Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-02-21BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS ' February 21, 1961 The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, on Tuesday, February 21, 1961. Present were Chairman Nickerson, regular members Ripley and Emery, and Asso- ciate Members Harding and Duffy. Hearings were declared open on the following petitions at 7:30 p.m.: Lexington Inn - to maintain directional sign presently north- west of entrance on Marrett Rd. Veterans of Foreign Wars - to build a 24 ft. x 24 ft. addition to present quarters at 2 Hayes Lane. Mrs. Louise Finney - to subdivide parcel of land at 52 Fottler Ave. into two lots, neat er of which would have required frontage, and one of which has two existing structures on it; and also to erect dwelling on proposed second lot facing on Hillcrest Ave. which would not have sufficient setback and rear yard, and maintain garage on Fottler Ave. with insufficient side yard. dohn C. Roth (1775 House) - to maintain a non -conforming free- standing sign at The 1775 House on the Concord;Turnpike. ' Alexander Harmond - to maintain dwelling at 38 Winchester Dr. which has c en s back. Lex' on Medical Build' & Clinic Assoc., Inc. - to enlarge existing medical bui1ding at lb Clarke St. At':.the close of the hearings an Executive Session was held dur- ing.which the following conclusions were reached: Lexington Inn - denied Veterans of Foreign Wars - denied Mrs. Louise Finney - denied John C. Roth - granted Alexander Harmond - granted Lexington Medical Bldg. & Clinic Assoc., Inc. - granted All pertinent material with regard to the above petitions is on file in each individual folder. Ruth C. Brodhead, Clerk 1 Special Conference with BusaBrothers 2-21-61 ' Busa 1: We have a situation that I think you are familiar with. There were no signs at all on the building and we thought we could sit in with you and work out some solution. At the moment the place is in darkness except for lights from inside of the building. I know the by-laws have been abided by to an extent and we realize that we should go to the Board of Appeals and we thought you could consider one sign on the south side of our building looking toward Arlington. Duval, a neighbor, stated he would have no objection. Nickerson: I talked to you about this and I told you we would be glad to give you 10 minutes tonight to see if we could .... The situation is that when you built that building you built that marquee out there and you don't have a corner so you can't by law put a sign on the Arlington side of building and the other side won't do you much good. Busa #2: It is my belief that the Board of Appeals is for a variance of such a. situation. It so happens that the sign in front zmt would only aggravate the people across the street. Nickerson: You have a delivery door and a door for customers in back? #2; Yes. The only sign that would do us -any -good 'is the sign looking toward Arlington. Nickerson: You see you have your,own particular.angle. You have a new store and you want to bring it before the public. We have a sign by-law and the minute we let one bar down it is;boom. This matter of precedent is something we have to watch very carefully. #1: Sometimes the ignorance of the law might carry you over something. We have tried ..... Wu just want a little consideration and we are willing to spend money for the sign and we will comply with the law as far as the roof line, etc. Nickerson: How much of an expense would it be to you to take that canopy down? Does it do you much good? #2: Oh, yes. Nickerson: If you only hadn't put that on.... #2: Our architect designed it with the lettering on top like the Manhattan Nickerson: They got under the line on the sign by-law. Ripley: I have looked at it quite a few times. I will admit that it looks..... I believe that a good design man could design you something there on r#2s the face of that building which would cover the law. You have 4a"? 2,. Ripley: At the narrowest point. #2: From the windowstothe marquee. -2- Ripley- There are an awful lot of signs that are not any bigger than that #2: The other problem we have is that Mass.,Avenue starts to curve away. Ripley: That wouldn't help you much on traffic coming from the west. PY g #2: I would just as soon forsake the front of the store. Ripley: Even if you had one on the, side door you want one on the front? #2: Not necessarily. It isn't a shopping area where people are walking to shop. #1: If we did have an effective sign.;.... Ripley: Couldn't they have lettering on their window? #1: Yes. These companies are willing to put a lot` of.this advertisement on our windows. Wer have a couple on the sides temporarily. We felt that something that would be neat and clean. We would be willing to spend our own money to get something presentable. Nickerson: Free-standing signs are supposed to be eliminated very soon and we are are going to adhere as closely as we can to the sign by-law. I think you will have to reconcile youaself to the law. You have a perfect right to petition for what you want but I'think you would be a lot #1: smarter if you put your sign against your building. There is an alley between the two buildings which we own, but the front is bricked up. We thought maybe if we kept the sign below the parapet and it runs along the roof line and is up against the building and before we came before you we asked our neighbor Mr. Duval. On the front we would be facing our neighbors and it would be hitting him in the eye if there was any illumination there. Nickerson: We can't encourage you but if you want to petition for it go ahead. I i