Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-05-21BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS May 21, 1974 A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Present were George Sheldon, acting chairman; regular member G. Wadsworth; and associate members: R. Gary, R.(;ataldo and H. Reed. Also present was a Lexington Minute -Man Publications Reporter, a LWV Observer and an audience of townspeople that overflowed the room. Public hearings were held on the following petitions, notice having been mailed to those who should legally receive them and to town boards and offi- cials who will or might be affected by decisions made and also advertised in the Lexington Minute -man newspaper. James V. Cosgrove - special permit, pursuant to Sections 12.2 and 25.33 of the Lexington zoning by-law, to continue to operate a roadside stand at 307 Wood Street for the purpose of selling poultry, eggs, plants, produce and wood and also to sell Christmas trees and wreaths in season. Jean -Alain Dupon - special permit, pursuant to Sections 12.2 and 25.69 of the Zoninc By-law to increase the seating capacity (by 46) at the Restaurant Le Bellecour, 10 Muzzey Street. Such additional seating will be located at the courtyard of the Mews Building, 10 Muzzey Street. The petitioner is the owner of LeBellecour and lessee of the premises occupied by the restaurant. Lexington Housing Realty Trust by their attorney, Norman Ostroff - comprehen- sive permit to construct low and/or moderate income housing units on Lots: 11, 12, 13, 14, 159 169 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 312 322 332 34, 35, 369 37, 382 39, 409 41, 42, 43, 442 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 552 56, 572 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, all as shown on Land Court Plan 28051A (Sheets 1 and 2). Said 44 subsidized housing units to be constructed on First and Second Streets which are off Young and Webb Streets; under the provisions of General Laws Chapter 40B; Sections: 20, 21, 22, 23, inclusive, as amended. Following the hearings the Board made the following decisions, all in public open meeting: Cosgrove - granted unanimously, subject to certain conditions. Dupon - granted unanimously until 10/1/74 and subject to certain conditions. Lex, Housing Realty Trust,- decision continued to May 28, 1974. All pertinent material is on file in the Board of Appeals' office. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ' Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk LEXINGTON HOUSING REALTY TRUST HEARING (Norman Ostroff) May 21, 1974 The Board of Appeals public hearing was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building on May 21, 1974. Board members present and acting on the petition were: George C. Sheldon, Acting Chairman; George Wadsworth, regular member; and associates as follows: Robert Cataldo, Robert M. Gary and Haskell W. Reed. A large audience of town's people crowded the room. Acting Chairman George C. Sheldon read the notice which had been published in the Lexington Newspaper for two consecutive weeks and notices mailed to the petitioner and all abutters and owners of land next adjoining the land of the abutters and to five regular and six associate members of the Board of Appeals, the Town Manager, Building Inspector, Planning Board, Town Engineer, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Town Counsel and Board of Selectmen. Lexington Housing Realty Trust by their attorney, Norman Ostroff, requested a comprehensive permit to construct low and/or moderate income housing units on Lots: 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 192 20, 272 28, 293 303 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 369 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 442 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 542 55, 56, 573 585 59, 60, 61, 62, all as shown on Land Court Plan 28051A (Sheets 1 and 2). Said 44 subsidized housing units to be constructed on First and Second Streets which are off Young and Webb Streets; under the provisions of General Laws Chapter 40B; Sections: 20, 21, 22, 23 inclusive, as amended. Mr. Ostroff provided plans as follows: Plans entitled: Battle View Park, Lex. Housing Realty Trust, Lexington, Mass., dated 4/74, by J. Whittall. a) Plot Plan, Sl showing 44 units: 24 three bedroom and 20 four bedroom units. b) Elevations, S2. c) Floor Plan, S2. and a set of 6 pages of plans, xeroxed and reduced, and all of which had been registered: A - Plan No. 1170, Lot Layout Plan (Battle View Park) by David W. Perley, dated 9/21/73. B - Copy of Land Court Plan 28051A, dated Dec. 16, 1957 by Richard L. Savage. C - Battle View Park, Plan & Profile of First St. by David W. Perley, Sept. 21, 1973. D - Profile - drain and water data. E - Plan & Profile of Second St. (Battle View Park) by David W. Perley, showing sewer, bounds, curb, etc. F - Profile showing water, drains, etc. At the hearing during his presentation Mr. Ostroff provided new plans, Sl, S2 and S3, Battle View Park, dated 5/21/74 by Whittall. The new plans are similar to a, b, c above except that they show the 44 units as follows: 19 three bedroom units, 14 four bedroom units, 11 two bedroom units. Also, Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -3 The buildings will be of concrete block faced with red brick. He explained the windows as 116 over 6". It is proposed that the roof be copper clad. The exterior will be similar to the Masonic buildings at Marrett Road and Massachu- setts Avenue except that his proposal will have peaked roofs, he said. The plan calls for 12.2 homes per acre. He compared the proposal with RM allowing 12 units per acre and RH allowing 18 units per acre of subsidized. Mr. Ostroff's units are proposed to be financed by MHFA. The guidelines for selection of the 11 families, 25% of the 44 units, will be based on the adjusted income and the number of persons in a family and will be according to MHFA standards. The balance will be at market value of the rental units pres- ently in Lexington. The 11 units will rent for approximately $210 per unit with all utilities except telephone and 33 will be at market value, $360 to $365 per unit with all utilities except telephone. With reference to transportation to schools he stated that schools and transportation are within close proximity to this area. Some are 3/4 mile and the farthesfare 1� miles, he stated. Junior and Senior Highs are