permission The Town of Lexington in it's pre- amble accepts Chapter 40A and all the provisions 1 through 22 inclusive (Secretary's note All Board of Appeals' forms say sections 13-19 Lexington zon- ing by-law refers to sections 1-22 - see pg 1 under section 10 ) No evidence has been produced to the effect that the town has accepted section 20 of Chapter 40A Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 )cont ) -9 Chairman Well, without arguing further, I have the opinion of the Town Counsel, our Town Counsel Mr Levine Well, I can only say Chairman Ybu're entitled to your opinion Mr Levine For the moment I must have deference to the Board but I must point out that there is a difference of opinion on the ruling as to waiting 2 years before a petition can be entertained again You are aware, if you have taken it to Town Counsel We still have a difference of opinion When I appeared on the 20th my basic criticisms for this particular project was the vagueness of the petition and realized it had been prepared not by the Board of Appeals but by the petitioner I'm here again tonight and I read the petition as it appears and, again, except for Mr Schneider's statement in which he indicates that it comes under Section 25 31, special permit for commercial greenhouses, the petition again, vaguely, purposely or unpurposely, forgot to mention why and exactly what we were petitioning for Because of that in my letter I also cover variances Mr Schneider, I assume, is not looking for a variance I beg the Board not to take those comments as pertaining to my remarks tonight and I will just speak briefly about 25 31 , which covers commercial greenhouses and the Town Meeting Member, excuse me for forgetting his name, spoke about the comment that this was not a commercial greenhouse and the Town of Lexington By-Laws unfortunately don't define just what a greenhouse is I think his com- ments sum up mine The area of this building is divided into 4 fairly equal segments, garage, boiler room, potting area, storage area This is not my feeling of what a commercial greenhouse is, that it goes back to being a glass structure that you grow things in I feel it's a warehouse area It was not the intent to use it for a commercial use One comment was that it was the same type of use and, therefore, there shouldn't be any criticism Also, Mr Schneider, in answering questions, and I will assume the size of the building and the replacements are correct, for the time being, and that you will be limiting or reducing the area Well, I think the courts consistently, time and time again have shown that use is not just the particular use of the building or the area of the building You can expand the use by making it more efficient even if you're reducing the area being used, but increase the use in such a way that it 's a different use An example would be a 100 by 10 ft building added to a 40 by 100 ft building is clearly increasing the build- ing The use, in terms of what it's being used for, it's being used obviously for some type of greenhouse purposes, the different use clearly is increasing the use of the building Mr Schneider in his remarks indicate that the General Laws give the Board some right to grant this permit 4815 allows a special permit or variance and 48 5 speaks about agricultural uses It's clearly not a mandate to the Board Iagree that the Town of Lexington has provisions for special permits A special permit though has dimensional requirements listed in Section 27 of the by-law and one criteria of the dimensional requirements in Section 27 which all special permits have to meet, although special permits can be granted for a particular use, is an 85% open area requirement and under no stretch of the imagination can you say that in this building there will be an 85% open area To sum up this point, although the Board in their discretion may grant a special permit for this special greenhouse, it would be incumbant on the Board to go all the way to all the variances from the special permit criteria of 85% open area you'reabregating that section of the by-law that says the special permits shall meet other certain criteria, although the Board may issue a special permit Simply put, a special permit, is not a blanket check J,exington !,ardens. Tnc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -10 Simply put, a special permit, is not a blanket check, as I said My last point is back to the legal notice I came here again tonight I didn't know why Lexington Gardens was petitioning for a special permit but the criteria in your Lexington By-Law states that the public welfare will be served, basic- ally, and that the status of the neighborhood would not be impaired I think it's incumbant on the Board to see that the petitioner brings reason for that criteria I haven't seen reasons how the public welfare will be served nor how the status of the neighborhood will not be impaired Therefore, at this time, I would like to finish by saying that I don't feel that the Board can issue a special permit for this particular petition and if