Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-04-11r SPECIAL MEETING - April 11, 1973 CAMPANELLI, INC. (hearing continued from April 3, 1973) ' April 11, 1973 Present: Chairman Nickerson, G. Wadsworth, G. Sheldon, R. Cataldo and L. Clarke. A notice had been posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board stating that the Board would discuss further the request of Campanelli, Inc. A special meeting was held on April 11, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. to extend the discussion in regard to Campanelli, Inca request for a site plan review for a special permit under Section 13 of the Lexington zoning by-law and for a finding and determination on a proposed facility for Tyco Laboratories, Inc. at 4 Hartwell Place, in accordance with plans submitted; that the pro- posed construction will constitute a suitable development, and will not re- sult in substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Land presently owned by Hartwell Realty is under purchase and sale agreement with Campanelli. An effort had been made by the chairman to have the petition withdrawn at the hearing of April 3 because a letter dated that day from the Planning Board stated that a new drainage plan had been presented to it last Friday, March 30, to revise the original unsatisfactory one. Neither the Planning Board nor the Engineering Department had time to review it adequately. The Planning Board letter stated that it "cannot recommend at this time that either plan be granted approval by your board". The chairman pointed out that the Planning Board had thirty days from the original submission of drawings on March 8th in which to make final recommendations and that there were still four days left. He therefore, recommended that the peti- tion be withdrawn for future resubmission. The petitioner felt that the loss of time involved would be ruinous to him as Tyco Laboratories must vacate its three leased buildings in Waltham by September 30th, a deadline which had already been extended from July 31st. At the April 3 meeting Bertram L. Wilcox of Campanelli, Inc. introduced Robert Raymond, Site Engineer, of Bradford Saivetz & Associates, Inc.; Richard Rock of Edgar H. Wood & Associates, Inc., the Architects; and Edward M. Colbert, Division General Manager of Tyco Instrument Division. They col- lectively rehearsed the fact of their tremendous time problem and requested that no decision be made on their petition until the legal thirty days had expired and hopefully the Planning Board and Engineering Department could report favorably. Mr. Rock presented a rendering of the building which his firm had prepared. The Board of Appeals voted to hold a special meeting on April 11 to extend the discussion and to hear reports from the Planning Board, Engineering Department and Conservation Commission. Purpose of the meeting would be to hopefully render a favorable decision without overriding reports from the above Board, Department and Commission. The Chairman warned that the petitioner would have to handle the matter with the Conservation Commis- sion to satisfy Hatch Act provisions and its impositions. The Board of Appeals will handle notices to the Planning Board and the Engineering Department that their studies must be completed and the results available by April 11 and hope- fully by April 7th, the thirty day limit for report. Nobody spoke in favor nor in opposition at this April 3rd meeting. Letters were received from the Plan- ning Board and advice from the Engineering Department indicating lack of time for sufficient study; a letter from the Conservation Commission was received, and a letter from the Board of Health making recommendations regarding sanitary sewage disposal, public water supplies, and air pollution and that flood con- trol be approved by the Conservation Commission. r Campanelli, Inc. (hearing continued) -2 4/11/73 In addition to those already mentioned Alfred P. Tropeano and Wilbur C. Nylander, owners of the property in question, were in attendance. Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Colbert reiterated their need to proceed with build- ing immediately. They stated that they hoped all obstacles such as Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Town Engineering Department and Board of Health approvals had been satisfied so no impediment would prevent the Board of Appeals from approving and issuing the requested finding and determination. A letter dated April 10 was received from the Planning Board stating that it has reviewed and approved revised plans submitted on April 2 and that the Engineering Department has informed it that it now approves. The letter further stated that it approves three waivers of sections of the Rules and Regulations governing the subdivision of land in Lexington, Mass. as follows: Section 6.56 requires a maximum length of 650 ft. for a dead end street; 665.21 shall be permitted. Section 7.3.5 requires sidewalks; in this case none will be required. Section 6.8 sets maximum hydrant spacing of 500 ft.; in this case one may be installed at the end of the cul-de-sac with a plug at the end of the line. It also recommended the standard recommendations of the Conservation Commission, namely: (1) Oil and grease traps and catch basins should be provided in all parking areas to reduce pollutants entering the swamp. (2) Salt shall not be used to melt snow and ice in the wintertime. (3) Approved methods of erosion control should be used in all disturbed areas. (4) All provisions of the Hatch Act shall be observed. A letter dated April 2 was received. This is a copy of a letter from the Director of Public Health to the Planning Board which Board mentions it in its letter of April 10th and seems to approve its recommendations re. sanitary sewage disposal, public water supplies, flood control and air pollu- tion. A letter of April 2 was received. This is a copy of a letter from the Engineering Department to the Planning Board and indicates the approval of the Engineering Department of the revised plan. Nobody spoke in favor of the petition. A letter was received from Frank Sandy expressing opposition. He wrote, "This land is in a wet swampy area with substantial surface water on the ground at the present time. Full dev- elopment of this marginal land, as proposed, would be a substantial detriment to the Town. Residents of the Town who live along Kiln and Simonds Brooks already experience flooding caused by excessive building and faster runoff which these brooks cannot handle adequately. Except for the required front and side yards, the zoning by-law does not put a limit on the total fraction of,the lot that can be used for driveways, parking and buildings. It leaves this completely to the discretioncf your Board in making its finding and determination. I believe the Board should exercise its authority to control the amount of coverage in wet areas such as these. I would suggest that a proposal that covers a much smaller part of lot 9 could be acceptable. Alter- natively, if a building of this size is needed, Tyco should be required to obtain all or a substantial part of the adjacent lot 10 and retain it to absorb the water runoff from their development. A conservation easement or Campanelli, Inc. (hearing continued) -3 4/11/73 ' other building restriction over lot 10 could then be required as a condition of a permit on lot 9." A motion to grant the petition was made by Mr. Cataldo and seconded by Mr. Sheldon. Mr. Clarke made a motion to amend the motion to grant the peti- tion subject to all conditions specified by town boards. After discussion the Board voted unanimously to grant the petition with the amendment. Therefore, the finding and determination was granted to Campanelli, Inc. under section 13 of the Lexington zoning by-law to construct a facility for Tyco Laboratories, Inc. at 4 Hartwell Place according to four drawings sub- mitted, these being a Definitive Plan and a Plan entitled Tyco Laboratory, these two by Bradford Saivetz and Associates, dated 1/4/73 and revised twicee,,, 3/29/73, a Floor Plan of Tyco Instrument Division by Edgar H. Wood & Assocs.4, Inc., dated 11/30/72 and a sketch of building and landscaping signed by "Rock" - no date, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner must abide by Engineering Wpartment rules as to drainage and construction, overall layout, utilities, grading and materials. 2. The three waivers specified above by the Planning Board are approved. 3. Grease and oil catches must be placed within the storm sewer and no salt or other chemicals may be used on the parking lot for ice control. 4. P�blic Health recommendations specified in the April 2 letter must be followed regarding sanitary sewage disposal, public water supplies, flood ' control and air pollution. 5. The petitioner must be responsible for Conservation Commission approval. 6. Hours shall be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays; 8 a.m. td 12 noon on Saturdays. 7. No excessive lighting may be used except as a safety measure. 8. Construction of the project must commence within one year from this date. 9. Approved methods of erosion control should be used in all disturbed areas. The issuance of this finding and determination shall not in any manner affect the requirement that a building permit be obtained. The petitioner shall have the obligation to record a notice of this permit as required by statute. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 1 Evelyn F. Cole Clerk