within walk- ing distance. The management will be given to a company with experience in that field or with proven experience. Preference will be given to a local management company. Mr. Ostroff stated that he believes it will be an assist in satisfying ' local housing needs and regional needs. It will be visibly attractive, compat- ible with single family development in the neighborhood both in relation to mass and scale. It will be sensitive to the environment. It will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. It will be on a site suitable for development, have adequate municipal services immediately available and have adequate open space under municipal control to serve the needs of the occupants. The designer is with me this evening and if he can be of assistance he will answer any questions within his province. If there are any questions I'll certainly try to answer them. He ended his presentation by saying that he thanks the Board for hearing him out. 'On the Chairman's question as to whether he had talked with the Conserva- tion Commission, Mr. Ostroff responded that he was very much aware that they had to comply with the Wetland Protections Act. Mr. Ostroff stated that he had filed with the Massachusetts Agency with reference to the Environmental Impact. Mr. Reed questioned whether a comprehensive permit meant he would not need to go before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Sheldon stated that Chapter 774 gives the Board of Appeals a great deal of authority, but Conservation is not in our approval. Mr. Cataldo asked if any variances from the building code were being considered. Mr. Ostroff said that the only variance required was for side yard. Mr. Cataldo; I understand that you have rentals for $210 per month. What if a family has 6 children and there's income of only $100 ? Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearin& (continued) Mr. Ostroff: I can't answer that particular question because the standards are set by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency. There may be subsidy by local welfare boards. The MHFA have a list of various incomes which they publish showing who is eligible. It is my understanding that if the agency finds that a person is eligible and the welfare department can subsidize it, if he can only pay $100, then the subsidizing agency pays the difference. Mr. Cataldo: There has to be other rent supplements. Mr. Ostroff: There is no rent supplement in MHFA. They have a process of skewing. The Agency who subsidizes this project has nothing to do with rents. Mr. Catalo: If there is a family in town with 6 children and they have a $100 income and no further money available to them what would your do? Mr. Ostroff: I will have to comply with whatever MHFA tells me to do. They will set the standards. I don't know what they will say. Mr. Cataldo: We have to have some sort of a guarantee. Mr. Ostroff: No one can give a guarantee. I couldn't guarantee anything. Mr. Cataldo: Did you submit an environmental impact statement? ' Mr. Ostroff: We submitted a statement to MHFA and their environment men will do the survey. Mr. Sheldon said that he had a letter from the Building Inspector raising comments. Floor and elevation plans were included but no sections, as called for under 36.34 of the Zoning By-law. Preliminary plans such as these with no sections limits the information available relative to construction details. Mr. Ostroff said that as he understands it he must comply with the Building Code if the permit is granted. Mr. Sheldon read from the letter as follows: The elevations indicate brick exterior on the front, rear, and end wall exteriors, but whether this brick is part of a solid masonry wall or a veneer on wood frame construction could not be determined. Mr. Ostroff reitered that they would use brick on concrete block. Mr. Sheldon read further: Section 36.23 mentions Town House -Type dwelling units, which these are, and refers to party walls, the walls separating the contiguous units, meeting State and Federal requirements. No details as to the party walls was indicated. Mr. Ostroff responded that details would have to be provided under conditions of any permit. He said that there would be fire walls and each unit would be a separate unit. Mr. Sheldon asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the petition. NO ONE SPOKE IN FAVOR. -4 1 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) A land owner in the neighborhood decided not to question at this time. Mrs. Brown asked a question for clarification. (Mrs. Brown is a Planning Board member and former chairman.) I don't understand. You say there are 2 bedroom units? (all plans up until the meeting had no 2=bedroom units.) (Would these be the units for subsidized housing, since there are ll?) Mr. Ostroff: Eleven of the units will be available as necessary. There is no decision as to which units will be for subsidized or low income. It will depend on the need. Mrs. Brown's second question was in regard to the ownership of Dunham St. and proposed parking there. Mr. Ostroff: We own to the middle of the street where we intend to pave 20 ft. for 29 additional parking spaces. The rest of the area of the street is avail- able under easement. Mrs. Brown requested to be allowed to see the new plan showing the 2 bedroom units and the added parking. Mr. Cataldo asked whether the persons living on the other side of Dunham St. would have the right to cross over it. Mr. Ostroff No question about it. Yes. Mr. Sheldon asked Mrs. Brown if she had finished asking questions? Mrs. Brown pointed out an error on the plans as to the rear yard measurements. Mr. i3riggs came forward to show where the error on the plans was; the plans showing 20 ft. instead of 25;and it didn't scale properly. Mr. Ostroff: The minimum should be 25. I didn't scale it. I relied on my engineer to do that. Mr. Cataldo agreed that the numbers totaled up to the correct figure. Mr. Sheldon stated that he wanted to be certain that the Planning Board were satisfied. Mr. Sheldon asked again if there was anyone in favor of the petition. NO ONE RESPONDED IN FAVOR. OPPOSITION: -5 James ? , one of the oldest land owners in the area - 40 years. I want to go along with what the people in our neighborhood want and the Board of Selectmen. Mrs. Norma E. Herscott, 12 Rumford St.: There are no sidewalks on any of the surrounding streets. It presents a traffic hazard and not only during the construction but after as well. The children play ball on the street. We won't be able to let them out to play. Their safety is an important factor. Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) It will depreciate the property surrounding interest in that area and it will spread. I think it is the wrong type of project and I application. MUCH CLAPPING Mr. Sheldon: Next gentleman or lady. it and it will impede growth and think it is the wrong place. I request that the Board deny this Gilbert M. Levey, 10 Rumford Rd. referred to an article in the Saturday Globe newspaper, which he read. It was titled "From Dream to Danger". He read... small housing on scattered city owned lots, sold by the White administration and BRA......... He read on and on.....the Development Corp. of America declared bankruptcy after HUD had agreed that a contractor build 392 units, 60 completed units scattered about the city which have become eye sores and dangerous with windows battered etc. etc. etc. .....One of these days a child will be killed in one. There's just one thing to do now. The buildings must be demolished. One would think that the city would be the one to do this (demolish buildings) but the city argues that it is HUD's responsibility to take down the buildings.. Nobody does anything and the buildings stand there as an invitation for children to come in and break their necks. -7 Mr. Irwin (Building Inspector): I can't understand the statements made by the petitioner that the project would conform to the building code and that no variances would be necessary. This is unusual. We have to face 4 or 5 propositions for low and moderate income housing as well as private enter- prises. All of them felt that they could not comply with the Lexington by- laws and building laws and come out financially safe. On the plans it's mentioned that there will be copper roofs. Mr. Ostroff referred to the Masonic building. In my 19 years of building inspecting it is the only build- ing in town that has used a copper roof and I think that they are financially able to do it. Now, a copper flat roof would cost today $3.25 a sq. ft. A seamed roof edge and I think your designer would confirm this, would cost $2.80 per sq. ft. This is in comparison with 51 cents per sq. ft. for heavy architect's roof of shingles. I just bring this up because if he says they are going to conform to the local building code, which I will admit is a little stiffer than BOCA or STD -10 or some of the other codes, this is fine. I'm all for it. But it's hard for me to understand how they think they can conform and come up with low and moderate income housing. It's not that I'm against it. I just want to make sure that this is what they are saying. Mr. Sheldon: Thank's Don. Next person. Melvin R. Rubin, 34 Young St.: Many objections have been raised for this pro- posed development, mentioning the traffic hazzard and the disproportionment of units to area. I don't think anyone has said anything about the water problem. Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Ostroff assured us that he is well aware of the Wetland ' Protection Act requirements. If the Board issues a permit it will become a condition. Please don't spend any time discussing the water. We know it exists and you've been told how it would be handled. Mr. Sheldon: The lady in yellow. Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -8 ' Shirley Byrne, 77 Wellington Lane: I am a town meeting member and I've been down to Town Meeting and we've just rezoned, some have, I haven't, Flintlock and Drummer Boy. Why wasn't this proposal down to Town Meeting? It seems to me that it's town houses not single houses. We are rezoning property! Mr. Sheldon: Town Meeting is not the route he has to go. Under Chapter 774 or Chapter 40B and all the other legislation the Board of Appeals was granted a great deal of authority. These applications go through the Planning Board for their recommendations and they must go through the Board of Appeals for their approval. I think he took the proper course. Mr. Ostroff: May I express myself. I know the sentiment here. I come from Brookline. We have more low cost housing than any other town in the Common- wealth. (snickers) I didn't make the law. The law was passed by the Legislature and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts saw fit to interpret the law. He referred to Hanover vs. Housing Appeal Commission. They set forth the rules and regulations. Shirley Byrne felt that Mr. Ostroff still didn't answer her question. She still insisted that he say why he didn't go to Town Meeting. Mr. Sheldon reiterated that he doesn't have to go that route. James Zieff, 12 Young St.: I would like you to note that there's a certain sentiment among these people here, in that we moved into single family homes. My background is that of engineer, a developer and contractor. I take excep- tion to Mr. Ostroff's statement that these homes your proposing will fit into our area. This is an area which is heavily travelled. There will be approxi- mately 80 more cars. There will be somewhere around 120 children put into our school system in various grades. The impact of these homes and children and cars will result in a detriment to our neighborhood. CLAPPING Robert A. Goldstein, Attorney: May I step forward please? My name is Robert A. Goldstein. I am an attorney with an office in Waltham, Mass. I have been retained by several residents of Lexington to speak this evening. Mr. Ostroff has stated that he did not pass the law. Mr. Ostroff and this development does have to comply with the law. I want to site to you a case .... of Hanover and also Concord that went up together as one case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. We'll get to that in a minute. First of all I'd like to distribute to you a petition signed by many residents of Lexington in opposi- tion to this proposal. Mr. Sheldon: How many names? Answer: Roughly 200. In case you should think that those opposed are only those here this evening. THE PETITION, 12 pages with approximately 200 names was submitted. Mr. Goldstein: I will, in a matter of moments, get right down to what the law is, what Chapter 774 is, what the statute says and what the courts have said about it. 1 1 1 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) Chairman: You have 5 minutes. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION presented to the Board by Mr. Goldstein. (10 pages) Mr. Goldstein: First the general objections from the neighbors expressing their sentiments in opposition and I think the Board should naturally take into consideration the sentiments of the Town. You have letters, you've heard from other members of Boards in Town, you've heard from the Building Inspector and the Planning Board and according to statute, Section 21 of 40B, Chapter 774, you are required to take into consideration those letters and the opinions of the other Boards of the Town. Briefly, Chapter 774 does state that the Town should have minimum requirements for low and moderate income housing. Perhaps the Town doesn't meet the re- quirements at this time, although there's a balance involved here. It's not just a carte blanche for a developer to come in with any plan and say you don't have your minimum requirements so you've got to build this, because I'm petitioning you. He's got to meet certain requirements. It has to be consistent with the local needs. And I submit to you that the proposal that has been presented to you even in its recently amended form does not conform and is not consistent with local needs. Obviously we have got a little problem here and some of the Board members see it and it comes across with some of their questions as to some of the information lacking as to what this will be and we'll take Mr. Ostroff at his word that if he's going to ever build this he'll give us some of the information at sometime. Now, what is consistent with local needs? How do we go about defining this term and to see whether or not the construction which is proposed will comply with that definition which is the definition that this Board must find fits the proposal if they are to allow the proposal. Well, the statute does spell it out and the Supreme Judicial Court in the case which Mr. Ostroff wanted to site does also define what is this to do with local needs. Now, consistent with local needs standards requires that both the Board and the committee, if it should be appealed, balance the regional need for low and moderate income housing against any objections to the details of the proposal. -9 Before you, you have 200 names and you have many people here tonight and I'm sure you realize there are many objections to this proposal. Now, also to the objections you have to balance with this critera. I'm quoting from the case of the Board of Appeals of Hanover vs. the Housing Appeals Commission which is, for the record, in 294 N.E. 2d, pages 412 and 413, the factors to be con- sidered "to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing and of the residents of Lexington. This, Mrs. Herscott has mentioned. There are no sidewalks in the area. There's going to be a lot more children. There's a lot of traffic right on Woburn St., and it's one of the major arteries and Lowell St. is the other boundary of this whole neighborhood and Young St. and Webb St. constitute an increasingly popular shortcut at the rush hour to avoid the lights at the corner of Woburn St. and Lowell St. I think that if the Fire Department were here that they might have some objection to cars being parked on the proposed Dunham St. parking area, on the half of it, referred to by Mr. Ostroff. I don't know from these plans. It's difficult to tell, gazing upon them from here, and assuming that they are drawn to scale. I don't think they can get down that street now and make any kind of turn. Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) the newly submitted plans show parking space for 73 cars (1.65/unit). Mr. Ostroff stated that he appeared both as Trustee and as Attorney of the Lexington Housing Realty Trust which he said was a limited dividend trust and that it had been recorded with the Registry of Deeds on May 21, 1974. (The Board had been provided with a copy of this agreement uncertified prior to its being recorded.) Mr. Ostroff said that an application has been filed with Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MRFA). No number or identification has yet been assigned to the development, however, the development carries the project identification of Battle View Park. The petitioner claimed that the minimum requirement for low and moderate income housing had not been met in Lexington, that the requirement based on the 1970 Census would be 885 housing units, and only 150 units are classified as low or moderate income units in Lexington. He spoke of the 6 units of Lexington Interfaith under appeal. The 44 units he proposes will each be a separate housing unit, a separate home containing 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms. The original plan called for 3 and 4 bedrooms. He stated that upon advice of MHFA that he would be required to provide 25% for low income. housing. He explained the layout of the first and second floor of these units. There will be 19 three bedroom units, 14 four bedroom units and 11 two bedroom units at two levels. Each home will have a self-contained heating system ser- viced by gas, hot water will be supplied by tankless heater and all will be included in the rent. Telephone will not be provided. Each unit will be air conditioned, all bath rooms will have ceramic tile floors, no carpeting will be provided but refrigerator, range and disposal will be provided. There Are adequate closets and storage spaces. Each unit will have parking for one car and additional parking area will be available on that area marked Dunham St. on the plans for 29 cars. He stated that the Trust owns to the middle of Dunham St. and has an easement the rest of the way. He explained that water was available from an 8" main on both Webb and Young Streets. There's an 8" sewer line from both Webb and Young Streets and storm drains exist in both streets. He described the patio area and the setbacks: rear yard minimum 25', maximum 37' and front yard minimum 33', maximum 43' and other data as follow: The total land area is 3.58 acres or 156,280 s.f. The lot area for Type A 2500 s.f., Type B 2200 s.f. The total number of lots is 44. The total number of dwelling units is 44. The ground floor area of one unit is 750 s.f. The total floor area of one unit is 1500 s.f. The area of walks, parking, roadways would take up 50752 s.f. The area of lawns, patios, planting would take up 72528 s.f. The distance between buildings back to back would be 54'. The distance between buildings front to front would be 1061. The side