it's not a commer- cial greenhouse and if they issue a special permit it would require a variance implement saying it's not a commercial greenhouse And I don't think the Board has the jurisdiction tonight to issue the permit because of the 2 year period required and other criteria of 40A I doubt that the Planning Board or the Selectmen have voted all amendments except for one abstention I think it should be again reviewed for reconsideration by the Board It's a disservice to the community He continued about the traffic situation on Lowell Street It seems to me that Saturday would be the busiest day of the week and it was left out of the survey Chairman Anyone else want to speak? (Mrs Semonian raised her hand) Second time around? Go ahead Mrs Semonian I just want to say that I think this is setting a precedent There are no other agricultural projects in town with gardens, greenhouses or anything else, that are allowed this type of structure to be built so close to the street You can enumerate any number of them and they all have this type of structure either beside or behind the greenhouses where this type of struc- ture belongs Chairman Anyone else? Mrs Meades 523 Lowell Street I don't want to talk about the legal problems I signed a list Chairman Do we have that list? Who has the petition for names against? Mrs Meades Dr Fraser does Dr Fraser There are a number of people in the neighborhood who signed and willing to fight on this Chairman Do you have it? Dr Fraser Yes, but not here Chairman Continue Mrs Meades I don't want to belabor the point I don't even want to bring up the traffic problem One thing I do want to say that I think is in the hearts of everyone We have all invested and you have yourselves, money and time and love and effort in our houses to make them look as good as we can We know there are several areas along Lowell Street where there are large parcels of land that's unused at the moment I believe that we all also know Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -11 that some of the owners of this land would like very much to sell it to a commercial enterprise and turn it over into a big profit and I think that the rest of us would rather not see that Lexington Gardens would come in and obtain a special permit or variance to put in a greenhouse in this one loca- tion I see nothing to prevent them from acquiring the other 7 or 8 acres here along Lowell Street and building more buildings of the same type, since they have already established a precedent to do this if it's approved by the Board and we'll find ourselves in the midst of an agricultural development where we, who have a few houses in between, well, how can we impede the flow of their progress I hate to see that we are now the outsiders in the middle of a commercial enterprise instead of the other way around This would be the main thought, the long range idea of the corporation I know they are only applying for one building now It seems to me that behind all of this, that just doesn't come out in the single building and its one use I think there's more to it then that and it's really bothering all of us What will it look like many years from now, when we're all still living there? There are a lot of other greenhouses further down the street It would be very good for Lexington Gardens to try to go after all of those Chairman Well, I think in answer to that, we are only concerned with what Lexington Gardens has applied for I would say that if they want to get other permits they can What they may or may not apply for in the future, of course, I don't know If they want to get other permits to do other things, they are going to have to come before us and there would be other hearings Therefore the granting of this one permit does not necessarily guarantee that anything or nothing else is going to happen Mrs Meades It certainly makes the road easier in the future It seems to be easier to grant it the second time Chairman Each petition stands on its own two legs Next question Mrs Ruth Codier, 564 Lowell Street I wonder if anybody has considered the nature of the windows on that building It was my understanding that these are fake, that they weren't actually cut through windows Can you tell me about that? If these are fake windows I want to protest the whole thing but I want to protest particularly a fake appearance Mr Schneider They'll be real windows Mrs Codier Are you sure? Mr Schneider Yes Dr Fraser Are they fixed windows? Mr Schneider Well first of all they are not in existence Dr Fraser Well, if they are built will they be fixed windows? Mr Schneider No, they wouldn't be fixed windows They'll be movable windows Mr Weiss I would like to address in particular some remarks which displeased me very much You said that each petition stands on its own two legs That's Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -12 exactly what I'm really concerned about here We've seen the results of past actions of the Board of Appeals and I don't mean you any slight by that because the Board does the best it can But we see