Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
126 <br />ZAP <br />c� <br />northwesterly from the corner of Middle Street. ' <br />Mr. Locke read the notice of the hearing. <br />Mr. Napoli and his son were present. <br />The Chairman asked if there was anything he wanted <br />to do different from other years, and he replied in the <br />negative. No persons appearing in opposition, the hear- <br />ing was declared closed at 8:02 P. M. <br />Upon motion of Mr. Kimball, seconded by Mr. Bowker, <br />it was voted to grant the petition in the following form: <br />BOARD OF APPEALS PERMIT <br />The Board of Appeals, acting under General Laws, <br />Chapter 40, Sec. 27, having received a written petition <br />addressed to it by Frank A. Napoli, a copy of which is <br />hereto annexed, held a public hearing thereon of which <br />notice was mailed to the petitioner and to the owners <br />of all property deemed by the Board to be affected <br />thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list <br />and also advertised in the Lexington Minute -Man, a news- <br />paper published in Lexington, which hearing was held in <br />the Selectmen's Room, in the Town Office Building on the <br />24th day of May, 1940. <br />Two Associates and three members of the Board of ' <br />Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of <br />notice is hereto annexed." At this hearing evidence was <br />offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show: <br />That he wished a permit for a period of one year expiring <br />on May 8, 1941 to conduct a roadside stand on property <br />of Frank A. and Mary Napoli located on Marrett Road and <br />Middle Street; <br />That there had been no changes made in connection with <br />the existing roadside stand and that there had been no <br />parking of automobiles on Marrett Road. <br />No evidence was offered in opposition. <br />At the close -of the hearing the Board in private <br />session on May 24, 1940 gave consideration to the subject <br />of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the <br />following findings: <br />1. That in its judgment the public convenience and wel- <br />fare will be substantially served by the itaking of the <br />exception requested. <br />2. That the exception requested will not tend to impair <br />the status of the neighborhood. <br />3. That the exception requested will be in harmony with <br />the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the <br />Lexington Zoning By-law. ' <br />4. That owing to conditions especially affecting the <br />said parcel but not affecting generally the Zoning district <br />