1938-04-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 1 that both she and her sister wanted to go on record as being opposed to the granting of the petition. At the present time they are very much annoyed by the noise from the playground. Mr. F. B. Hunneman of 7 Parker Street said that he lived close to the property in question. He felt that it was a delicate thing to oppose the question as he knew the work of the Gid and Boy Scouts. He said, however, that he was opposed to any variation of the present Zoning Laws. This district was established as a two-family zone and on application of the neighbors, it was changed to an R.1 District. He said that he had been a resident of his present home for twenty-five years and this was the first thing he had ever objected to. He said his objection was not against letting the Girl Scouts in there, but was against a variation of the Zoning Laws. He said that his notice said that this was on the application of Margaret O'Brien and that previous speakers had spoken of the donor as "he". Mr. Hunneman wanted to know what that meant. The Chairman said that Margaret E. O'Brien was not the pe- titioner, that the Girl Scouts of Lexington were the petitioners. Mr. Lawrence G. Mitchell of 11 Parker Street was the next speaker. He said that he was not against the young people or the Girl Scouts, but that he did object to any variation of the zoning laws in this district. He thought that the letting down of the bars would at this time only result in letting the Boy Scouts in later.. He felt that the petition should not be granted. Mr. Victor E. Saltsgaver of 10 Parker Street stated that he agreed with the others in protesting against letting down the bars of the Zoning Laws. He thought that once the bars were down, it would be very easy to have them let down in the future. Mr. Glynn stated that the previous speakers had said that they purchased the property knowing that the playground was there. He said the playground served a cross-section of the children of the town.. He asked why it was that these people had the belief that supervised activities of a body like the Girl Scouts would be more objectionable than the activities, for instance, of children at the playground. Mr. Mitchell said that he did not mean to infer that the Girl Scouts would be so objectionable. The objection was to a variation of the Zoning Laws. He said that he knew the use of the house would be somewhat restricted. He said that if the Girl Scouts were going to have headquarters, he would not object to bugle and drum practice. He said that if the Board was going to grant the petition and restrict the activities, it would not do much good. Mr. Hagerty stated °that he came to this home three years ago and when he bought the property, he knew the playground was thereo. Lots of people might object to the playground, but he did not. He said that he had three sons, age 16, 12, and 9. One boy had been through the Boy Scouts and one was now in the Boy Scouts. Mr. Hagerty said that he had a daughterwho passed 121