things happening piecemeal and that is the problem and that's what I think concerns the people in the neighborhood I certainly wouldn't presume to go into all the details which the Board can do but I would like to offer some very practical suggestions If the Board should see fit to grant this petition in general, I suggest that the Board might ex- plicitly exclude (1) all uses which are not explicitly permitted and specify that there should be an exclusion of warehousing, trans-shipment, trucking and increased traffic or somehow specify any additional traffic I think this is the only kind of permit which would prevent turning a small, innocent looking, roadside stand establishment into a major industrial enterprise such as we have seen very specifically happen in other parts of town and I can give you a very good example on Woburn Street where we have a very big trucking enterprise which was something that came in on a single permit for a roadside stand At the time that it came in, I protested about the increased traffic and everybody said no, no, no but on several occasions many many cars were backed up by the tractor trailers which would back into the place and pulled out of the place and if you go there now you'll find there's a major trucking operation taking place This is the thing that bothers me Mrs Semonian Who is going to play policeman? Chairman Well, anything we grant is policed by the Building Inspector and his assistant This goes on all the time In other words, without giving you any names of who we are checking we get periodic reports on several of these permits where there has been some question about their activities I can assure you, we do Mrs Semonian Just a clarification Chairman A third time? Mrs Semonian This is just a clarification, because the last time we were here they said they were having solid walls because they couldn't have the light in with this potting soil Now he says they are going to have all these windows How can they do this, if they must have the dark building? It just doesn't sound right to me Chairman I guess Mr Schneider will have to answer that one, I can't Mr Schneider There wasn't any question about darkness of the building In the furnace room, for example, it won't be dark, but there will be, because of the fire code, a solid wall which we must have We must have that separate room Mrs Semonian Is this solid wall behind the windows? Mr Schneider The wall would run this way through this room This would be one room, see, and there would be a wall separating it from this room because we've got to abide by the building code Mrs Semonian Well, I don't know but last week they said they could have no light in there It had to be dark in order to do whatever they do to the soil Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -13 Mr Schneider I don't know who said that 111 Mrs Semonian You did Mr Schneider No I don't believe I said that it had to be dark Chairman Well, let's go on to another question Mr Levine I'd like to just point out one observation One Town Meeting Member, Mr Rubin (actually it was Mr Weiss) , suggested that certain restric- tions should be imposed, that if the Board in their wisdom decided to grant this permit, certain restrictions could be applicable Well, I'm usually on the other side I am usually representing the person who is petitioning and these types of restrictions, although the intent is noble, these particular types of restrictions, as in this particular petition here, as to traffic and explicitly to traffic, are almost impossible to police I think it's a little different when you limit the number of cars at a gas station or some- thing like that but to have a Building Inspector be responsible for an accur- ate count of the number of vehicles leaving, whether there are 4 or 12 in a day, would be virtually impossible Chairman Well, if I implied that kind of policing I was misunderstood All I was saying was that when we issue certain restrictions, and I wasn't talk- ing about this one, nor was I talking about traffic, I was talking about other conditions, for example, the type of merchandise someone could handle, the length of time which the lights could be on, the number of cars that can be parked in a parking area, these we can enforce The explicit restrictions as to traffic would be almost impossible Mr Levine I just wanted to point it out Chairman Yes, we know Dr Fraser May I ask what they are going to do about the driveways in there? Are they going to increase or decrease the hot top area around and in front of the building and in front of this place? Chairman Mr Schneider Mr Schneider There's no need to change what we have right now Naturally it will have to be repaired We plan to landscape as I explained, Dr Fraser We will landscape in front of that building This is an artist's view of it, but we will landscape it properly as we will landscape the back of the property and clean up the property in back I think it will be much more acceptable to the abutters Mr Alibrandi, 565 Lowell Street I have lived on Lowell St some 23 