HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-03 BOARD OF APPEALS
September 3, 1974
On this date at 7 15 p m Chairman, Donald E Nickerson, Vice Chairman,
George P Wadsworth; regular members, Logan Clarke, Jr and Ruth Morey; and
associate member, Robert Cataldo met in open public session in the Select-
men's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building to continue deliberations
RE The Mammola Brothers Realty Trust Petition
for a restaurant on the property at
351-353 and 361-363 Massachusetts Avenue,
notice having been posted with the Town Clerk of Lexington An audience of
people were present to listen to the deliberations
The decision Mammola Brothers (restaurant) denied
The vote (2 to 3)
In favor R Morey, D E Nickerson
In opposition G Wadsworth, L Clarke and R Cataldo
HEARINGS
The regularly scheduled hearings of the Lexington Board of Appeals
followed Present were Chairman Nickerson, Vice Chairman G Wadsworth,
Ruth Morey, Woodruff M Brodhead; and associate member Irving H Mabee
Also present but not voting was R Cataldo In attendance was a Minute-Man
reporter, LWV Observer and a room full of townspeople
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
Lexington Mews, Amalia G Samoylenko, Associate, on behalf of Stephen Minasian
tin Flicks Art Cinema, lessee - special permit to erect a standing sign at
10 Muzzey Street
Kitchen & Kutchin, Inc - (1) a variance from the area and dimensional re-
quirements of the zoning by-law of the Town of Lexington for that portion
of a 3 0514 acre parcel of land located at the northeasterly corner of
Hartwell Avenue and Hinchey Road in Lexington, Middlesex County, Massachu-
setts, which is located within the CH zone (part of said parcel being located
within the CM zone) , the entire parcel being shown as Lot 3 on a plan entitled
"Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass " dated June 17, 1974, by Albert A Miller
and Wilbur C Nylander, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, and (2) for a site plan
review and approval of a special permit pursuant to Section 13 and related
subsections of the zoning by-law for the construction and operation of a
25,000 sq ft building on the 3 0514 acre parcel of land at the northeasterly
corner of Hartwell Avenue and Hinchey Road in Lexington, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts, all as shown on the site plan entitled, "Grading and Parking
Plan for Proposed Office Building in Lexington, Massachusetts," dated June 19,
1974, by Joseph W Moore Company The Board of Appeals is requested to make a
September 3, 1974 (continued) -2
finding and determination that the proposed placement of buildings, major
topographic changes, provisions for waste disposal, surface and ground water
drainage, protection against flooding and inundation, prevention of water
pollution and environmental damage, erosion control, parking areas, loading
areas, maneuvering areas, driveways, and the location of intersections of
driveways and streets will constitute a suitable development and will not
result in substantial detriment to the neighborhood The proposed use of
the building is for office and research and development Statement of
Ownership Petitioner states that it is an owner under agreement of the
property by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement dated July 16, 1974
Lexington Chalet Inc - pursuant to section 13 and other applicable sections,
for a site plan review for a finding and determination that the proposed
placement of an additional building at 440 Bedford Street and major topo-
graphic changes, provisions for waste disposal, surface and ground water
drainage, protection against flooding and inundation, prevention of water
pollution and environmental damage, erosion control, parking areas, loading
areas, maneuvering areas, driveways, and the location of intersections of
driveways and streets, as shown on plans submitted, will constitute a suit-
able development and will not result in substantial detriment to the
neighborhood
Richard H Soule - pursuant to Section 12 2, for a special permit under Sec-
' tion 25 21 to operate a training center for carpenters on the premises at
16 Hancock Street
Following the hearings the Board made the following decisions, all in
public open meeting
Lexington Mews - denied unanimously to erect another free standing sign,
but GRANTED to enlarge the present free standing sign
Kitchen & Kutchin, Inc - granted unanimously See permit for conditions
Lexington Chalet Inc - granted unanimously See permit for conditions
Richard H Soule - denied unanimously
All pertinent material is on file in the Board of Appeals' office
The meeting adjourned at 12 25 p m
Evelyn F Cole, Clerk
Transcript made Feb 18, 1975 from shorthand notes taken at hearing Sept 3, 1974 To be used
at Middlesex District Court, Concord on Feb 19, 1975 Request for transcript made by Villiam
J Dailey, Sr , Attorney n w,g,l„ry lig ea-et.,
BOARD OF APPEALS
111 KITCHEN AND KUTCHEN HEARING
September 3, 1974
Board members present and voting:
Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman
George P. WadE"& rth, Vice Chairman
Ruth Morey
Woodruff Brodhead
Irving Mabee
8:05 P.M.
