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