setback is 0'. The parking ratio would be 1.6 cars per housing unit. He went on to explain that the percentage of land covered by buildings ' would be 21.4%; covered by walks, drives, roadways would be 32.2%;and the area for lawns and recreation 46.4%. He explained again that the first plans called for 24 three bedroom and 20 four bedroom units. The new plans are revised to show 19 three bedroom, 14 four bedroom and 11 two bedroom units. -2 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -6 Lawrence G. Movsessian, 17 Webb St.: I enjoyed Mr. Ostroff's presentation. Too bad I live there. The impact of more children in the area would be fantastic. We have 48 kids on Webb St. and 35 on Young St. not counting Rumford Rd. or the adjoining streets. I'd estimate that these 44 units with 3 or 4 bedrooms would bring about 100 kids. The impact on the neighborhood would be tremendous. The Town passed Articles 103, 104, 105, 106 -- Drummer Boy and Flintlock. Maybe we have met our needs for this year for local housing. With the increase of additional cars this project would bring in, there would be 73 cars with 29 on his half of Dunham Street.' I don't know if one-half of the street could be used as a parking lot but that's beside the point. I know that it will bother the school department. Richard D. Gilman, 17 Rumford Rd.: May I say that when Mr. Ostroff said that it was compatible ....... well, it's not compatible to the people or to the area. The people here have indicated that. It might be compatible in Coolidge Corner or Brookline but not to this location. MUCH CLAPPING Mr. Gilman continued with statements to the effect that this was hard to believe. Mr. Ostroff said that he has been aware of this area. If so he must have a psychological or sensorial blindness for a red brick building doesn't fit here. There ought to be some guide line against which this program could compare. He spoke of one classic case being Manchester vs. Philips 343, Mass. 591. On page 595 the court makes some observations....... He quoted to the effect that zoning laws are exercisable not only to conserve the obvious health and safety but also to conserve the value of land and build- ings and conserve and increase its amenities. It is within the power of the Legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean. A town can reasonably consider that a type of dwelling is detrimental to adjacent conventional single family houses and tends to depreciate, contrary to the public interest, the amenities and appearances of a residential district. They may also consider it's tendency to stifle the area for residential purposes. And they conclude that the Board certainly may consider injury to the investment, perhaps representing a sub- stantial part of the family resources of conventional houses of other owners, divert taxable values and otherwise impede town development. Now, that's a 1962 case, Mr. Chairman, and you may not feel that that is appropriate now that it's out of hat because this new snob -zoning law that counsel from Brook- line quotes is in effect. But there is another case that has come down. A year ago today and it is the case of Pioneer Homes Spew*Im rata No. Hampton 297 No. East 2nd 73 (numbers may not be correct- secretary's note) in which the courts said that the Board had a right to use its descretion in opposing a similar request on the grounds that it was not harmonious to the community and the zoning by-laws. Of course this petition is brought under Chapter 40B, Sections 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 and the court has a right to sweep aside the law that has preceded it with regard to zoning but interestingly enough Section 20 has the same requirements as Section 40B in that it must meet health and safety requirements; that it must take into consideration spaciousness and the surrounding area and its values. The question before you is a basic and a simple one and that is: Can 44 family units fit into 3'k acres of land in the middle of a single family dwelling area compatibly, into a wooden frame area compatibly. Would it represent whether we want to admit it or not a future slum? However beautifully it may be built initially it will become a slum. 1 1 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) Dunham Street is a private way. Mr. Ostroff: That's right. LAUGHTER Does that exclude it for a fire? Chairman: You are running out of time. -10 Mr. Goldstein: To promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings. Other members here tonight have talked about the building design and with deference to the gentleman who is here who is the designer this isn't much of a design. It's more an attempt to see how many units they can get on the lots and that's why they are packed in. There's no sidewalks. It's an architectural fiction to say, by calling it a town house, that you have one house on one lot, albeit 25 foot lots. To preserve open spaces. There should be no doubt to anyone who has looked at the area that this is now open space. I have yet to figure out how you are protecting an open space by building 4 long straight buildings on it unless you say you are protecting open space by Eliminating open spaces. Clearly and I think I have touched upon it here and it's in the "Brief" that under the Massachusetts General Laws under which Mr. Ostroff has petitioned_ He does not comply with the petition he has petitioned under. It's not con- sistent with local needs. The question I want to leave you with is "Does Lexington need this type of housing in this area?" MUCH CLAPPING Manfred P. Friedman, TMM Prec. 7: When I first came to Lexington, I lived in this area. I am familiar with this neighborhood. The statement that the construction would not have an impact on the neighborhood is ridiculous. It is in a sense a block buster........ Name ? This same developer came in before the Board in October for the right to put in a private home and was denied permission for lack of services, for lack of a good plan and what have you. He's gone home, done his homework and is taking a ploy at snob zoning to get what he wants. He's pulling a fast one on us. MUCH CLAPPING Herbert L. Slade, 14 Rumford Rd.: I have a comment about the parking. I had a brief view of the plans yesterday. It appears to me that some of the drive- ways are 24 feet long. Perhaps the sidewalk is being used as part of the driveway. The other comment. It would appear to be 15 feet between driveways off the street. An intermediate automobile is 17.5 ft. long! Frank Sandy, TMM Prec. 6: I don't quite understand the legal basis for his petition. As I understand it 774 allows you to waive zoning for low income ' subsidized housing. It doesn't allow you to waive zoning for ordinary housing of which 3/4 of this proposal is, for non low income housing. I understand that MHFA will give you financing with only 25% low income providing your devel- opment meets local requirements. But the fact he can get financing from NUA doesn't give him the right to waive zoning and 774 only allows him a variance from zoning for subsidized housing only. It doesn't meet those requirements. Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -11 ' Mr. Sandy (continued) To begin with it's not for low income housing, it's to get rich quick. I hope this Board will deny it. Mr. Cataldo: This properly meets every criteria of 774, if you read it. Of the three proposals that have come before this Board this is the most com- prehensive presentation that's ever been made. The gentleman deserves the consideration and courtesy of you people to go on the issue. It is the best proposal that's ever been before us. The basis for Chapter 774 has been properly brought before us. I don't think an attack on this gentleman is proper. A lady who did not identify herself: ( I believe it was Mrs. Semonian. ) It may be a beautiful proposal. It may be the most outstanding. Other people just don't want it. Mr. Sheldon: That's what you're entitled to say. William Fraser, Pct. 5 TMM: If you allow this, you could take every lot of 3 acres or less in any neighborhood and do the same thing. It's not compatible here. I think these people here are absolutely right in objecting. MUCH CLAPPING Mr. Sheldon cautioned the audience (to keep it's cool - sec. words) ' Mr. Sheldon: The gentleman in the back. Paul Plasse, TMM: I am somewhat familiar with the 774 legislation, as well as, MHFA, since we have been embroiled in this for quite a few years here in Lexington. I have two questions to ask Mr. Ostroff. But first I'd like to say that there isn't another community in the state who's meeting 774 require- ments. So, to criticize Lexington for that is unfair. Even Brookline isn't meeting their requirement. Also to say that Lexington isn't doing anything about it is unfair. So long as a community is showing that it is making an effort in a positive direction then 774 does not prevail. The questions I'd direct to Mr. Ostroff are these, Under the MHFA application, 2 of the questions that are asked are (1) for a list of the directors of the none profit organiza- tion, their names and addresses and (2) you are to submit a statement to MHFA on the impact on the neighborhood and the feelings of the neighborhood and I want to know, first of all who are the directors of this non-profit organization as required by MHFA so he must know them and the other, has he submitted this impact statement? Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Ostroff, do you want to answer those? Mr. Ostroff: yes. This is a Trust. It's not a corporation. I am the con- trolling interest in the Trust. I own 4/6ths of it. An associate of mine owns 1/6th of it and my family owns the other 1/6th of it. ' An unidentified lady: Why don't you buy the house next door to it and live in it? Answer: I'll tell you what you'll pay for the house next door with the improve- ments, anytime. That's an open offer right here. 1 D 1 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) Mr. Sheldon: Let's not get into anything like that. -12 Mr. Ostroff: As I told you gentlemen before, we have not received an approval from MHFA. We have applied. Anything your Board does is conditional, subject to.. While I'm up, with reference to the roof, if they want wood shingles. Wood shingles are just as expensive as a 50 year copper clad roof. If they want wood on the roof I'm willing to go along with it. I have no argument with it. I'd like to refer to one or two sentences in the Planning Board report that they so graciously furnished me a copy of and they tell me that based on cal- culationsmade by the Planning Board this development would generate approximately 32 children. LAUGHTER (the chairman had to gavel for quiet.) I didn't write the report. They also say it would generate about the maximum of 48 cars on a daily basis. Mr. Sheldon: Fine ...... Is there anyone who hasn't spoken before or who has something new to add? The gentleman up in back. Sec. note: Anthony Ferrari (I heard 44 Minuteman Rd., however, the address for Anthony Ferrari is listed as 24 Leonard Rd.) Maybe I shouldn't be talking here because all my fine friends here picked on me last night. I'm on their side tonight. Why doesn't this man build houses like there are in the neighborhood now? I don't think anyone would complain. Why does he want to build this type of house? I think I'd vote for him if he'd build the kind we have in the neighborhood. John Tallmadge, 3 Fourth St.: Mr. Ostroff stated there were sewers on Webb St. and Young St. I think the Board ought to be informed that it's all the same sewer, just one line, not 2 entrances. So that his proposal would add 44 more families on the same line. Also, in the summertime when everybody starts water- ing their lawn there's a noticeable drop in pressure. I don't know what will happen when there's another 44 families on the line. A man from Young St.: I'd like to find out one thing. What are the safety precautions that are being taken by this developer in regard to ...36 or 46 cars if a fire engine has to find entrance to those two small streets? How are they going to back in and out in order to protect the people in case of fire? I don't see how they could put a pumping unit in in order to save one of the units if a fire got out of hand. It would affect the other units and there are so many lives involved and ....here is a monetary gain for one and a loss for many. You can't replace lives. I'm more concerned about lives being lost in case of fire. So, I certainly object to granting this. Charlotte Sanderson, 5 Meadowbrook Ave.: I was wondering how this will affect our police and fire departments. Chairman: We have a letter from the fire department which I will read later. The Chairman said that he would read some of the letters. I've read much of the content of the Building Inspector's letter. I'll read Mr. Chase's letter. (Town