1936-03-16-ATM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

210 t=i such building, if destroyed to the extent of 90 per cent of its insurable value, shall, be rebuilt, nor shall such building be extended, or enlarged, nor shall it be used for a different pur- pose except subject to the provisions of Section 9. A public hearing was held February 28, 1936, on the proposed amendment, after the notices given in accordance with the Lexington By-Law, and the Planning Board now submits a final report with recommendations to the Town Meeting. ' gen the Lexington Zoning By-Law was originally adopted, the provisions covering non-conforming uses were rigidly drawn looking toward eventual elimination of such non-conforming uses, and, we believe, rightly so. We believe the present wording of the By-Law governing non- conforming uses, may, however, work an unnecessary hardship on property owners who have built up a substantial investment.. The text states that property put to a non-conforming use, "may continue to be used for the same purpose or for purposes not substantially different." However, in the past few years there has been a radical change in business uses . This has been especially so in what might be considered the lighter types of industry and the treatment to be afforded buildings representing substantial investments, presents problems which in fairness to the owners and to the neighborhood cannot be ignored. The Board is of the opinion that the Zoning provisions should be modified to the extent of permitting properly safe-guarded action by the Board of Appeals in connection with change of uses of such buildings. While an aggrieved citizen may take his case to the Board of Appeals, that body has no authority to change the provisions of the By-Laws and can only apply such provisions as are specifically laid down in the By-Law. Their unanimous approval is necessary. Thus by extending to Section 10 the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals to include non-conforming uses, the Board believes that provision has been. made to remove an unwarranted prohibition of use and at the same time to safeguard a neighborhood against uses_ which might be detrimental to its character. The Board therefore recommends that the Town adopt this amendment. Neil H. Borden D. E. Nickerson Clem H. Ferguson Edward W. Kimball Lester F. Ellis John A. Sellars Amendment as presented Carried Unanimous 9:59 P.M.