1946-07-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 1 1 At 8.45 hearing was declared open upon the application of Frank A. and Mary Napoli for permission to maintain the existing roadside stand for the sale of produce grown on the premises. Mr. Napoli was the only person present at the hearing. Notice of the hearing was read by Mr. Brown. Mr. Napoli said that there has been no complaint relative to the roadside stand. The Board had no questions and the hearing was declared closed at 9:49 p.m. Upon motion of Mr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Ripley, it was voted to grant the petition of Dr. Lawrence K. Pioas, subject to the approval of two other members of the Board, in the following form: BOARD OF APPEALS PERMIT The Board of Appeals, acting under the Lexington Zoning By -Law and General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 30 as amended, having received a written petition addressed to it be Lawrence K. Pious, M. D., 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 Lexington, which hearing was held in the Selectmen's Room, Tn the Town Office Building on the 18th day of July, 1946. Two regular and one Associate (two additional members read the records of the hearing) members of the Board of Appeals were present at the heraing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hearing evidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show: That he wished to occupy the premises at 255 Bedford Street, maintaining a physician's office on the premises formerly occupied by Dr. Victor N. Rochette; that he wished to practice general medicine and surgery. No one appeared in opposition. At the close of the hearing the Board in private session July 18, 1946 gave condideration to the subject of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the following findings: 1. That in its judgment the pub U 6 convenience and welfare will be substanti "•y served by the making of the exception requeeted . 2. That the exeeppion requested will not tend to imapir the status of the neighborhood. 3. That the exeeption requested will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lex-