years and I can recall when the first automobile didn't come through there until 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning and we would possibly have 20 or 30 automobiles a day It was through some bad planning or possibly laxity in the past years that it has been allowed to become a thoroughfare And now the question is and, I think our major consideration, whether we will allow this to perpetuate by the introduction of a new commercial building in the area and this is, Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -14 111 this is incidently a commercial building It is not an addition or an alter- ation to an existing building This is the construction of a brand new building and what we are doing here is introducing a commercial building into a residential area This I think is one of the major considerations This by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a residential building It's a facade type building which represents a (fink?) corporation It is definitely a commercial operation and it is being introduced into a residen- tial area Jeanne Ward I would like to see a count of the people against (The chairman requested those in favor to signify by the raising of hands ) 3 people registered in favor of this petition 30 people registered in opposition to this petition Chairman Two letters have been received in opposition The chairman read both letters They follow July 31, 1972 111 Gentlemen I am bitterly opposed to construction of new buildings at 544 Lowell Street, Lexington It is a residential area and we would like it to remain so There are too many cars and trucks travelling the Middle- sex Turnpike at the present time Sincerely, /s/ D Gallucci 529 Lowell Street July 25, 1972 Dear Mr Nickerson As residents of 524 Lowell Street we strongly oppose the new variance proposed by Lexington Gardens at 546 Lowell Street, Lexington This is a residential area and we feel that the proposed change will begin turning this neighborhood into a commercial area The traffic situation on Lowell Street is unbearable as it is, and we feel that any further development in this area would be detrimental to the neighborhood Very truly yours, /s/ Harold G Worthington /s/ Geraldine E Worthington (524 Lowell Street) Lexington Gardens, Inc Hearing 8/1/72 (cont ) -15 Chairman And as you know, we have a petition submitted in favor and signed by 31 people Mr Fraser Are those authenticated signatures of people in town? Someone What are their addresses? Chairman Well, without reading all 31 addresses, we have some Lowell streets and some Woburn streets and some other streets Chairman Mr Schneider Mr Schneider I'd like to clear up, if I might, three misconceptions One gentleman mentioned that the garaging was brand new and substantially differ- ent from the present use of the building, which is incorrect The present building has three garages and they happen to be in the area that abuts the nearest residents We propose just one garage, garage and space Secondly, one lady that said it was very nice to walk by and see the flowers , well this building will not obscure all the greenhouses There'll still be three greenhouses, having poinsettias in the Winter time and Easter Lilies in the Spring and geraniums in the Summer time And the comment was made that we would be expanding the use of the building and I'd like to take exception to this because we are eliminating the showroom, we are eliminating an office and we are using the building as it presently is being used Also, the comment that the building is brand new and completely separate and as a brand new etc , well this is likewise incorrect It is an addition to an existing building because it'll be tied into the existing building because it'll be tied into the building in the back, part of which is a garage and work area, which will continue It'll be a work area in the back there Mr Wadsworth You won't be tearing down one? Mr Schneider We'll have to demolish part of one, yes Mrs Morey It's a replacement Mr Schneider It's an addition and a replacement Chairman Well, if there are no further comments, I'll declare this Mr Wadsworth Did the Planning Board answer? Chairman I don't think we have anything from the Planning Board Eric (Eric Clarke, Planning Board member) , did the Planning Board comment? Eric Clarke There's no comment Chairman No, I didn't think so I'll declare this hearing completed and we will notify you Mr Schneider Thank you very much The hearing closed at 10 02 p m Evelyn F Cole Clerk 8/1/72 BOARD OF APPEALS DELIBERATION ON THE PETITIONS OF Page 1 LEXINGTON INTERFAITH CORPORATION HEARING and on III LEXINGTON GARDENS, INC HEARING (re 544 Lowell Street) At 10 05 p m on August 1, 1972 Board members began their discussion on the last two hearings of the evening named above Mr Wadsworth had indicated earlier that he did not wish to arrive at a conclusion on items 5 and 6, these two, this evening Other members also expressed that desire Chairman We have every right, if we wish to meet one week from tonight and deliberate at length and you