Engineer) Gentlemen: We are in receipt of the plans for the subject project, however, you should be made aware of the fact that both First and Second Streets are classified as paper streets which in our opinion raises some serious doubts as to the legality of the submittal. In 1971, the Planning Board inquired of then Town Counsel, Donald E. Legro, requesting guidelines in dealing with land abutting so-called paper streets. We are enclosing herewith a copy of his reply to that letter. In brief Mr. Legro states that these paper streets do not meet the definition of a street as defined in the zoning by-law therefore no frontage exists and no lots could have been created. If such is the case and no streets do exist, then it is quite evident that there are two options available to the developer. The first would be to go before the Planning Board with a subdivision conforming to the subdivision con- trol law or, secondly petition the Board of Selectmen acting as the Board of Public Works to lay out the streets under the betterment acts which would re- quire public hearings and Town Meeting action. In any event, even if the above consideration is found to be incorrect, and the streets are declared open to public travel, the developer would not have the rights to the first sections of both streets since the right in fee to the center line would be owned by the Feinsteins and Di-Benedettos in the case of First Street and the Eliades and Kruszenskis in the case of Second Street. In order to construct those portions of the streets releases from all four families would first have to be obtained. Finally, this department does not find xerox reductions that have to be pasted together suitable for submission of engineering plans for our review. Any plans showing proposed site development should be submitted at much the same size and scale as those required under the subdivision rules and regula- tions. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. ' Yours very truly, /s/ James E. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -13 ' Frances Movsessian, 17 Webb St.: I live on Webb, the third house in. In the past few years there have only been 6 new homes on Webb St. and 2 new houses on Young St. There is a notable difference in traffic that I can notice, whether it be deliveries or traffic or what have you. It's very tolerable but I cannot envision what it would be like to have 44 more home owners in that area. Thank you. The Chairman said that he would read some of the letters. I've read much of the content of the Building Inspector's letter. I'll read Mr. Chase's letter. (Town Engineer) Gentlemen: We are in receipt of the plans for the subject project, however, you should be made aware of the fact that both First and Second Streets are classified as paper streets which in our opinion raises some serious doubts as to the legality of the submittal. In 1971, the Planning Board inquired of then Town Counsel, Donald E. Legro, requesting guidelines in dealing with land abutting so-called paper streets. We are enclosing herewith a copy of his reply to that letter. In brief Mr. Legro states that these paper streets do not meet the definition of a street as defined in the zoning by-law therefore no frontage exists and no lots could have been created. If such is the case and no streets do exist, then it is quite evident that there are two options available to the developer. The first would be to go before the Planning Board with a subdivision conforming to the subdivision con- trol law or, secondly petition the Board of Selectmen acting as the Board of Public Works to lay out the streets under the betterment acts which would re- quire public hearings and Town Meeting action. In any event, even if the above consideration is found to be incorrect, and the streets are declared open to public travel, the developer would not have the rights to the first sections of both streets since the right in fee to the center line would be owned by the Feinsteins and Di-Benedettos in the case of First Street and the Eliades and Kruszenskis in the case of Second Street. In order to construct those portions of the streets releases from all four families would first have to be obtained. Finally, this department does not find xerox reductions that have to be pasted together suitable for submission of engineering plans for our review. Any plans showing proposed site development should be submitted at much the same size and scale as those required under the subdivision rules and regula- tions. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. ' Yours very truly, /s/ James E. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer II L 1 Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) The Chairman read the Fire Chief's letter. Regarding letter from your office dated May 17, 19749 I cannot recommend acceptance of the plans of the Lexington Realty Trust in relation to their development off Young and Webb Streets. The plans are incomplete as to street layout, hydrant system, storage of fuel (for heating purposes) and provisions for fire alarm system. Also, construction details are vague as to protection of spread of fire between buildings. Very truly yours, /s/ Walter F. Spellman Chief The Chairman read the letter from the Board of Health. The Board of Health has reviewed the plans of the low/and or moderate income housing proposed for construction on First and Second Streets. -14 It is understood that these units will be serviced by public sewer and public water supply. Due to the history of poor drainage and standing water in this area, before Board of Health approval may be given a complete engineer's report of the proposed drainage for the area must be submitted. Yours truly, William L. Cosgrove, D.M.D. Chairman, Board of Health Chairman: You will be happy to know we have a Planning Board report and you will be equally happy to know that I won't read the entire report. LAUGHTER I will read you the pertinent page ...number 10. The Chairman read pages 10 and 11 of the Planning Board Report and stated that if anyone wished to read it, it will be available in the Board of Appeals' office. Chairman read a letter from Howard Cravis as follows: I wish to be recorded in opposition to the petition of Lexington Housing Realty Trust for a comprehensive permit to construct 44 dwelling units on First and Second Streets, off Young and Webb Streets. I request that this letter be made a part of the hearing record. As a member of the Lexington Commission on Suburban Responsibility and of the Lexington Interfaith Corporation and as a Town Meeting Member, I have supported all of the proposals so far brought to the Town in which there would be subsidized housing. In the case of the Lexington Housing Realty Trust petition, however, the subsidized housing plan is not well defined, and Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -15 as far as I am able to tell, the land in question is not suited for building these units. Respectfully, /s/ Howard Cravis Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5. 