1973-07-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I 1 1 1 July 17, 1973 hearings continued Page 2 voting in favor of the petition; Mr. Nickerson, Dr. Wadsworth and Airs. Morey voting in opposition to the petition. Findings are as follows: That the permission requested will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington zoning by-laws. (Under section 12.2 "special permits may be granted when in the judgment of the Board of Appeals the public welfare and convenience will. be substantially served thereby"..) That the enforcement of the Lexington Zoning by-law as to the matter in question would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. The 7500 sq. ft. originally granted "to store and sell in conjunction with the opera- tion of a nursery at 93 Hancock St., all of -the supplementary items specified in the subsection 24.5" is deemed to be adequate for this operation. This petition for a special permit has been denied. Robert 0. Tillinghast - Denied unanimously. Appended to the denial were copies of letters from the petitioner, the architect, the planning board and the building inspector. Findings are as follows: "The Board of Appeals may permit a non -conforming use (under section 30) to be changed to any specified use not substantially different in character or more detrimental or objectionable to a neighborhood but it unanimously considers that this use is different in character and agrees with the evidence contri- buted by the abutters that it could be objectionable and detrimental to the neighborhood. In its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not be substantially served by the granting of the permission requested. The per- mission requested may tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. The per- mission requested will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in the Lexington zoning by-laws. The enforcement of the Lexington zoning by-law as to the matter in question would not involve sub- stantial hardship to the petitioner since he has only purchased an option. It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Appeals that a zoning change of this magnitude should be decided by Town Meeting." All pertinent material is on file under the name of each petitioner in the Board of Appeal's office. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. (�IrL Evelyn F. Clerk Cole