|
Ift
<br />PLr� : IP?G BOAhD i EEYl'IliG
<br />July 2, 1935
<br />The - ^g --cords s of the p_ v' ous meeting were
<br />j11.. r..ao. �. _. - Q the 1^p y: y>a � o
<br />dispensed ivrith.
<br />Tl---- mal;ter of si,ri_pping loam ,was taken up and. proposed
<br />amendments to the Zoning I31, -Law drawn up by Yr. John. Lyons and
<br />Town Counsel were discussed_. 1s1r. Lyons felt that unless the
<br />loam stripping had to do wl.th construction of buildings or farm
<br />uses, it must go to the Board of appeals. The stripping of loam
<br />over large areas, as in the case of the Bean property, is not
<br />a normal farm operation and could not be allowed except with
<br />approval of the Board of Appeals.
<br />Lr. Greeley suggested changing John Lyons? draft to read
<br />'�excent ra,i.en incidental to and in connection with normal farm
<br />uses."
<br />1111r. Duffy felt that it would be permissible for a man to
<br />rerade his property or construct a golf course transferring
<br />loam froom one location to another but a person should not be
<br />allo,:ved to buy property for the purpose of stripping the loam
<br />for Sale.
<br />ar. ,r•-.eley stated that the proposed amendment would not
<br />stop sr.all contractors from taking off a feet loads of loam be-
<br />cause that would be incidental to a farm use.
<br />ls. Greele-,- also moved that the necessary steps be taken
<br />to insert in the next issue of the �2ov✓n paper a notice of hear mop
<br />ing to be held in the Town Office Building July 19th, at 7:30 Soil
<br />P. lc . on the follol^rIng amendment to the Lexington Zoning By -
<br />Law proposed b1,r the Planning }3oards-
<br />Voted:- That the Lexington Zoning By-La`v be amended by
<br />adding to Section 40 R.l Districts, Paragraph 6, the
<br />fol lowing; paraor•aph: -
<br />e. Excavation and removal from the premises of any
<br />sod, loam, sand, gravel, clay or quarried or crushed
<br />stone, except when incidental to and in connection
<br />with the construction of a building for which a per-
<br />mit has been issued in accordance with the Building
<br />By-La;r✓s, and except ::hen incidental to and in con-
<br />nection with the normal and lawful development of
<br />the propert-v concerned.
<br />The motion was seconded by 1,r. Ellis and it was unanimous-
<br />ly voted..
<br />At the suggestion of Tv:r. Greeley, the meeting was turned
<br />over to the discussion of the various petitions for business
<br />' areas along the new Concord highway, lie presented informal Concord
<br />petitions from the rutchinson Brothers, Tars. Jutler, Fannie Highway
<br />Hutchinson and formal petitions from Henry S. 1400dy and DeVir_eent.
<br />A
<br />meeting ofthe Planning Board .vas held in
<br />the Conference
<br />Foos, of
<br />t'- Town G'fice Builr'..ng, Lexin`.ton, on Tuesday, July 2,
<br />19::5, at
<br />7:3G P. 1;!. :essrs. Duffy, Greeley, Ellis,
<br />Kimball,
<br />cellars
<br />and. i -_obi nson -.-,ere present. The clerk was
<br />also present.
<br />The - ^g --cords s of the p_ v' ous meeting were
<br />j11.. r..ao. �. _. - Q the 1^p y: y>a � o
<br />dispensed ivrith.
<br />Tl---- mal;ter of si,ri_pping loam ,was taken up and. proposed
<br />amendments to the Zoning I31, -Law drawn up by Yr. John. Lyons and
<br />Town Counsel were discussed_. 1s1r. Lyons felt that unless the
<br />loam stripping had to do wl.th construction of buildings or farm
<br />uses, it must go to the Board of appeals. The stripping of loam
<br />over large areas, as in the case of the Bean property, is not
<br />a normal farm operation and could not be allowed except with
<br />approval of the Board of Appeals.
<br />Lr. Greeley suggested changing John Lyons? draft to read
<br />'�excent ra,i.en incidental to and in connection with normal farm
<br />uses."
<br />1111r. Duffy felt that it would be permissible for a man to
<br />rerade his property or construct a golf course transferring
<br />loam froom one location to another but a person should not be
<br />allo,:ved to buy property for the purpose of stripping the loam
<br />for Sale.
<br />ar. ,r•-.eley stated that the proposed amendment would not
<br />stop sr.all contractors from taking off a feet loads of loam be-
<br />cause that would be incidental to a farm use.
<br />ls. Greele-,- also moved that the necessary steps be taken
<br />to insert in the next issue of the �2ov✓n paper a notice of hear mop
<br />ing to be held in the Town Office Building July 19th, at 7:30 Soil
<br />P. lc . on the follol^rIng amendment to the Lexington Zoning By -
<br />Law proposed b1,r the Planning }3oards-
<br />Voted:- That the Lexington Zoning By-La`v be amended by
<br />adding to Section 40 R.l Districts, Paragraph 6, the
<br />fol lowing; paraor•aph: -
<br />e. Excavation and removal from the premises of any
<br />sod, loam, sand, gravel, clay or quarried or crushed
<br />stone, except when incidental to and in connection
<br />with the construction of a building for which a per-
<br />mit has been issued in accordance with the Building
<br />By-La;r✓s, and except ::hen incidental to and in con-
<br />nection with the normal and lawful development of
<br />the propert-v concerned.
<br />The motion was seconded by 1,r. Ellis and it was unanimous-
<br />ly voted..
<br />At the suggestion of Tv:r. Greeley, the meeting was turned
<br />over to the discussion of the various petitions for business
<br />' areas along the new Concord highway, lie presented informal Concord
<br />petitions from the rutchinson Brothers, Tars. Jutler, Fannie Highway
<br />Hutchinson and formal petitions from Henry S. 1400dy and DeVir_eent.
<br />
|