1948-09-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

65 BOARD OR APPEALS HEARINGS September 931918 A meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the SelectmenIs Room, Town Office Building, On September 9, 1948. Chairman Locked Messrs. Houdlette, Lynah, Redman, and Rich were present. The cletk was also present. At 8:00 p.m. the following hearings were declared open: Milton C. Shaw for permission to erect at 142 Grant Street a one -car garage which would not have the required setback. Ruth S. Lyons for permission to reshingle the roof and side$ of the house at 1314 Massachusetts Avenue in accordance with permit application submitted. John Callahan for permission to erect a dwelling and garagelon Lots 29, 28, 27 and a portion of Lot 26, in Block 9, Blake Road, in accordance with plot plan submitted. Henry E. Trotta for permission to erect, in accordance with; plans submitted, on Lot 114 Donald Street a dwelling the coistruet tion of which would not comply with the Lexington Building By-lawi ' The plans were submitted by the K. V. Wolsey Co. of Malden, Mass., and Mr. Goodale stated that these plans met the requirements of the Bureau of Standards and that under Chapter 142, Section K, a building which complies with these requirements was entitled toia building permit issued by the Building Inspector. Mr. Locke stated that two weeks previously, a Mr. MacNeil had appeared for the Wolsey Company. He said there was some questionias to the status of these minimum requirements set up by the new Board of Standards and the Board of Appeals wrote to Mr. MacNeil suggest- ing that he take the matter up with the Building Inspector and Mr6 MacNeil agreed to comply. Mr. Locke said that the Board had heard nothing further, that the matter was under consideration and in view of that, nothing could be done by the Board except to go ahead with this hearing. He added that the hearing should be called and an opporunity given to hear all the pros and cons. Mr. Goodale remarked that he had talked with Mr. MacNeil about it that afternoon and he had given him some correspondence. *r. Goodale did not amplify, but added that he understood from tho petitioner that he did not have any objection to a perimeter wall: Mr. MacNeil began to elaborate on points of construction. Mr. Locke stated that evidence had been submitted as to thei structure, so the only question that would cavae up as to this apAi- cation was, as Mr. Goodale had stated, a perimeter wall conforming to the building code of the town. Mr. Locke stated that the only ' other question would be on the stressed skin panel walls and the 2 x 3 studding with 3/8 plywood on the exterior and 1/4 on the inr