1955-10-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 1 initive subdivision plans of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Sun Valley as that Board understood that all the lots involved are to be connected with the town sewer. Mr. Frederick L. Yeomans came before the Board to discuss the Board of Appeals hearing on February 240 1955 on his petition to subdivide parcel of land located at the westerly end of Columbus Street, Lex- ington, into two lots designated as Lot "'ATM' and Lot "B'", which lots have sufficient area, but not the frontage as required under the Lexington Zoning By -Law; and to erect a single family dwelling on said Lot "'A". Reference is made to the Planning Board minutes of March 23, 1955 in regard'to this petition. In the discussion it was brought out that in ex- change forthe strip 'of land owned by Mr. MacMillan and located between the end of Columbus Street and the Yeoman land, that Mr. MacMillan would be willing -to exchange this strip for the so-called Lot "B"', wished to add Lot "B* to his own house lot and not build on Lot "B" as a separateehbuseelot. This being the case It was suggested that Mr. Yeomans be granted permis- sion for the erection of one house on so-called Lot "A" and that a restriction be placed upon so-called Lot "B" so that a house could not be built upon it but that a garage or accessory buildings could. Mr. Yeomans left the meeting at 8;30 P.M. In private session it was determined that the Board felt that if there were a guarantee that only one house would be built on the Yeoman property, that being Lot "A"', that the Board would not oppose the granting of the petition. Mr. Adams reported that he had received a tele- phone call from Mr. William Cowles who has a parcel of land which abuts the Waltham city line and has a frontage of 284 feet on Spring Street. A prospective buyer wished to subdivide the parcel into two house lots. Mr. Cowles asked for an unofficial recommenda- tion from the Board on the matter. Because of the fact that Waltham requires less frontage for a house lot than does Lexington, it was thought that the Board of Appeals would look favorably upon a variance in lot frontage and that it would be better to present a petition for a lot having 134 foot frontage, leaving a legal lot of 150 faot frontage, than for two lots having frontage of 142 feet each. The Board next took up the matter of determining what areas in Lexington should be set aside for his- tbrii.3distriets. There being no further need for the YEOMANIS BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING OF FEB. 24