Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
for adequate protection of the proposed development. <br />The most desirable site from the company's standpoint <br />was the triangular tract of land bounded by Massachu- <br />setts Avenue, Marrett Road and Route 128. The Board <br />suggested that Mr. Funkhouser might wish to look at <br />other sites in Lexington, particularly the area now zoned <br />for light manufacturing use and also the land southwest- <br />erly of Marrett Road. <br />FORMS_A Messrs. Funkhouser and Tucker left the meeting at <br />8:30 p.m. at which time the Board took under considera- <br />tion the following Form A applications for Planning <br />Board jurisdiction: <br />#57-59, submitted on June 19, 1957 by Jean E. <br />DeValpine, attorney for William D. and Lucia <br />H. Kingery; plan entitled "Driveway Right and <br />Easement," drawn by W. D. Kingery, June 7, 1957. <br />#57-60, submitted on June 21, 1957 by William H. <br />Hamilton; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexing- <br />ton -Mass.", scale: l" = 30', dated June 18, 1957, <br />Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. <br />#57-61, submitted on June 24, 1957 by James L. <br />Douglass, by Alfred P. Tropeano, Atty., plan en- <br />titled "Plan of Land in Lexington -Mass.", scale <br />111 %i 40t, dated May 10, 1957, Miller and Nylander, <br />C.E.'s & Surveyors. <br />#57-62, submitted on June 24, 1957 by Leeland <br />Construction Co., Inc., Myron A. Ferrin, Treas- <br />urer, plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington - <br />Mass.", scale 1" = 30', dated May 28, 1957, <br />Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. <br />VOTED: that the plans accompanying applications <br />#57-59, #57-60, #57-61 and #57-62 be <br />signed bearing the endorsement "Approval <br />under the subdivision control law not <br />required." <br />BOARD OF The Planning Board next took under considera <br />APPEALS tion the notices of petitions to be held on June 25, <br />1957 by the Board of Appeals. It was decided to take <br />no action on the petitions to be heard with the ex- <br />ception of the Dunn Ford Sales Agency for permission <br />to erect a tree standing sign. <br />It was thought that this proposed sign was exces- <br />sively large and would not contribute to the amenities <br />of the commercial district. Members of the Board <br />pointed out that there was no need for the erection of <br />1 <br />1 <br />