Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-01-30r 1 1 BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS January 30, 1973 At 7:20 p.m. regular board members, Nickerson, Sheldon, Wadsworth and Mrs. Morey, and associate member Brodhead met in public session in the Sel- ectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman of the Town Report Committee, Louis A. Zehner, was present with Guy D. Busa, policeman and photographer, who took a picture of the Board. 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 advertised in the Lexington Minute -man: Alfred Busa Trustee - variance of the foundation and chimney at 27 Columbus instead of the required 10 ft. zoning by-law to maintain the existing Street with a side yard of 9.3 ft. Norman L. Paul - renewal of the special permit granted under section 25.81 of the zoning by-law to continue to use a part of my residence at 26 Bar- berry Road as a part-time office for the practice of medicine. My perman- ent office is, and will be, at 51 Brattle Street, Cambridge. My practice is limited to family psychiatry. I request permission, specifically, to use this part-time office for a multiple family group meeting on Thursday nights between 7:30 and 10:00 p.m. If the meeting does not occur on Thurs- day night, there may be a substitute meeting on another week night. There may be a maximum of 25 people, representing up to 12 families. With car pooling arrangements the number of cars should be no more than 6. This part-time office will also be used for emergency meetings with individual families, which should average no more than once a month. No such meetings with individual families have taken place since January 25, 1972. Other professionals such as clergymen, physicians and teachers come to observe and learn at these meetings. In which case there may be an additional 4 cars which have been parked in the driveways of local residents with their consent. My drive is paved and can accommodate 7 cars. John and Rosina Buss - permission to continue operation of a roadside stand on the premises at 52 Lowell Street, Lexington. William E. Maloney - permission for the applicant, his lessee or nominee, under the provisions of the zoning by-laws to erect and operate commercial greenhouses on the property located at 661 Lowell Street and in connection therewith for permission to operate a nursery under the provisions of the zoning by-laws. The applicant has an option to purchase the premises. Curve Trust - variance from the zoning by-law to allow the continuance of McGee's Flooring, now named Volunteer Floor and Paint Covering Inc., rear first floor, and to continue to use additional office space for rental pur- poses within the main building at 703-705 Massachusetts Avenue and for per- mission to change the lettering on the existing sign on the front of the building from "McGee Flooring" to "B. Tillinghast Real Estate", who is leas- ing a real estate office on the first floor front, and for permission to change the lettering on the existing sign on the side to "Balston Industrial Ltd.", who will lease space on the first floor, side. Decisions made in open public session follow: -2 Alfred Busa Trustee - granted unanimously subject to the condition that if any provisions of the Hatch Act apply to this area the petitioner shall subscribe to same. Norman L. Paul, M.D. - granted unanimously for 5 years to January 30, 1978. John and Rosins, Buss - granted unanimously for 2 years to January 30, 1975 subject to the following conditions: 1. Sale of products shall be in conformity with sec. 25.33 of the by-law. 2. This permit shall expire on January 30, 1975. 3. Only one sign shall be used and that on the front of the building. The sign shall be no longer than 20 ft. and no higher than 2 ft., containing the words "Sun Valley Farms." 4. No sign shall be erected on Lowell Street. 5. The stand shall be operated from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. six days a week, and from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. 6. The lights on the parking area shall be shielded so that they do not shine at neighboring houses. 7. Sufficient parking space will be available for 20 cars. 8. The premises must be kept in a neat and orderly condition and no empty boxes, barrels or similar material stored outside the building. 9. Access to the premises shall be from Lowell Street and no traffic shall be routed over Lillian Road. 10. No increase in the candlepower of the lights shall be allowed. 11. No soft drink vending machine shall be exposed on the outside of the building. William E. Malone - denied by a vote of 4 to 1. Curve Trust (Robert 0. Tillinghast) - This was first denied 3 to 2, then re- considered, and finally the vote granted the petition unanimously with Town Counsel's approval of the wording. The decision was reached only after con- siderable debate. The permit was NOT filed with the Town Clerk at this time. The Board will discuss this even further at their next hearing on Feb. 20. Following these hearings and decisions the final decision in regard to the Marion H. Snow petition for a variance of the zoning by-law to subdivide property was discussed at length and it was agreed that the permit which had been granted should be filed with the Town Clerk. (see minutes of 1/2/73) All pertinent material is on file under the name of each petitioner in the Board of Appeals' office. Original permits and denials are filed with the Town Clerk. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. after the Board re-elected unanimously Donald E. Nickerson, chairman, and George C. Sheldon, vice chairman, members having been notified by mail of this reorganization annual meeting. o$4 / x v -W Evelyn F. Cole U H og +o+ a .d to W O 0 0 W O Clerk 3 > O ai G • O M U IL O M A }" ..d •Cd N SJ FA Cd Cd H 4 O ,0 0 -H O 0 r 3 9"4 0 $4 O 0 $4 O 0 W O a N 0 6 N W W H S WILLIAM E. MALONEY HEARING Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building Tuesday, January 30, 1973 This hearing was the fourth on the agenda for the evening. Others were: Alfred Busa Tr., Norman L. Paul, John & Rosina Busa•and Curve 'Trust. Board of Appeals' members acting on this petition were: Chairman Donald E. Nickerson; regular members, George C. Sheldon, George P. Wadsworth and Ruth Morey; and associate member Woodruff M. Brodhead. ,A large audience crowded the selectmen's meeting room. The chairman read the notice as follows: January 11 and 18, 1973 The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the petition of WILLIAM E. MALONEY for permission for the applicant, his lessee or nominee, under the provisions of the zoning by-laws to erect and operate commercial greenhouses on the property located at 661 LOWELL STREET and in connection therewith for permission to operate a nur- sery under the provisions of the zoning by-laws.The applicant has an option to purchase the premises. 'The hearing will be held TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1973, 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. Dailey you are represent- ing the petitioner. You have presented us with a drawing showing the 5.1 acres of land and the greenhouses, sales area, toilets, storage building and parking areas, Mr. Dailey, you have the floor. (William J. Dailey, Jr.) `Mr. Dailey: There is still another copy of the plot plan which may be help- ful to the Board. Chairman: You are presenting us with another plot plan of the area? Mr. Dailey: The plot plan which you have before you represents the ultimate that might ever be erected on the land. It consists of fivegreenhouses, a sales area, rest rooms, storage buildings and parking areas. The total area encompasses approximately 5.1 acres, fronts on Lowell Street, has a 350 foot frontage on Lowell Street and approximately 17 foot frontage on North Street plus 7 feet more which extends into the town of Burlington and which we don't show on the plans, so there's a little better than 24 feet in all facing out on North Street. j Mr. Nickerson: 7n other words you own this triangle? Mr. Dailey: as, limited to land in Lexington. What we propose, shown on the map, is -e ^�_aenhouses. In front would be a sales area, rest rooms, storage buil=^_3sand parking areas. At the rear of the building would be a service are_ which would be used for keeping the materials for servicing 1 William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -2 the greenhouse. There would be two exits or entrances from Lowell Street and we have shown them to be approximately 