Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
16 <br />C� <br />The Board considered the petition of Clarence L. Cole. It <br />was the opinion the the Board that the garage could be narrowed <br />and kept within the 7P from the lots. <br />Upon motion of Mr. Redman, seconded by Mr. Nickerson, it <br />was unanimously voted thatthe petition be denied in the following <br />form: <br />Wi1RD ..OF APPEALS DENIAL <br />The Board of Appeals, acting under the Lexington Zoning <br />By-law and General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 40 as amended, <br />hating received a written petition addressed to it by Clarence L. Cole <br />a copy of which is hereto annexed, held a public hearing thereon of <br />which notice was mailed to the petitioner and to the owners of all <br />property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby -as they appear <br />on the most reednt local tax list, and also advertised in the Lexington <br />Minute -Man, a newspaper published in Lexington, which hearing was held <br />in the Selectmen's Room, in the Town Office Building on Aprili.59 1946. <br />Five regular members of the Board of Appeals were present at the <br />hearing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hearing <br />evidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show: That <br />he wished to erect a garage on the side of his premises located at 50 I <br />Prospect Hill Road, said garage to be 12' in width and to be within 51' <br />of the lot line. <br />The neighbor adjacent, appeared in opposition to the petition. <br />The petitioner stated that if the garage were not erected as <br />stated, it would be necessary for him to spend considerable effort <br />in blasting a driveway on the opposite side of the premises in order <br />to provide for a garage in the rear. <br />Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting <br />of the said petition tending to show: <br />At the close of the hearing the Board in private session April 5, <br />1946 gave consideration to the subject of the petition and voted <br />unanimously in favor of the following findings: <br />1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will <br />hot be substantially served by the making of the exception requested. <br />2. That the exception requested will tend to impair the status <br />of the neighborhood. <br />3. That the exception requested will nbt be in harmony with the <br />General purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington <br />Zoning By-law. , <br />