Loading...
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