25 feet wide each. The exit on to North Street would be approximately 24 feet. The operation that we are sug- gesting would probably not commence before 3 years and we would ask that we have 3 years to begin construction. It's expected that that would be a true time table if the Board would allow us that time. The hours of operation would be 7 days a week, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. or to dusk. There would be no lighting at night except for security or safety, that is while the greenhouses are open. The area would be fenced and we would expect to adhere to any conditions that the Board might propose. We have requested and have had prepared a traffic survey and I have copies for the members of the Board. I know that one of the questions is that of the volume of traffic on Lowell Street. The street, as it is presently laid out, under maximum ideal conditions, will carry 1700 vehicles per hour. Contained in the traffic survey is a count which was taken December 11, on a Tuesday, on a fair day, of the traffiq from Lowell and East Streets. The hours were from 9:30 to 3:30 when the bulk of the activity would take place. The roadway never carried in excess of 1200 vehicles per hour. Between; some other hours it carried 900 to 1000 vehicles but it never exceeded 1200. During the hours of 4:30 and 5:30 it carried a maximum number of cars, some- where around 1600. We would expect that there would be very little traffic from the operation during this time. As I stated last time, the reason we want to have these hours is that we want to .be competitive. We want to sell some items under section 24.5 of the zoning by-law and again the reason is that these items are usually purchased by people who are there for some other ...reason. They do not attract customers. They purchase these items in connec- tion with the plants they have come in for. I think that covers the presentation I have, Mr. Chairman. I do have a survey by a real estate expert.The survey is similar to the one before. We asked him (Robert L. Lyon) to reconsider his evaluation and he has done so and he has come to the same conclusions. I submit his letter: "As requested, I have reviewed my site analysis dated Dec. 6, 1972 relative to the land at 661 Lowell Street and have reviewed the petition of William E. Maloney to erect and operate commercial greenhouses and a nursery on the site; and the conclusions contained in my previous report remain un- changed." The certificate of valuation by W. H. Lyon Realters, Inc. reads: 5.1 Acres of land with 350 feet of frontage on the easterly side of Lowell Street, Lexington, Mass. being Plan #6331 by Albert A. Miller & Wilbur C. Nylander, dated May 22, 1972: to determine whether or not the status of the neighborhood will be impaired if a special permit were granted to use the land for a nursery; and is of the opinion that such a use will improve the status of the neighborhood." We are aware of the Planning Board's letter and that they have indicated that they would have no objection to wholesale greenhouses. Unfortunately, we_._, don't think that wholesale greenhouses would sell at the quantity which would , meet with success. We feel we need the retail items, which would go with the greenhouses and the nursery operation. Mr. Nickerson: t have one or two questions and, as usual, I dash in first and the other members mo uD afterward. I inferred somewhere along this line P 1 g that there was going to be ingress from North Street period. Am I wrong? Mr. Dailey: It could be set up any way that the Board desired or if it were I William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -3 left up to the Town Engineer to lay this out, we would certainly meet any stipulation that the Town Engineer or that you might make. Mr. Nickerson:,It would be a one way thing and in place of the two, entrances and exit, there would be one exit. Mr. Dailey: That would certainly be acceptable if that were the Board's desire. Mr. Nickerson: So this one here would be crossed off. It would half the cars going in and out on Lowell Street. - Mx. Dailey: It would half the activity certainly. Yes. Dr. Wadsworth: I don't understand that. (There was some discussion between Board members.) Mr, Nickerson: There will have to be stop lights on Lowell Street pretty soon or somebody rill be murdered. Mr. Dailey: I think you will note that in the survey a traffic light is considered within the next 12 months at Lowell and East Street intersection and also for the Adams and Lowell Street intersection in Burlington. 1 (There was considerable discussion and debate about the possibility of traffic signals in these areas.) Mr. Nickerson: A light at either one, particularly at Adams and Lowell Street would give a pause to the traffic which makes it so dangerous now at early morning and late night hours. Is this an official outfit that made the survey? Mr. Dailey: Alfred D. Laing is a member of the Planning Board in Burlington and the traffic engineer of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, District 4 office on Appleton Street in their Arlington headquarters. Dr. Wadsworth asked for some clarifications of the figures in the survey and Mr. Dailey made explanations. Mr. Nickerson: Do Board members have any more questions? (He asked each one.) Mrs. Morey: I didn't "sit" on the previous hearing last December 12. Why are you asking for a 3 year delay in building? Mr. Dailey: For sufficient time to formulate plans, to get ready and get go- ing. It will zn �lve substantial planning. We want time to allow for planning. It could be soo7.er. If anyone wanted an honest opinion it probably wouldn't start for at leas_ a couple of years. We are asking for 3. If you said we had to begin = -ear, we'd probably accept that. Many times people have been critici_ they ask for 1 greenhouse and then come in later for :ore. This 4-S a _ _al plan for what could go here and we would certainly William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -4 Mrs. Morey: Within 3 years there should be some activity on route 3? I've heard rumors. They own the 4th corner of the junction of Adams and Middlesex Turnpike. Mr. Dailey: Who knows? Mr. Nickerson: I've heard rumors on route 2. We can't answer that one. Mr. Nickerson: 2 there any-one who wishes to speak in favor? NO3ODY SPOKE IN FAVOR. Mr. Nickerson: Would anybody like to speak 'in opposition? Now, you know the ground rules, people. We want to listen to'you all. We don't want to listen to you for more than 5 minutes each, if you please. If you have repetitive observations say so and just register yourself in. opposition. IN OPPOSITION: Antonio Kirouac, 564 Lowell Street: We, Antonio and Ruth Kirouac, who is my -wife, oppose the petition and we would like to submit this petition signed by more than-168 residents who are also opposed to another greenhouse going up in this area. We oppose the petition of William Maloney for the construction and operation of greenhouses and a nursery at 661 Lowell Street for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. We feel that the resulting increased commercialization of the neighbor- hood would be significantly detrimental to the neighborhood and 2. We feel the increased traffic would affect the safety of the nearby resi- dents on a street which already has too much traffic and 3. We feel residents of other streets feeding into Lowell Street would suffer from the increased traffic and 4. We feel the immediate residents will find the value of their property_ would depreciate if further business is allowed in this area. 5. We believe the board of appeals should uphold its decision of a month ago. He went on to explain who the signers were. He continued; We hope the inter- ests of these residents will be recognized. Mr. Kirouac recuested permission to look at the plan. i Chairman: Youcantake it (the plan) or look at it here. Which would you, 4 rather do? Not out of the room, mucIn laughter........ Mr. Kirouac came forward for the plan Chairman: Does s-.zine else have anything different to say in opposition who Hasa t _igned the petition? Bernice Weiss, 462 Lowell Street: I have a letter I'd like to read. It's written by my husband who can't be present tonight. , William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -g Chairman: You are Mrs. Weiss?, Your husband is Ephraim? Mrs. Weiss: Yes. Concerning the petition of William Maloney for permis- sion -to construct commercial greenhouses in a residential area on Lowell Street, it is my understanding that this petition is substantially the same as a previous petition which was rejected by the Board of Appeals not too long ago. This, in itself, raises a question regarding the application. It is my firm contention that this petition should be unqualifiedly rejected outright. The petitioner is attempting to commercialize a distinctly residential area. The proximity to a commercial development in the neighboring town is not a.good reason for granting the permit. If this were granted, then everyone living on Lowell Street could claim similar hardship and thereby obviously cancel the intent of our zoning regulations. Similarly, if this permit were granted, then the next neigh- bor should similarly have a commercialization request granted, since then he would be adjacent to a commercial establishment and so on down the line. There are additional reasons for not granting the permit. The owner of the property is not a resident of the neighborhood and appears to have purchased the land primarily as a speculative venture. His interest is obviously in obtaining the greatest profit without regard for the conse- quences on the neighborhood. There is in reality no special hardship involved and, after all, the main purpose of requiring such permission is to resolve special problems involving hardships as a consequence of the zoning laws. It is reasonable to assume that the Board of Appeals should not be used as a means of maximizing personal profit at the expense of the neighborhood. The detrimental effects of such a commercial establishment upon the , rest of the neighborhood are obvious. Lowell Street, which until recently was a peaceful and little used side street, is now a busy thoroughfare. Traffic is inordinately heavy and the addition of new business in Lexington will only increase the problem. Also, commercialization tends to decrease the quality of residential life of all the neighbors both near and not -so - near. We have recently seen the detrimental effect of Season's Four on a large group of neighbors. Little consideration was given to the effect of that operation on the neighbors by either the owners or the operators and substantial resistance was offered even after intercession by the town. Such a problem is more easily prevented than remedied after the fact. In reality prevention IS the remedy. It is my hope that the Board of Appeals will keep faith with the intent of our zoning by -.laws and the interest of the community and deny the application. Chairman: Anyone else wish to speak in opposition? Jeanette Cochram, 062 Lowell Street: I have not signed the petition.. I strongly oppose fzr the second time the petition of William E. Maloney. Living directl- a_ross the street from the proposed sight has caused me great concern personally talked to all of my neighbors as well as 75% of those who __ and I found their opposition as strong as mine. All .William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (coantinued) _6 the immediate neighbors are near or over 40 years of age. Three of these homes are occupied by retired people. We all feel that the residential statis of this neighborhood should be retained so that we can look at homes not commercial enterprises: This is a neighborhood feeling, there- for I appeal to this Board to consider all of us and take all of us into consideration. My husband and I have worked hard for 9 years to arrive at a financial position to purchase our home only 17 months ago and we'll have to continue working hard just to retain it. The prime dignity of my neigh- bors and myself should not be given anything but top priority over any com- mercialization. Please dan't allow us to be the forgotten citizens of Lexington. William Frazer; 533 Lowell Street: I believe I have signed the petition. If I may I'd like to make a few comments. The gentleman says he wants a special permit under section 24.5 of the zoning by-law. Dr. Frazer Contin- ued that it would violate the intent of section 24.5 or even 25.3 of the by-law by impairing t -- status of the neighborhood, the public welfare and convenience would not be served, it is out of character of the residential =nature and character of the neighborhood and there would be an increase in traffic. Activity of vehicles entering and leaving the premises would create a hazard to the neighborhood in general. If they are going to have sales they are going to have cars. The noise through increased traffic in the early morning hours and late evening hours prevent residents from quiet eajoyment.of the neighborhood and their homes. The neighborhood in question has remained consistantly residential over the years and the injury caused to residents of the neighborhood would constitute a substantial derogation from the intent and purposes of the zoning by-laws within the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40t, Section 15 and section 12.2 of the Lexington zoning by-law. The introduction of new business activity to a residential neighborhood is commonly conceded to have a marked depreciating effect on the value of the neighboring property for residential use. Grant- ing a variance would disregard the main purpose of the by-law to preserve the property right of others. Mary Timmins, 658 Lowell Street: I have a question for the Board on the regality of this petition being brought up again. At the last hearing when this petition was turned down we were led to believe by the Board that if this were to be brought up again it would have to be taken to court. How can the same petition be brought before this Board again without going to court? Why does Mr. Maloney not have to go to court and we as residents of Lowell Street would have had to go to court had we lost at the initial hearing? Mr. Nickerson: Who jmade the observatic ? Mary Timmins; You did, Sir.. Mr. Nickerson I beg your pardon. I deny the fact that I made such a remark. You asked me before we had announced our decision. You asked us what we could do to set our decision aside and I said that if you attended you would have known that we denied the petition. No reference was made to hearing a -re- petition. finis petition has been submitted according to our judgmentunder new conditions. He stated that anew traffic count had been made, a new ingress has been confirmed or covered by the drawing. It's quite a differ - ant petition in our way of thinking. William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -7 Mary Timmins: May I make one statement? The Burlington Mall is at the end of our road. The traffic survey was taken in December. The traffic going, to the Mall is greater than it would be at any other time of the year. 'I think the traffic study is not a factual study. It was done during the Christmas season. (Discussion continued about the two different studies made for this same petition.) Mrs. Timmins insisted that the reasons have not changed. Traffic is bad. It's unsafe for children and it's changing the atmosphere of Lowell Street. Mrs..Kirouac: May I ask why the reading was taken from North Street to East Street instead of North Street to Adam Street? We have the bulk of the traffic right now. I counted 87 cars in 5 minutes on a very bad Sunday afternoon. B. A. McNulty, 537 Lowell Street: Did I understand you to say that the traffic count will be halved with the change? Mr. Nickerson: If there's only one ingress it will half the traffic on Lowell Street to this nursery because they would only come out on Lowell Street and go in on North Street. (There continued to be more debate on the subject of traffic on Lowell Street.) Sam Silverman, 18 Ingleside Road: Five minutes would probably be enough time for what I have to say because much of what I would have said has already been said. I don't see any compelling difference in what's being asked for here and what was asked for before on December 12. 1 looked at the plans last week and compared them. Egress and ingress doesn't change the traffic. The question concerns not just one small patch on Lowell Street, which is in a residential neighborhood. It is the acceleration of a commercialization of a neighborhood. So it's not just 5 acres. It's commercialization moving down Lowell Street to where we don't know where it will go. It's happening all over. You can see it in Somerville and Framingham. The issue is broader. Turning Mill Road and Ingleside Road are well aware of what can happen. There isn't much we can do about Burlington. There is something we can do in our own town. The Turning Mill Road people when I talked to them are having a hard time getting the cooperation of Burlington. If Lexington lets down its own people then there is no use in attempting to convince Burlington to safeguard this area. Business men can write off their expense of lawyers and plot plans. People on Lowell Street can't write off the cost as business expense. It costs money and these people would really like the support of the town in protecting their interests. There is no such thing as being half pregnant but there is a possibility of protecting the residential character of this part of Lexington despite Burlington's efforts. I read the Lyon appraisal. I do --'t believe we have to be like Burlington. I would hope this Board would gic=_ _fought to a buffer zone to protect the beautiful homes. We have no control -.er Burlington. Thank you for your courtesy. Chairman: T`_ _a - in the red dress. re 'ady in - = dress did not give her name, She stated that the petition was similar-_ tfe other of last December. She brought up the fact that there were pla-s =__ a Z00 car parking lot. She asked, "How do you blend that into a residen=_a_ zone?„ I William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) _g Mr. Nickerson: Have you reed the zoning by-law. The Planning Board some years ago over the opposition of the Board of Appeals wrote this permission under section 24.5, page 13, permitting such operations. I flatter our- selves, the Board of Appeals, that we forsaw that.passed this to legalize Milliken}but it's made others legal also. This has been perpetrated on the town and we have to administer it. The lady in red: Is there_ any way this can be changed? Mr. Nickerson: Yes. Go _o the Planning Board. They, can have an article in the town warrant. The-, can change what they have done. We didn't want this loaded on us. It =»__ld have to be done well in advance of town meeting. The Planning Board has realized this and have talked about remodeling the zoning by-law. Gloria J. Silva 500 Lo -well Street: Would a petition help us? We'd like to put in a new bathroom. We've talked about remodeling. We can't invest in new things if we have zoning changes in our neighborhood. There are a lot of acres of land near us that could be changed. I have called about the traffic on many occasions. We have a school on this street. I'm worried. Mr. Nickerson: You had better read the zoning by-law. We are compelled to hold hearings on these things. Lois W. Brown, Chairman of the Planning Board: I was going to inquire if you were going to read the Planning Board letter. In view of what's happened I think I'd prefer to read it myself. The Planning Board's name has been taken in vain. There are two points, first the letter. The Planning Board has reviewed the petition of William E. Maloney for a special permit to erect and operate commercial greenhouses on the property at 661 Lowell St. and in connection therewith to operate a nursery under the provisions of the zoning by-law. We stated in our letter of Dec. 11 in connection with the earlier hear- ings on this plan that: "This area is immediately adjacent to a rapidly growing and intensively used commercial district in Burlington. It is the policy of the Lexington Planning Board to preserve as far as possible the residential character of Lexington. Because of the strong pressures of a non-residential nature in the adjoining town, any new uses on this end of Lowell St. which are not completely residential should be strongly resisted." Commercial z eenhouses are included in Section 25,31 as an agricultural use allowed undar special permit in a residential zone. While this use is not completely residential, such a use would not tend to impair the status of the neig^_oorboc3 i limited to a wholesale business only, 1'4ere_0re the Planning Board recommends in favor of granting permission 'or c,.=ercial greenhouses under Section 25.31, but opposes the storage and sale —,-'er Section 24.5 of supplementary items in conjunction with the opera- William B. Maloney Hearing 1/30/73 (continued) 9 tion of a nursery. (end of letter) There has always been a difference of opinion about 24.5. It states that where the Board of Appeals determines that the character of the neighborhood would not be impaired, the storage and sale of some, or all of the following supplementary items in conjunction with the operation of a nursery may be permitted by Special Permit under subsection 12.2; plants grown elsewhere than on the premises, items intended to improve or preserve the life and health of plants, including without limitation etc. The foregoing list may be expanded, in the discretion of the Board of Appeals, to include other items related to plants, gardens or garden- ing, but shall not include power tools, other power equipment, furniture or items generally associated with the business of a hardware store rather than with the conduct of a nursery. Provided: that a nursery granted such a special per -mit shall conform to the dimensional controls in Section 27 as to lot area, frontage and yards and the maximum height of buildings for the district in which located and to the following additional requirements: It states the minimum lot area and also the -Board of Appeals shall impose and may from time to time review and revise requirements for adequate off-street parking, screening etc. Section 12.2 states as follows: Special Permits - To hear and decide applications for special permits for exceptions as provided in this By -Law, subject to any general or specific rules therein contained, and subject to appropriate conditions or safeguards imposed by the Board of Appeals. Such special permit may be granted when in the judgment of the Board of Appeals the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served thereby and where a requested permit will not tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. The Planning Board would be glad to discuss it with anyone any time. There has not been a recent conversation with the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. Mr. Nickerson: You weren't on the Board when George Wadsworth and I came in and talked to the Planning Board. Mrs. Brown: I was not aware, of that conversation. ;The points I would like to make are that although commercial greenhouses are allowed in residential zones with a special permit, it was the intent of the Planning Board and Town Meeting that the Board of Appeals use its discretion in granting such a special permit depending upon whether it found that the proposal would or would not tend to impair the neighborhood. Regarding the proposed egress and ingress, the second point is that traffic could get to the North St. entrance only from Lowell St. or from a residential Burlington neighborhood. .Barbara Barrows: =58 North Street: This proposal would back up to our property. In re==rence to the noise, to the traffic, to the storage and use of insecticides: aad to the wetness of portions of land, people living in the area have a-_ a to breathe clean air. Pheasants are being crowded out of a great resource which I would hate to see commercialized. It's not progress __-'ll kill us yet. 'Ir. Nickerson: The conservation commission has complete control of the Hatch William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -10 Act and moving of dirt. Thursday night they will show the wetland maps at the New Clarke Junior High School. (This was in reference to 2 wetland zoning articles for 1973 town meeting approval.) (Some discussion followed about the subject of wetlands.) Doris Sinclair, 590 Lowe17 Street: This is the fourth time that something to do with Lowell Street '7-s come before this committee. First we had a gas station, now we have :.--is. The rest of Lexington is getting their taxes from operations on Lowell Street. I am opposed to this petition. Harold Worthington, 534 L, -well Street: What will happen if a large con- glomerate gets hold of tis with large expansion plans? That's what worries me. He questioned the validity of the traffic survey. Mr. Nickerson: This is a nursery operation. They have said that it's a total plan. We should not get more than they have asked for in the petition. ;aiaat Watheu *� , 44 Maple Street: This request for commercial greenhouses is an augmentatca of the previous hearing. He made reference to similar operations on Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that there would be consider- able trucking. It would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The Planning 3oard has pointed out that it should be maintained as a residential neighborhood. 24.5 applies to nurseries but commercial greenhouses is something else. He stood opposed. Ruth Codier, 564- Lowell St.: I'm opposed. (She made no speech.) Jack Underwood, 3 Burroughs Road There are many people not on Lowell St. itself that are beginning to realize what is happening. BurroughsRoadand the whole of Burnham Farms area is in opposition, he stated. We have the right to try to get you to object to anything that might become a conglom- erate. There are rumors that Pepperage Farms could take over the property as part of a master plan. Carol A. Murphy, 522 Lowell Street: I'd like to be registered in opposition. Phyllis R. Silverman, 18 Ingleside Road: The Board should restrict business enterprises and take into consideration the people living in the area. You are obliged to take into consideration all the facts and the intent of the zoning by-law to restrict business enterprises in residential neighborhoods. We have the c. -ca to voiceouropinions. The Board has to act. It's at their discretion. They are not obliged to grant every request. Mrs. Barrows sD=se further on the right to breathe clean air. Mr. Kirouac bro_:zat up the car dealer in the neighborhood. People asked if t a^ could stay through the decision making. H=. Nic-,ersc�a We will make our decisions one by one. You may not make ;= c_--=ents. We always have visitors. You can stay and listen. William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -11 Dennis Speliotis, 22 Ingleside Road, brought up Season's Four as a reminder to the Board. He requested that the conservation commission be involved in any decision. The chairman declared the Hearing closed at 10:35 p.m. Jan L. Meades., 523 Lowell Street and Philip Fischer, 218 East :Street voiced opposition to the petition_ Notes: 171his hearing was scheduled for 7:45 p.m. It was the fourth of five hearings scheduled for this date. At 8:24 p.m. the chairman read the notice for this petition as it appeared in the Lexington Minute -man and etc..... The petitioner's hearing was over at 10:35 p.m. Many observers (approximatiy 30) remained throughout theevening to hear the discussion and deliberations of the Board as they made decisions on all the hearings. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. After deliberation on this hearing, a motion was made by Dr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mrs. Morey to deny the petition. The vote was 3 to 2. Since a motion must be ' to l or unanimous to carry, Mr. Sheldon made a motion to reconsider. Yr. Wadsworth seconded this motion. Mr. Nickerson deferred. The motion to reconsider carried Mr. Sheldon made a new motion to grant the petition. Mrs. Morey seconded the motion to grant the petition. The final_,vote was 1 to 4, Mr. Nickerson voting in favor. The petition was DENIED. Respectfully submitted, Evelyn F. Cole Clerk, Board of Appeals -- - - --------- WILLIAM E. MALONEY HEARING Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building ' Tuesday, January 30, 1973 This hearing was the fourth on the agenda for the evening. Others were: Alfred Busa Tr., Norman L. Paul, John & Rosina Busa and Curve Trust. Board of Appeals' members acting on this petition were: Chairman Donald E. Nickerson; regular members, George C. Sheldon, George P. Wadsworth and Ruth Morey; and associate member Woodruff M. Brodhead. A large audience crowded the selectmen's meeting room. The chairman read the notice as follows: January 11 and 18, 1973 The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the petition of WILLIAM E. MALONEY for permission for the applicant, his lessee or nominee, under the provisions of the zoning by-laws to erect and operate commercial greenhouses on the property located at 661 LOWELL STREET and in connection therewith for permission to operate a nur- sery under the provisions of the zoning by-laws. The applicant has an option to purchase the premises. The hearing will be held TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1973, 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. Dailey you are represent- ing the petitioner. You have presented us with a drawing showing the 5.1 acres of land and the greenhouses, sales area, toilets, storage building and parking areas. Mr. Dailey, you have the floor. (William J. Dailey, Jr.) Mr. Dailey: There is still another copy of the plot plan which may be help- ful to the Board. Chairman: You are presenting us with another plot plan of the area? Mr. Dailey: The plot plan which you have before you represents the ultimate that might ever be erected on the land. It consists of five greenhouses, a sales area, rest rooms, storage buildings and parking areas. The total area encompasses approximately 5.1 acres, fronts on Lowell Street, has a 350 foot frontage on Lowell Street and approximately 17 foot frontage on North Street plus 7 feet more which extends into the town of Burlington and which we don't show on the plans, so there's a little better than 24 feet in all facing out on North Street. Mr. Nickerson: In other words you own this triangle? Mr. Dailey: Yes, limited to land in Lexington. What we propose, shown on the map, is five greenhouses. In front would be a sales area, rest rooms, storage buildings and parking areas. At the rear of the building would be a service area which would be used for keeping the materials for servicing William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -2 the greenhouse. There would be two exits or entrances from Lowell Street and ' we have shown them to be approximately 25 feet wide each. The exit on to North Street would be approximately 24 feet. The operation that we are sug- gesting would probably not commence before 3 years and we would ask that we have 3 years to begin construction. It's expected that that would be a true time table if the Board would allow us that time. The hours of operation would be 7 days a week, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. or to dusk. There would be no lighting at night except for security or safety, that is while the greenhouses are open. The area would be fenced and we would expect to adhere to any conditions that the Board might propose. We have requested and have had prepared a traffic survey and I have copies for the members of the Board. I know that one of the questions is that of the volume of traffic on Lowell Street. The street, as it is presently laid out, under maximum ideal conditions, will carry 1700 vehicles per hour. Contained in the traffic survey is a count which was taken December 11, on a Tuesday, on a fair day, of the traffic from Lowell and East Streets. The hours were from 9:30 to 3:30 when the bulk of the activity would take place. The roadway never carried in excess of 1200 vehicles per hour. Between some other hours it carried 900 to 1000 vehicles but it never exceeded 1200. During the hours of 4:30 and 5:30 it carried a maximum number of cars, some- where around 1600. We would expect that there would be very little traffic from the operation during this time. As I stated last time, the reason we want to have these hours is that we want to be competitive. We want to sell some items under section 24.5 of the zoning by-law and again the reason is that these items are usually purchased by people who are there for some other reason. They do not attract customers. They purchase these items in connec- tion with the plants they have come in for. I think that covers the presentation I have, Mr. Chairman. I do have a survey by a real estate expert. The survey is similar to the one before. We asked him (Robert L. Lyon) to reconsider his evaluation and he has done so and he has come to the same conclusions. I submit his letter: "As requested, I have reviewed my site analysis dated Dec. 6, 1972 relative to the land at 661 Lowell Street and have reviewed the petition of William E. Maloney to erect and operate commercial greenhouses and a nursery on the site; and the conclusions contained in my previous report remain un- changed." The certificate of valuation by W. H. Lyon Realters, Inc. reads: 5.1 Acres of land with 350 feet of frontage on the easterly side of Lowell Street, Lexington, Mass. being Plan #6331 by Albert A. Miller & Wilbur C. Nylander, dated May 22, 1972: to determine whether or not the status of the neighborhood will be impaired if a special permit were granted to use the land for a nursery; and is of the opinion that such a use will improve the status of the neighborhood." We are aware of the Planning Board's letter and that they have indicated that they would have no objection to wholesale greenhouses. Unfortunately we don't think that wholesale greenhouses would sell at the quantity which would meet with success. We feel we need the retail items, which would go with the greenhouses and the nursery operation. Mr. Nickerson: I have one or two questions and, as usual, I dash in first and ' the other members mop up afterward. I inferred somewhere along this line that there was going to be ingress from North Street period. Am I wrong? Mr. Dailey: It could be set up any way that the Board desired or if it were 'tel 1 William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -3 left up to the Town Engineer to lay this out, we would certainly meet any stipulation that the Town Engineer or that you might make. Mr. Nickerson: It would be a one way thing and in place of the two, entrances and exit, there would be one exit. Mr. Dailey: That would certainly be acceptable if that were the Board's desire. Mr. Nickerson: So this one here would be crossed off. It would half the cars going in and out on Lowell Street. Mr. Dailey: It would half the activity certainly. Yes. Dr. Wadsworth: I don't understand that. (There was some discussion between Board members.) Mr. Nickerson: There will have to be stop lights on Lowell Street pretty soon or somebody will be murdered. Mr. Dailey: I think you will note that in the survey a traffic light is considered within the next 12 months at Lowell and East Street intersection and also for the Adams and Lowell Street intersection in Burlington. (There was considerable discussion and debate about the possibility of traffic signals in these areas.) Mr. Nickerson: A light at either one, particularly at Adams and Lowell Street would give a pause to the traffic which makes it so dangerous now at early morning and late night hours. Is this an official outfit that made the survey? Mr. Dailey: Alfred D. Laing is a member of the Planning Board in Burlington and the traffic engineer of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, District 4 office on Appleton Street in their Arlington headquarters. Dr. Wadsworth asked for some clarifications of the figures in the survey and Mr. Dailey made explanations. Mr. Nickerson: Do Board members have any more questions? (He asked each one.) Mrs. Morey: I didn't "sit" on the previous hearing last December 12. Why are you asking for a 3 year delay in building? Mr. Dailey: For sufficient time to formulate plans, to get ready and get go- ing. It will involve substantial planning. We want time to allow for planning. It could be sooner. If anyone wanted an honest opinion it probably wouldn't ' start for at least a couple of years. We are asking for 3. If you said we had to begin in 1 year, we'd probably accept that. Many times people have been criticized because they ask for 1 greenhouse and then come in later for more. This is a total plan for what could go here and we would certainly be bound by it. I ] G William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) Mrs. Morey: Within 3 years there should be some activity on route 3? I've heard rumors. They own the 4th corner of the junction of Adams and Middlesex Turnpike. Mr. Dailey: Who knows? Mr. Nickerson: I've heard rumors on route 2. We can't answer that one. Mr. Nickerson: I there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? NOBODY SPOKE IN FAVOR. Mr. Nickerson: Would anybody like to speak in opposition? -4 Now, you know the ground rules, people. We want to listen to you all. We don't want to listen to you for more than 5 minutes each, if you please. If you have repetitive observations say so and just register yourself in opposition. IN OPPOSITION: Antonio Kirouac, 664 Lowell Street: We, Antonio and Ruth Kirouac, who is my wife, oppose the petition and we would like to submit this petition signed by more than 168 residents who are also opposed to another greenhouse going up in this area. We oppose the petition of William Maloney for the construction and operation of greenhouses and a nursery at 661 Lowell Street for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. We feel that the resulting increased commercialization of the neighbor- hood would be significantly detrimental to the neighborhood and 2. We feel the increased traffic would affect the safety of the nearby resi- dents on a street which already has too much traffic and 3. We feel residents of other streets feeding into Lowell Street would suffer from the increased traffic and 4. We feel the immediate residents will find the value of their property would depreciate if further business is allowed in this area. 5. We believe the board of appeals should uphold its decision of a month ago. He went on to explain who the signers were. He continued: We hope the inter- ests of these residents will be recognized. Mr. Kirouac requested permission to look at the plan. Chairman: You can take it (the plan) or look at it here. Which would you rather do? Not out of the room. ............much laughter........ Mr. Kirouac came forward for the plan. Chairman: Does anyone else have anything different to say in opposition who hasn't signed the petition? Bernice Weiss, 462 Lowell Street: I have a letter I'd like to read. It's written by my husband who can't be present tonight. II� William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) Chairman: You are Mrs. Weiss? Your husband is Ephraim? -5 Mrs. Weiss: Yes. Concerning the petition of William Maloney for permis- sion to construct commercial greenhouses in a residential area on Lowell Street, it is my understanding that this petition is substantially the same as a previous petition which was rejected by the Board of Appeals not too long ago. This, in itself, raises a question regarding the application. It is my firm contention that this petition should be unqualifiedly rejected outright. The petitioner is attempting to commercialize a distinctly residential area. The proximity to a commercial development in the neighboring town is not a good reason for granting the permit. If this were granted, then everyone living on Lowell Street could claim similar hardship and thereby obviously cancel the intent of our zoning regulations. Similarly, if this permit were granted, then the next neigh- bor should similarly have a commercialization request granted, since then he would be adjacent to a commercial establishment and so on down the line. There are additional reasons for not granting the permit. The owner of the property is not a resident of the neighborhood and appears to have purchased the land primarily as a speculative venture. His interest is obviously in obtaining the greatest profit without regard for the conse- quences on the neighborhood. There is in reality no special hardship involved and, after all, the main purpose of requiring such permission is to resolve special problems involving hardships as a consequence of the zoning laws. It is reasonable to assume that the Board of Appeals should not be used as a means of maximizing personal profit at the expense of the neighborhood. The detrimental effects of such a commercial establishment upon the rest of the neighborhood are obvious. Lowell Street, which until recently was a peaceful and little used side street, is now a busy thoroughfare. Traffic is inordinately heavy and the addition of new business in Lexington will only increase the problem. Also, commercialization tends to decrease the quality of residential life of all the neighbors both near and not -so - near. We have recently seen the detrimental effect of Season's Four on a large group of neighbors. Little consideration was given to the effect of that operation on the neighbors by either the owners or the operators and substantial resistance was offered even after intercession by the town. Such a problem is more easily prevented than remedied after the fact. In reality prevention IS the remedy. It is my hope that the Board of Appeals will keep faith with the intent of our zoning by-laws and the interest of the community and deny the application. Chairman: Anyone else wish to speak in opposition? Jeanette Cochran, 662 Lowell Street: I have not signed the petition. I strongly oppose for the second time the petition of William E. Maloney. Living directly across the street from the proposed sight has caused me great concern. I personally talked to all of my neighbors as well as 75% of those who signed and I found their opposition as strong as mine. All William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -6 