HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-081
1
BOARD OF APPEALS
January 8, 1976
Prior to regularly scheduled hearings for January 8, 1976 a meeting was held
in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office Building.
At 7:20 p.m. regular and associate members, as listed below, were present
for a photograph for the Annual Town Report and to sign an acknowledgment of
receipt of a copy of the Open Meeting Law from Mary R. McDonough, Town Clerk.
Regular Members Associate Members
Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman Robert Cataldo
George P. Wadsworth, Vice -Chairman Haskell W. Reed
Woodruff M. Brodhead Thomas G. Taylor
Ruth Morey Irving H. Mabee
Not present:
r,.
Logan Clarke, Jr. Robert M. Gary
Natalie H. Riffin
Also present at 7:20 p.m. were Town Counsel, Norman Cohen, and Building
Commissioner, Donald K. Irwin, both at the Chairman's request, for the purpose
of discussing an issue raised by Mr. Cataldo as to whether the building permit
held by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc, was properly issued or not
by the town's building department.
Background
The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc. petitioned the Board of Appeals
to construct 16 townhouses for low and moderate income families on a 2.5 acre
parcel of land abutting St. Brigid's Church. A hearing was held by the Board
of Appeals and the permit was denied by the board on August 7, 1973. This
denial was overturned by the State Housing Appeals Committee on August 29, 1974.
The Housing Appeals Committee decision was upheld, in turn, by the Superior
Court on February 27, 1975, Justice Raymond R. Cross presiding. The Judge's
order and the comprehensive permit subsequently issued by the Board of Appeals
were both made subject to certain conditions (exactly the same). The condition
which Mr. Cataldo and others felt had not been met reads as follows:
"Prior to final financial commitment, the Massachusetts Housing Finance
Agency shall as part of its project review, comply with the requirements
of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, General Laws, Chapter 30,
subsections 61-62."
No environmental statement has been issued since the Judge's order in
February 1975, or the Board's comprehensive permit in May, 1975. As a result,
a majority of the Board has concluded that the Planning Office of Urban Affairs,
Inc. has not complied with its conditional approval and that a building permit
obtained from the town was issued prematurely.
It is claimed that the MHFA, as part of its normal processing of the Plan-
ning Office application, investigated the potential impact of the project on
' the environment and determined that its impact was not significant and that an
environmental impact report was not required, a so-called negative assessment.
On January 3, 1974, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs concurred in
the negative assessment determination by MHFA,apparently, and a loan closing
January 8, 1976
-2
for the subsidized housing project was held in October, 1975.
Members of the Board, however, reason that Board members and Justice
Cross were both aware of the 1974 determination of "no impact" but nonetheless
made their 1975 approval subject to and conditional upon compliance with the
state's environmental protection act. The Board's position is that the intent
of this condition was to require a new environmental impact statement, thereby
giving the public its first and only opportunity to respond to the plans from
an environmental standpoint. Certain Board members feel that public input
could even be assured, if the Planning Office would simply resubmit its 1974
determination of "no impact". This entire meeting was public and reported in
the Lexington Minute -Man newspaper.
The Board is expected to discuss the matter further with Town Counsel.
At approximately 8:05 p.m. Town Counsel and Building Commissioner and others
left the meeting room and the regularly scheduled hearings were held.
Regularly scheduled hearings:
Present and acting on the public open hearings scheduled for January 8,
hearings which were duly advertised as required by law and notices mailed as
specified in the law, were: Chairman Nickerson, Vice -Chairman Wadsworth, W.
M. Brodhead, H. W. Reed and R. Cataldo.
' David G. Ahern - Petition was withdrawn by letter from the petitioner after it
had been advertised, etc. as follows: "David G. Ahern for variances of the
zoning by-law to construct a garage at 26 Dewey Road with a 17 foot setback
and a 5 foot sideyard." All who had been notified of the hearing were notified
that it was withdrawn.
Alden L. Webster and Judith A. Webster - permission to vary the zoning by-law
so as to maintain the existing non -conforming dwelling with its easterly side
yard of 8.80 ft. to 9.26 ft. and front yard of 15 ft. on the property known as
113 North Street, and to construct a proposed extension of said dwelling con-
tinuing the non -conforming easterly side yard ranging from 8.42 ft. to 9.26 ft.
reduced by the proposed roof overhang of up to 1.5 ft., all as shown on plans
submitted to the Board of Appeals.
Christos Kontos - special permit under Section 25.69, pursuant to Section 12.2,
to operate a restaurant at One Meriam Street, in the Giroux Building, Store
Number 5. The petitioner has an option on this space with Minute Man Park
Realty Trust, Ernest A. and Chadwick A. Giroux, Trustees, for the period re-
quired to obtain the special permit herein requested.
Joel G. Berman - variance in the required setback between an RS Zone and a CB
Zone which under Section 27 of the Lexington Zoning By-law, Schedule of Dimen-
sional Controls, is required to be 20 ft. In the case under petition the act-
ual setbacks are 10.6 ft. at the nearest point and 16.8 ft. at the farthest
point from the property line. These distances relate to a new addition being
' added to the Berman Liquor Mart, 55 Massachusetts Avenue. The existing premises
consist of a lot of 30,432 (plus or minus) square feet totally within the CB
or Central Business Zone. The rear lot line for a distance of 225 feet (plus
or minus) is the southerly boundary of the Boston and Maine Railroad right-of-
way. However, the Boston and Maine right-of-way is in an RS Zone. The pro-
posed addition will meet the building code and zoning requirements in all
January 8, 1976 -3
other respects.
' Patricia Calogero - variances of Sections 26 and 27 to build a house on a lot
described as Lot #271 Blake Road (land between numbers 36 and 48 Blake Road),
the area being 10,380 sq. ft. instead of 12,500 sq. ft. and the frontage
measuring 94.90 ft. instead of 100 ft. The Petitioner has a firm Purchase
and Sales Agreement contingent on the Board of Appeals approval of these
variances.
The Board made the following decisions, all in open public meeting:
Ahern - Withdrawn by the petitioner. Petitioner states he will build accord-
ing to plans he submitted with an earlier petition which the Board granted on
October 23, 1975.
Webster - granted unanimously with the condition that construction shall
start within a period of 18 months.
Kontos - granted unanimously, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Board has no objection to the requested 7 days a week, hours not to
exceed 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., subject to Selectmen's approval when a victu-
aler's license is obtained.
2. The rules and regulations of the Board of Health must be followed and an
appropriate ventilation system shall be installed.
3. No more than 13 tables seating 52 customers shall be permitted.
' 4. Extreme care shall be exercised in the disposing of waste material (gar-
bage and rubbish) in accordance with the town's specifications.
Berman - Granted unanimously, subject to the condition that the canopy shall
be removed as stated and the ice -machine relocated as described. Construc-
tion must begin within one year from date.
Calogero - Denied 4 to 1 (Chairman voting in favor): That in its judgment
the public convenience and welfare will not be substantially served by the
making of the exception requested; it will not be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington Zoning By-laws; that
the enforcement of the Lexington Zoning By-law as to the matter in question
would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, since she merely
holds a purchase and sales agreement on it; and the relief requested could
not be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose
of the Lexington Zoning By-law. The restrictions in the deed, stating how a
house must set on the land, and placing a house of the dimensions proposed
might impair the status of the neighborhood.
All pertinent material is on file in the Board of Appeals' office. The
meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
' Evelyn F. Cole, Administrative Clerk