have another alternative You can indicate to me which way you want these written up and I will then take a day and write them up with the assistance of the Town Counsel, I assure you Mr Cataldo I think Mr Wadsworth is right I'd like to review the Planning Board report I'd like to read it once again Chairman There's agood deal of information herepro and con thinkthese n I are important decisions and I certainly don't think we ought to proceed too hastily I think it's essential that this group be present next Tuesday night We can't have any changes, since you've heard part of it You've got 11 I to follow through now Howard, canou make y it? Answer Yes George? Answer Yes Ruth? Answer Yes Robert? Answer Yes Chairman Alright, is that your will and pleasure? Mrs Morey If you want to discuss anything for a few minutes, would you wish to do that or do you think we should just close it? Mr Wadsworth Is there any possibility that Town Counsel could be here next Tuesday? Chairman Not next Tuesday I think in all fairness to him his time is worth something, I think it's up to this Board to have something very definite, some very definite ideas almost to the point of being ready to write what you want to write and then he willguide you, because phaseology is going to be important here Mr Wadsworth Yes Well, I've looked over a bunch of the court decisions that they presented here and it seems to me that it was a little bit difficult to understand exactly what they meant and where this petition we have comes into the picture It wasn't at all clear They didn't seem consistent Chairman On which one? (Interfaith or Gardens?) DELIBERATIONS 8/1/72 -2 Mrs Morey On Interfaith IllChairman Well, the law provides that the Board of Appeals can act on this because it involves variances Prof. Mr Wadsworth I understand that Mr Cataldo What George is saying is that they have sited some cases and it has been brought out here tonight that this case will be appealed if it is denied Therefore, he would like an explanation of the relationship with the cases that have been appealed with this one here Prof Wadsworth That's right The decisions didn't seem to be consistent but being a non-lawyer I didn't see the distinction Sometimes the Board was upheld and sometimes it wasn't Mr Cataldo We have forty days to make a decision Prof Wadsworth Oh, Yes Chairman I don't think any lawyer can guarantee which way a decision might be made You could win one today and lose another one like it tomorrow It would be unfair to Don to get him into a discussion that might last 2 or 3 hours I think we have to come down to some pretty hard decisions and then get his opinion Prof. ' Mr Wadsworth You do have to realize that they say they'll take this to the state Chairman Well, this is the route almost without exception that every one of these requests have taken Prof Wadsworth Also the group who are opposed have a right Mr Cataldo I don't think we should begin to consider the threat of a suit Mrs Morey We just have to give an honest opinion of what our judgment is Chairman We'll decide the case on its merits All (using much the same words agreed) Chairman I think we should meet a week from tonight and have our discussion and decide what we want to do and then I would attempt to write something up depending on which way you want to go and then werlsit down with Don (Legro) and that's when you ask your questions, because if you vote one way your questions are of one type and if you vote the other way they'll be of another type Prof Wadsworth Not mine Mine are the same either way Mrs Morey Can we settle it tonight? Chairman So what's your will and pleasure? DELIBERATIONS 8/1/72 _3 Mr Cataldo I think that George should have, or be allowed, his request Chairman What's his request? Mr Cataldo Meet in another week Mrs Morey We all do Chairman We'll meet one week from tonight at 7 30 in this room and discuss these two cases Correct? Mrs Morey You don't think we could finish Pepperidge (Lexington Gardens) tonight? Chairman George doesn't want to Do you want to, George? Prof Wadsworth Well, I don't care Mrs Morey It is 20 minutes of, well quarter of eleven Secretary May I ask a question? What does this mean as far as notifying the proper authorities? Chairman We've had the hearing We are just delaying the decision We have the right by law to delay the decision Mr Cataldo I think to cover this there should be a notice put in the Town Clerk's office Chairman I think you should post a notice because it's an open meeting and anybody can come Mrs Morey But, can the public talk? Chairman No discussion from the floor I'll bring my gavel Well, just for the record, George would you make that in the form of a motion that we'll meet one week from tonight Prof Wadsworth Okay, I'll move that we meet one week from tonight here at 7 30 p m Chairman At which time we will discuss and presumably decide the cases of Interfaith and Lexington Gardens Mr Cataldo seconded the motion and all were in favor The meeting adjourned at 10 58 p m (2 minutes before 11 p m ) ' Evelyn F Cole Clerk