The Chairman declared the meeting open.
Joel M. Reck, Attorney for the Petitioners, requested
a change in the wording of the petition.
The Chairman asked Mr. Reck to read the notice. with the
corrections. This Mr. Reck diel: making the followiitg changes:
( i) adding the words "Revised Drainage" after "site plan
entitled" ,
( 2) changed the date"June 19, 197eto °Aug. 29, 1974 and
( 3) changed "Joseph W. Moore Co:' to "Perley F. Gilbert Assoc.
Inc."
The notice was read as it appears in the Permit.
Chairman: The drawings submitted were 3 copies of each of
the following: (The Chairman read the list as it appears
in the Permit. ) Mr. Kutchin has provided us with two revised
plans covering the relocation of the building as suggested by
the Planning Board.
Chairman: Do you wish to amplify your petition?
Answer: No. Unless you wish more information. We are seek—
ing two things, a variance for the portion of the land located
within the CH Zone and a site plan review. The zones CH and
CM require different setbacks. There are unique characteristics
involved. My client has worked hard to get the best kind of
construction that ' s possible . That part of the land which lies
within the CM zone is isolated from the rest of the CM zone by
the course of Hinchey Road and is too small to build that kind
of structure which is permitted in a CM zone upon it. The
physical contours are such that it would not be feasible to
build a building on the other side of that part of Hinchey
Road which bisects said parcel. At some point in time this
property will be developed. What is proposed will be a credit
to the town. Mr. Kutchen lives in Lexington.
KITCHEN AND KITCHEN HEARING (continued) -2
Chairman: You go up Hinchey Road and then it extends parallel
111 to Hartwell and stops. Th chairman said that he drove down by
the houses to where it ends. He referred to the new commercial
building down in front." This building will occupy 20% or less
of the area. You will instruct your employees to park in the
rear?
Answer: The lower level will be available to customers.
Permanent employees will go up above to park. Some regulations
for parking will be made.
Chairman: We know you have bent your backs to try to do as the
Town requests. Have you made any determination as to what kind
of tenants you will have?
Answer: Office people . We are in the electronic business and
not searching for research and development. We thought it was
not fair. All those we have talked with would be office people.
G. Wadsworth: I'd like to see the latest maps.
The maps were spread out as the Board members looked at the
latest plans, noting the distance from Hinchey Road - 40 ft.
setback. Someone said that it appeared that there would be
adequate drainage according to the plans.
The Chairman asked if there were any other questions from the
Board. There were none.
Chairman: Does anyone wish to speak in favor?
IN FAVOR:
Les York: The aim has been to develop it as well as possible.
This has been a development which has worked around Hinchey
Road. I am in favor.
Chairman: Anyone else? No response.
Chairman: Would anyone like to speak in opposition?
IN OPPOSITION:
John Brucchi: I told you I went to my attorney. The building
should be set back 75 ft. and they should not be allowed less
than 75 feet. Now they are asking 60 ft. At the rate Hartwell
Avenue is going it will be a four lane highway. If you could
picture 150 cars coming in there. Hinchey Road is not accepted.
It ' s a private way 20 feet wide. You'll have two lines of
111 traffic going by. Children will not be able to get name.
