1938-06-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

185 The Board considered the application of the Lexington Savings Bank for the division of 45 Hancock Street extend- ing through to and fronting on Somerset Road, and felt that with the frontage of the other lots on Somerset Road being much larger, it would not be desirable to divide the frontage of this lot into two lots, onehaving a frontage of 72.65 feet, and the other 72 feet. The Chairman stated that Mr. Kimball wished to be recorded in favor of denying the petition. Mr. Glynn did not act on the petition. It was unanimously voted to deny the petition in the following form: The Board of Appeals acting under General Laws, Chapter 40, Sec. 27, having received a written petition addressed to it by Lexington Savings Bank, a copy of which is hereto annexed, held a public hearing thereon of which notice was mailed to the petitioner and to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, and also advertised in the Lexington Minute -Man, a newspaper published in Lex- ington, Which hearing was held in the Selectmen's Room, in the Town Office Building on June 24, 1938. One Associate and four members of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hearing evidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show: That it owned by foreclosure proceedings the lot numbered 45 Hancock Street, extending to and fronting on Somerset Road, the lot contain- ing 39,866 square feet; that they desired to divide the Somerset Road portion of the lot into two lots, one to have a frontage of 72.65 feet, and the other 72 feet; they stated that they had been unable to obtain any offers for the property as a whole, but had had some inquiry for smaller lots. Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting of the said petition tending to show that such a division of the Somerset Road frontage would depreciate the value of the property in the neighborhood and the building of two houses would be decidedly harmful to the neighborhood. At the close of the hearing the Board in private session on June 24th gave consideration to the subject of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the following findings: 1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served by the making of the exception requested. 2. That the exception requested will tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. 3. That the exception requested will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington Zoning By-law.