1946-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1311, 1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not 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 Building Law. 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington Building By-law as to the locus in question would not involve practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship and the refief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington Building By-law. Three regular two and associate members of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing. A Certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At this hear- ing evidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show; That he wished to erect a house located on Maple Street, Lexington, constructed prin- cipally of reinforced concrete as indicated on plans labeled Wellcast #23-VJellcast Homes. The plans indicated that the house would be built of concrete until made in Newton hauled over the road and set on a concrete slab with a crane. The peitioner stated that there would be no cellar to this dwelling and that the thickness of the Wells would be 3 inches; also that the walls would be of reinforced concrete. The petitioner stated that he expected that this house could be built to sell for slightly under X100000.00. Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting of the said petition tending to show that Alice S. Willoughby, 27 Maple Street, stated that she was opposed to the granting of the petition. ,Ir. Solberg and Mr. Chapman expressed their views as to the potential dangers with this type of construction. At the close of the he4ring the Board in private session September on 10, 1946, 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 not 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 Building Law. 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington Building By-law as to the locus in question would not involve practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship and the refief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington Building By-law.