the immediate neighbors are near or over 40 years of age. Three of these homes are occupied by retired people. We all feel that the residential statis of this neighborhood should be retained so that we can look at homes not commercial enterprises. This is a neighborhood feeling, there- for I appeal to this Board to consider all of us and take all of us into consideration. My husband and I have worked hard for 9 years to arrive at a financial position to purchase our home only 17 months ago and we'll have to continue working hard just to retain it. The prime dignity of my neigh- bors and myself should not be given anything but top priority over any com- mercialization. Please don't allow us to be the forgotten citizens of Lexington. William Frazer; 533 Lowell Street: I believe I have signed the petition. If I may I'd like to make a few comments. The gentleman says he wants a special permit under section 24.5 of the zoning by-law. Dr. Frazer contin- ued that it would violate the intent of section 24.5 or even 25.3 of the by-law by impairing the status of the neighborhood, the public welfare and convenience would not be served, it is out of character of the residential nature and character of the neighborhood and there would be an increase in traffic. Activity of vehicles entering and leaving the premises would create a hazard to the neighborhood in general. If they are going to have sales they are going to have cars. The noise through increased traffic in the early morning hours and late evening hours prevent residents from quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood and their homes. The neighborhood in question has remained consistantly residential over the years and the injury caused to residents of the neighborhood would constitute a substantial derogation from the intent and purposes of the zoning by-laws within the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15 and section 12.2 of the Lexington zoning by-law. The introduction of new business activity to a residential neighborhood is commonly conceded to have a marked depreciating effect on the value of the neighboring property for residential use. Grant- ing a variance would disregard the main purpose of the by-law to preserve the property right of others. Mary Timmins, 658 Lowell Street: I have a question for the Board on the legality of this petition being brought up again. At the last hearing when this petition was turned down we were led to believe by the Board that if this were to be brought up again it would have to be taken to court. How can the same petition be brought before this Board again without going to court? Why does Mr. Maloney not have to go to court and we as residents of Lowell Street would have had to go to court had we lost at the initial hearing? Mr. Nickerson: Who�made the observation? Mary Timmins: You did, Sir. Mr. Nickerson: I beg your pardon. I deny the fact that I made such a remark. You asked me before we had announced our decision. You asked us what we could do to set our decision aside and I said that if you attended you would have known that we denied the petition. No reference was made to hearing a re- petition. This petition has been submitted according to our judgment under new conditions. He stated that a new traffic count had been made, a new ingress has been confirmed or covered by the drawing. It's quite a differ- ent petition in our way of thinking. r William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -7 Mary Timmins: May I make one statement? The Burlington Mall is at the end of our road. The traffic survey was taken in December. The traffic going to the Mall is greater than it would be at any other time of the year. I think the traffic study is not a factual study. It was done during the Christmas season. (Discussion continued about the two different studies made for this same petition.) Mrs. Timmins insisted that the reasons have not changed. Traffic is bad. It's unsafe for children and it's changing the atmosphere of Lowell Street. Mrs. Rirouac: May I ask why the reading was taken from North Street to East Street instead of North Street to Adam Street? We have the bulk of the traffic right now. I counted 87 cars in 5 minutes on a very bad Sunday afternoon. B. A. McNulty,537 Lowell Street: Did I understand you to say that the traffic count will be halved with the change? Mr. Nickerson: If there's only one ingress it will half the traffic on Lowell Street to this nursery because they would only come out on Lowell Street and go in on North Street. (There continued to be more debate on the subject of traffic on Lowell Street.) ' Sam Silverman, 18 Ingleside Road: Five minutes would probably be enough time for what I have to say because much of what I would have said has already been said. I don't see any compelling difference in what's being asked for here and what was asked for before on December 12. I looked at the plans last week and compared them. Egress and ingress doesn't change the traffic. The question concerns not just one small patch on Lowell Street, which is in a residential neighborhood. It is the acceleration of a commercialization of a neighborhood. So it's not just 5 acres. It's commercialization moving down Lowell Street to where we don't know where it will go. It's happening all over. You can see it in Somerville and Framingham. The issue is broader. Turning Mill Road and Ingleside Road are well aware of what can happen. There isn't much we can do about Burlington. There is something we can do in our own town. The Turning Mill Road people when I talked to them are having a hard time getting the cooperation of Burlington. If Lexington lets down its own people then there is no use in attempting to convince Burlington to safeguard this area. Business men can write off their expense of lawyers and plot plans. People on Lowell Street can't write off the cost as business expense. It costs money and these people would really like the support of the town in protecting their interests. There is no such thing as being half pregnant but there is a possibility of protecting the residential character of this part of Lexington despite Burlington's efforts. I read the Lyon appraisal. I don't believe we have to be like Burlington. I would hope this Board would give thought to a buffer zone to protect the beautiful homes. We have no control over Burlington. Thank you for your courtesy. ' Chairman: The lady in the red dress. The lady in the red dress did not give her name. She stated that the petition was similar to the other of last December. She brought up the fact that there were plans for a 200 car parking lot. She asked, "How do you blend that into a residential zone?" r William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30111 (continued) -g ' Mr. Nickerson: Have you read the zoning by-law. The Planning Board some years ago over the opposition of the Board of Appeals wrote this permission under section 24.5, page 13, permitting such operations. I flatter our- selves, the Board of Appeals, that we forsaw thatA`passed this to legalize Milliken'sbut it's made others legal also. This has been perpetrated on the town and we have to administer it. The lady in red: Is there any way this can be changed? Mr. Nickerson: Yes. Go to the Planning Board. They can have an article in the town warrant. They can change what they have done. We didn't want this loaded on us. It would have to be done well in advance of town meeting. The Planning Board has realized this and have talked about remodeling the zoning by-law. Gloria J. Silva, 500 Lowell Street: Would a petition help us? We'd like to put in a new bathroom. We've talked about remodeling. We can't invest in new things if we have zoning changes in our neighborhood. There are a lot of acres of land near us that could be changed. I have called about the traffic on many occasions. We have a school on this street. I'm worried. Mr. Nickerson: You had better read the zoning by-law. We are compelled to hold hearings on these things. Lois W. Brown, Chairman of the Planning Board: I was going to inquire if you were going to read the Planning Board letter. In view of what's happened I think I'd prefer to read it myself. The Planning Board's name has been taken in vain. There are two points, first the letter. The Planning Board has reviewed the petition of William E. Maloney for a special permit to erect and operate commercial greenhouses on the property at 661 Lowell St. and in connection therewith to operate a