It needs a retaining wall. Mr. Colangelo has moved soil. The
land is 6 to 8 ft. below grade. 20,000 yards of fill have been
taken from that area.
Mr. Brucchi showed several pictures he had of the area as he
KITCHEN AND KUTCHEN HEARING ( continued) -3
continued to talk. He' s been scraping the fill off and it
111 will need a retaining wall 20 ft. wide, 22 ft. from the
house. How can cars turn around and go up there?
Chairman: Seventy cars not one hundred and fifty.
Mr. Brucchi continued about his concern for the state of
Hinchey Road and the need for a retaining wall. He posed a
question concerning land court and stated that the Planning
Board is not land court.
Arthur Carota (Waltham) , John Brucchi and Mr. Siekman (Henry
A. ) came forward to see the new plans submitted by the petitioner.
Chairman: We have to complete this hearing.
(Reference was made to a recent Planning Board meeting and
some problem with the time that hearing began. There was a
claim that it opened at 7 p.m. instead of 7: 30 p.m. as scheduled. )
Chairman: We don't like to have the Planning Board or the news-
paper make d'ur decisions for us before we hold a hearing. We
are tired of their saying that the Planning Board says "thus
and so" . We don't like to have the claim that a matter is
decided by the Planning Board and read ,about it in the paper.
The Chairman asked Mr:. Reck the size of the lot.
Answer: Total of 3.0514 acres.
Chairman: Explain the two kinds of zones in this area.
Answer: Ch and CM.
Mr. Carota: The owner is still Mr. Colangelo. On May 28, 1974,
7: 30, he said he would not touch Hinchey Road. He has touched
it twice. I wrote letters and called about it and I haven't
received an answer.
G. .Wadsworth: Who did you write to?
Answer: The Selectmen.
Chairman Do you think they are talking about the same part
that we are?
Mr. Carota: They requested e ed t hat this not be touched.
11/ Chairman: You' ll have to check with the Selectmen not us.
Mr. Carota continued something about the division of the lot.
KITCHEN AND KITCHEN HEARING (continued) -4
111 Both John Brucchi and Mr. Carota expressed the feeling that
they had been harassed and ignored. "My life was threatened"
was a claim made.
Chairman: If we could help you in any way we would. We have
to take this petition as presented to us and make up our minds.
We know you feel you have been harassed.
Henry Siekman, 62 Hinchey Road: It is my contention that it
was not put there for the purpose for which it is now being
used 90 degree turn it' s unsafe 20 ft. road.
Eva Burbidge, owner of 72 Hinchey Rd. : We have to have an
access for fire protection. It's impossible to get up there
and it' s not fair. How can the Planning Board over rule the
Town Meeting? What does Mr. Clarke <Eric) know about that?
Chairman: I will ask Mr. Clarke about that. You have had
more than enough time.
The Chairman referred to letters from Town Boards:
Letter from Board of Selectmen, August 13, in reply to our
letter to them.
Letter from Town Engineer, July 30, with 6 comments.
Letter from Conservation Commission, Aug. 29.
Letter from Planning Board, August 30 with 6 conditions.
The Chairman asked Eric Clarke, Planning Board Chairman if he
had an answer to Mrs. Burbidge 's question.
Mr. Reck responded: Land court problem was started by Mr.
Colangelo, who registered title to the land. It guarantees
that he has the title to the land. . .both sides of Hinchey
Road as it extends past the houses. Mr. Colangelo and Kitchen
and Kutchen will continue and now it 's in the preliminary
stages. He (Mr. Reck) was not the attorney of record. That
doesn't deter them.
The hearing was declared closed at 9 p.m.
On September 3, 1974 in open public session the Board con-
sidered the subject of the petition. After discussion and
deliberation, Mr. Irving Mabee made the motion to grant the
petition. Mrs. Ruth Morey seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The decision, the findings, and the conditions are all
111 included in the Permit, which was granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk