Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1935-05-17114 Mr. Pryde, the builder of the Ide house, stated ' that he had not thought of obtaining a Building Permit, and had poured the concrete for a stone foundation, when the Building Inspector happened to call at the house. The Building Inspector informed him that inasmuch as the location of the proposed structure was not ten feet from the lot line, he would have to have a hearing to vary the Zoning Lair. The proposed building is 9' x 13*. - The Board advised Mr. & Mrs. Ide that it would take the matter under advisement and inform them as to the decision. The Chairman stated that there might be no objection to the structure until the Town laid out the street to the lot line, and that the Idets lawn extends about ten feet into the road. The Chairman stated that he was in favor of granting the petition. Mr. Glynn stated that he would like tc see the property before making up his mind. It was duly moved and seconded that action on the matter be deferred until the next meeting of the Board, which will be held on June 7th, and it was so voted. The records of the Boardvs meeting held on May 10th ' were approved. BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MAY 17, 1935. ' A meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, at 8:00 P.M. Messrs. Maddison, Glynn, Kimball, and Associate member Clyde E. Steeves were present at the meeting. Howard W. Robbins was unable to be present, and Charles E. Ferguson was delayed, but was present at the second hearing of the evening. The Secretary was also present. Mr. Glynn acted as Clerk Pro -tem. The hearing was declared open upon the application of Carolyn D. & Edwin B. Ide for permission to erect a small summer house on their property on Summit Road, Lexington. The notice of the hearing as printed in the Lexington Minute Man was read by the Clerk Pro -tem. Mrs. Ide presented a sketch of her property, showing proposed location of the summer house, and also a picture showing what the completed building would look like. She would like to erect a small, screened -in pergola. Mr. Pryde, the builder of the Ide house, stated ' that he had not thought of obtaining a Building Permit, and had poured the concrete for a stone foundation, when the Building Inspector happened to call at the house. The Building Inspector informed him that inasmuch as the location of the proposed structure was not ten feet from the lot line, he would have to have a hearing to vary the Zoning Lair. The proposed building is 9' x 13*. - The Board advised Mr. & Mrs. Ide that it would take the matter under advisement and inform them as to the decision. The Chairman stated that there might be no objection to the structure until the Town laid out the street to the lot line, and that the Idets lawn extends about ten feet into the road. The Chairman stated that he was in favor of granting the petition. Mr. Glynn stated that he would like tc see the property before making up his mind. It was duly moved and seconded that action on the matter be deferred until the next meeting of the Board, which will be held on June 7th, and it was so voted. The records of the Boardvs meeting held on May 10th ' were approved. 115 At 8:30 hearing was 4eclarpd open upon the application ' of Roy C. Peterson for permission to erect a road -side stand for the sale of vegetables and poultry raised on the land of Eric S. Peterson on Blossom Street. The notice of the hearing as printed in the Lexington Minute -Man was read by the Clerk Pro -tem. Mr. Peterson presented a sketch of the proposed stand which would be erected at the corner of Blossom Street and the new Concord turn -pike. The stand would be 30' long and 15' deep with an overhang of 10' on the front side. It would have rough cedar posts on the front and imitation logs on the sides, with novelty siding in the back. He stated that he now has about 800 hens, and rather than sell wholesale, he wanted to sell on the side of the road; he planned to sell vegetables, eggs, and dressed poultry. The Chairman asked how far back from the road he intended to put the stznd, and Peterson replied that he would put it back far enough to comply with the requirements. He asked the Board how far back of the edge of the road he would have to put the stand, and the Chairman stated that the setback had not been decided upon as yet. Peterson stated that the State had thirty feet between his property and the edge of the new road, which land is ' going to be a grassed area. The State had granted him two entrances about two hundred feet apart. The Chairman asked Mr. Peterson how he would feel if it were necessary to set the stand back one hundred feet. Mr. Peterson stated that he thought it would be too far back, that the people could not see the stand, and that there would be no showing for the vegetables. Mr.. Glynn asked how much land the Peterson's