1947-04-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i 12a BOARD OF APPEALS.DENIAL The Board of, Appeals, acting under the Lexington Zoning By-law and General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 30A as amended, having rdceived a written petition addressed to it by Lewis W. Pollard 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, in the Town Office Building on April 4, 1947. Three regular and two associate 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 Lewis W. Pollard requested permission to construct, on Lot #1 Lincoln Street, Lexington, as shown on pian of Five Forks Village in Lexington, Mass., dated Mar. 28, 1946 by Miller and Nylander, Civil Engrs., a house designed by the K. V. Wolsey Company, Inc. designated by them as "America's ko. 1 Home". This prefabricated house would substantially vary from the Building Laws of the Town of Lexington. Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting of the said petition tending to show: No-one appeared in opposition. At the close of the hearing the Board in private session on April 10, 1947 gave consideration to the subject of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the following findings: 1.--irr--i-trs--jtxd��-kre-3i��crrr�emiencc-arret- d�re3.isa�ra wi33- - e-moi.-a33y�7rer�ecl- q- re -ma ixrg-ai-tete-wxcept4.,on �'d'► 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 tho regulations in the Lexington ftrA-eg BV�4v s Building By-law. Building 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington frerArrg Sy -law as to the locus in question would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, and the relief requested could not be grant;u without substantial detriment to the public good and without'.. substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington Buiri,rg By-law. Buildfng