1947-04-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ij 1 12 d 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 received a written petition addressed to it by Joseph F. Kelly a copy of which is hereto annexed, held a publi{s hearing thereon of which notice was mailed to the petitioner an to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby at they appear on the most recent looal 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 the petitioner wished to erect on the premises owned by him, a building, on Lots 62 and 63 Sherburne Road, Lexington as shown on plan entitled "Proposed Sub -division of Land in Lexington, Mass. Belonging Principally to Lexington Estates Trust, dated March 1940 by Rowland H. Barnes & Co., Civil Engrs. He stated that the building would be constructed on a re - enforced concrete mat 4" thick with grade beams 181" by 12" around the perimeter of the entire building; that the foundations would not be in accordance with the Lexington Building By-law but* (over) 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. jPh +rr-ii ss- n rb--the -puirlr.-u, wrrl+ ne b -bvabrsrs _ ___ _ _?-kyr-sary ed -bT elm- mn is mT-ar trnr vxu'e71t-rub requeete+6 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 Son* S--B7wtaw: Building By-law. Building 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington Benfng Hy -law as to the locus in question would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, and the relief requested could not be grantlu without substantial detriment to the public good and withoiv., substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington ZanliM By-law. Building