owned, and he was informed that they owned twenty acres. Mr. Arthur F. & Mr. Edwin W. Hutchinson stated that they were in favor of granting the petition. Mr. Curlys L. Slocum stated that he was in favor of the granting of the petition. He thought that Mr. Peterson should provide ample space for the parking of cars so that there would be no danger. He stated that several Towns and Cities were providing market days and space where local people could bring in produce for sale, and that there was some talk of a general market at the beginning of the new road. He thought that if people were given some such opportunity to sell their goods that it would be a very good plan. The Chairman asked Mr. Slocum if he would feel the same way toward the granting of this petition if there were numberous eases the same as this, and Mr. Slocum said that he trould and that he wouldn't. He thought it a constitutional right to give a man to chance to sell the produce of his own soil. 116 Cn Mr. J. Henry Duffy, Chairman of the Planning Board spoke as follows: He had been a member of the Board that had studied the new Concord turn -pike on the matter of safe -guarding the boundaries, and he would like to point out that the committee that studied the situation on behalf of the Towns had prepared a bill which was in the Legislature at the present time, and he believed that this Legislature would take action on it. The bill provided for a uniform set -back for the entire length of the highway. The background of the bill is to prevdnt over -commercialization of the road; it also allows the State Board of Public Works to have some control with regard to intersecting ways and to highway safety. He stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Ap;.eals should proceed very slowly on this matter and others of a similar nature. The public market had been considered several times by the Planning Board, and that body thought that the plan had a great deal of merit. He thought that the building, setback, etc. could be arranged and a convenient location obtained to meet the necessary requirements of roadside service. He hoped that in the interest of the committee that had given this highway much study, and in view of the fact that the Planning Board would have to take action on at least four other applications, that the Board would take no actioh until after the Legislative action. He thought that there would be a compromise on the proposed 1001 set- ' back, and that a decision would be reached soon. Mr. Glynn asked if there had been any talk on uniformity of architecture on the road, and Mr. Duffy infcrmed him that there had, and that there was an architect on the Boards and they were trying to have some kind of a uniform stand. If the bill now before the Legislature were passed, the Regional Committee would no doubt approve incidental uniformity. Mr. Glynn asked Mr. Peterson if he contemplated Putting up a sign. Mr. Peterson informed him that he had planned to put up a sign on the top of the building, and a sign -board hanging from the eave of the building listing prices, etc. The Chairman asked Mr. Peterson how he would feel if decision were postponed until the Legislature had acted, and Peterson inquired how long that would be. The Chairman stated that he did not know, and Peterson said that he supposed that the only fair thing to do was to wait. The Chairman informed Mr. Peterson that the Board would take the matter under consideration, and the hearing was declared closed. The Board discussed the matter in private session. The Chairman informed the Board that he had received ' a letter in opposition to the granting of the petition from Floyd A. & Annie S. Bradstreet, who own property on Blossom Street. Mr. Glynn stated that there had been several efforts, ' .particularly in Arlington, to get business sections laid out along the new road, and he would not like to see the Town of Lexington be the first one to allow a roadside stand, and would rather wait until the Legislative bill had been decided upon. He stated that he had heard that there might be small areas set aside for business, and he thought it might be better to restrict all stands to one area, rather than to have various roadside stands dotted all along the road. Mr. Ferguson stated that the State had no right to change the Town Zoning or By -Laws, but if a Town granted a permit the State could over -rule the Town's decision. Mr. and 'Irs. Charles T. Johnson, owning property on Blossom Street, a_-•peared after the hearing was declared closed, and stated that they wished to oppose the granting of the petition. The Chairman informed them that the hearing was closed, and that they could write in their objection. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted that no action be taken on the petition. ' The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. A true record,Attest: Clerk, Pro - 1 117