nursery under the provisions of the zoning by-law. We stated in our letter of Dec. 11 in connection with the earlier hear- ings on this plan that: "This area is immediately adjacent to a rapidly growing and intensively used commercial district in Burlington. It is the policy of the Lexington Planning Board to preserve as far as possible the residential character of Lexington. Because of the strong pressures of a non-residential nature in the adjoining town, any new uses on this end of Lowell St. which are not completely residential should be strongly resisted." Commercial greenhouses are included in Section 25.31 as an agricultural use allowed under special permit in a residential zone. While this use is not completely residential, such a use would not tend to impair the status ' of the neighborhood if limited to a wholesale business only. Therefore the Planning Board recommends in favor of granting permission for commercial greenhouses under Section 25.31, but opposes the storage and sale under Section 24.5 of supplementary items in conjunction with the opera- 1 William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) tion of a nursery. (end of letter) S] There has always been a difference of opinion about 24.5. It states that where the Board of Appeals determines that the character of the neighborhood would not be impaired, the storage and sale of some or all of the following supplementary items in conjunction with the operation of a nursery may be permitted by Special Permit under subsection 12.2; plants grown elsewhere than on the premises, items intended to improve or preserve the life and health of plants, including without limitation etc. The foregoing list may be expanded, in the discretion of the Board of Appeals, to include other items related to plants, gardens or garden- ing, but shall not include power tools, other power equipment, furniture or items generally associated with the business of a hardware store rather than with the conduct of a nursery. Provided: that a nursery granted such a special permit shall conform to the dimensional controls in Section 27 as to lot area, frontage and yards and the maximum height of buildings for the district in which located and to the following additional requirements: It states the minimum lot area and also the Board of Appeals shall impose and may from time to time review and revise requirements for adequate off-street parking, screening etc. Section 12.2 states as follows: Special Permits - To hear and decide applications for special permits for exceptions as provided in this By -Law, ' subject to any general or specific rules therein contained, and subject to appropriate conditions or safeguards imposed by the Board of Appeals. Such special permit may be granted when in the judgment of the Board of Appeals the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served thereby and where a requested permit will not tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. The Planning Board would be glad to discuss it with anyone any time. There has not been a recent conversation with the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. Mr. Nickerson: You weren't on the Board when George Wadsworth and I came in and talked to the Planning Board. Mrs. Brown: I was not aware of that conversation. The points I would like to make are that although commercial greenhouses are allowed in residential zones with a special permit, it was the intent of the Planning Board and Town Meeting that the Board of Appeals use its discretion in granting such a special permit depending upon whether it found that the proposal would or would not tend to impair the neighborhood. Regarding the proposed egress and ingress, the second point is that traffic could get to the North St. entrance only from Lowell St. or from a residential Burlington neighborhood. Barbara Barrows; 168 North Street: This proposal would back up to our property. In reference to the noise, to the traffic, to the storage and use of insecticides, and to the wetness of portions of land, people living in the area have a right to breathe clean air. Pheasants are being crowded out of a great natural resource which I would hate to see commercialized. It's not progress. They'll kill us yet. Mr. Nickerson: The conservation commission has complete control of the Hatch 1 1 1 William E. Maloney Hearing 1/30/73 (continued) Act and moving of dirt. Thursday night they will show the wetland maps at the New Clarke Junior High School. (This was in reference to 2 wetland zoning articles for 1973 town meeting approval.) (Some discussion followed about the subject of wetlands.) Doris Sinclair, 590 Lowell Street: This is the fourth time that something to do with Lowell Street has come before this committee. First we had a gas station, now we have this. The rest of Lexington is getting their taxes from operations on Lowell Street. I am opposed to this petition. Harold Worthington, 534 Lowell Street: What will happen if a large con- glomerate gets hold of this with large expansion plans? That's what worries me. He questioned the validity of the traffic survey. -10 Mr. Nickerson: This is a nursery operation. They have said that it's a total plan. We should not get more than they have asked for in the petition. Weiant Wathen-Dunn, 44 Maple Street: This request for commercial greenhouses is an augmentation of the previous hearing. He made reference to similar operations on Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that there would be consider- able trucking. It would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The Planning Board has pointed out that it should be maintained as a residential neighborhood. 24.5 applies to nurseries but commercial greenhouses is something else. He stood opposed. Ruth Codier, 564 Lowell St.: I'm opposed. (She made no speech.) Jack Underwood, 3 Burroughs Road: There are many people not on Lowell St. itself that are beginning to realize what is happening. Burroughs Road and the whole of Burnham Farms area is in opposition, he stated We have the right to try to get you to object to anything that might become a conglom- erate. There are rumors that Pepperage Farms could take over the property as part of a master plan. Carol A. Murphy, 522 Lowell Street: I'd like to be registered in opposition. Phyllis R. Silverman, 18 Ingleside Road: The Board should restrict business enterprises and take into consideration the people living in the area. You are obliged to take into consideration all the facts and the intent of the zoning by-law to restrict business enterprises in residential neighborhoods. We have the chance to voice our opinions. The Board has to act. It's at their discretion. They are not obliged to grant every request. Mrs. Barrows spoke further on the right to breathe clean air. Mr. Kirouac brought up the car dealer in the neighborhood. People asked if they could stay through the decision making. Mr. Nickerson: We will make our decisions one by one. You may not make any comments. We always have visitors. You can stay and listen. r William E. Maloney Hearing, 1/30/73 (continued) -11 Dennis Speliotis, 22 Ingleside Road, brought up Season's Four as a reminder ' to the Board. He requested that the conservation commission be involved in any decision. The chairman declared the hearing closed at 10:35 p.m. Jan L. Meades, 523 Lowell Street and Philip Fischer, 218 East Street voiced oppositiontothe petition. 1 Notes: This hearing was scheduled for 7:45 p.m. It was the fourth of five hearings scheduled for this date. At 8:24 p.m. the chairman read the notice for this petition as it appeared in the Lexington Minute -man and etc..... The petitioner's hearing was over at 10:35 p.m. Many observers (approximatly 30) remained throughout the evening to hear the discussion and deliberations of the Board as they made decisions on all the hearings. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. After deliberation on this hearing, a motion was made by Dr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mrs. Morey to deny the petition. The vote was 3 to 2. Since a motion must be 4 to 1 or unanimous to carry, Mr. Sheldon made a motion to reconsider. Mr. Wadsworth seconded this motion. Mr. Nickerson deferred. The motion to reconsider carried. Mr. Sheldon made a new motion to grant the petition. Mrs. Morey seconded the motion to grant the petition. The final vote was 1 to 4, Mr. Nickerson voting in favor. The petition was DENIED, Respectfully submitted, C � - Evelyn F. Cole Clerk, Board of Appeals