6 Rogers Road Lexington, MA The Chairman made note of the letter from Ephraim Weiss and read portions of it. 462 Lowell St. Lexington, MA 02173 May 20, 1974 Dear Sirs: This is in regard to the public hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 21, regarding a petition by a Mr. Ostroff. I have reviewed the petition at the office of the Board of Appeals, and have some questions and some comments. The petition does not establish that the petitioner owns and/or represents all the legal owners of the many parcels of property involved. My reading of the town records indicate many owners, none of whose names appear anywhere on the petition. For this reason alone, the Board should reject the petition outright. Since the petitioner is filing under the so-called "anti -Snob Zoning" sections (Chapter 40b, Sections 20,21,22,23) of the General Laws, it is a prerequisite that he must have legally established a suitable corporation; the petition shows no evidence of the existence of such a corporation. For this reason alone, the Board should reject the petition outright. Even if the aforementioned had been properly addressed, there are many reasons why the Board of Appeals should deny a petition of the type proposed. I shall enumerate but a few. The General Laws never intended to permit abominations of the type pro- posed, in deliberate contravention of all ordnances and By -Laws. It is hardly necessary to enumerate the various aspects of the zoning by-laws which the petitioner proposes to by-pass. Yet these laws were enacted for the public purposes cited, including the health and welfare of the inhabitants. The petitioner proclaims his intention to construct low or moderate income housing; the petition does not substantiate this intention, nor does it provide documentation indicating his ability to construct such housing. The petition is grossly incomplete, which is sufficient basis for denying the permission ' outright. The land in question includes wetland. I personally visited the property on Friday, May 19, and found a considerable portion of "First St." under water or too soggy to walk on. Part of "Second St." was soggy also. Vegetation in Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -16 ' the area includes grasses and mosses of the types found in swamps and normally wet lands. Children playing in the area have learned to avoid playing in sev- eral of these sections because of the normally wet areas. If the members of the Board have not visited the site, I would recommend such a visit. I would also suggest communicating with the Conservation Commission regarding the pos- sibility that a wetland hearing may be necessary. Development of this section may result in sufficient changes in the natural drainage and water storage in the area that nearby residences may subsequently encounter flooding in their basements, as has occurred in similar areas. The impact of a development of the type proposed would be substantial, and it would be deleterious to the immediate neighborhood and to the Town. Many people in the neighborhood have expressed apprehension, principally because the petitioner's plans have been so gross, and at the same time so incomplete. The petitioner appears to be requesting a Carte Blanche to develop as he wishes, with details to be worked out as he proceeds. As an interested citizen, and a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 5, within which the subject land lies, I have addressed the petition as submitted. I regret my inability to attend the hearing personally, but I respectfully urge the Board to address the petition as filed. If substantive changes are made, so that the petition is no longer as initially filed, I hope to have the opportunity to address these changes. On the basis of the petition, I urge the Board of Appeals to deny Mr. Ostroff's petition. I Sincerely, /s/ Ephraim Weiss Chairman: I'll explain our procedure. What we would normally do is to discuss further the cases we have had tonight and vote on them. Anyone wishing to stay is welcome to do so. But no one may speak or enter into the discussions. Because this case tonight is an important one the Board feels it needs time before arriving at a conclusion. We will meet here one week from tonight and at that time vote on it. William Fraser requested a show of hands -of those in opposition, who did not sign the petition. 20 or 21 persons raised hands in opposition to the petition. Mr. Cataldo asked Mrs. Brown if any of the Design Advisory Board had given their recommendations on this proposal. Mrs. Brown stated that their recommendations had been included in the report. The chairman declared the hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk Board of Appeals BOARD OF APPEALS May 21, 1974 4:30 P.M. i An organizational meeting was held in Room G15. Present were Donald E. Nickerson, Ruth Morey, George P. Wadsworth, Woodruff M. Brodhead and Logan Clarke, Jr. The purpose of this meeting was to elect a chairman and vice chairman. George C. Sheldon, Vice Chairman, had resigned. Logan Clarke, Jr. has been appointed a regular member by the Board of Selectmen. By unanimous vote Donald E. Nickerson was elected chairman and George P. Wadsworth was elected vice chairman. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M. BOARD OF APPEALS - Regular Members: Donald E. Nickerson, 49 Somerset Rd George P. Wadsworth, 230 Waltham St Ruth Morey, 90 No. Hancock St. Woodruff M. Brodhead, 21 Hayes Ave. Logan Clarke, Jr., 19 Burroughs Rd. Associates: Haskell W. Reed, 76 Lowell St. Robert Cataldo, 1970 Massachusetts Ave. Robert Gary, 29 Highland Ave. Thous G. Taylor, 64 Marrett Rd. Natalie Riffin, 6 Field Rd. Irving H. Mabee, 5 Tavern La. cam- "'�. CO. Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk - 1977 - 1979 - 1976 - 1978 - 1975