1936-02-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MEETING ' February 4, 1936 Present:- Messrs, Duffy, Borden, Ellis & Kimball. It was voted to make the necessary arrangements coinei- dent to holding public hearings on the various proposed amend- ments as follows: - Hearings to be held in the Selectmen's office, Friday, February 28, 1936, in the following order:- Mr. Ernest De- Vincent at 7:30 P. M., Mrs, Sarah A. Cutler at 8:00 P. M., The Removal of Sod & Loam at 8:30 P. M., and the amendment to replace Section 10 at 9:001 P. M. Note 2/8/36:- Copy for the necessary publication of no- tice of hearings to appear in the Lexington Townsman February 14 and 21 was provided and copy of the articleefor the Town Warrant furnished Miss Lowe. A joint meeting was held with the Board of Selectmen to discuss the proposed.amendment relating to the removal of sod, loam, sand and gravel. The discussion centered around provisions for specific regulations as to permissible quanti- ties to be removed as well as required permits for operation ' as against a general clause designed to amplify the present by-law in respect to wholesale removal. It was unanimously voted to propose,at the next Town Meeting, the amendment as drawn by the Town Counsel, dated October 21, 1935, corrected February , 1936, and attached hereto. Mr. Duffy described briefly the Planning Board's proposal to study in more detail the areas adjoining the Concord Turn- pike before laying down definite setbacks, pointing out that the Engineering Department was preparing the necessary funda- mental plans. The Board of Selectmen agreed to the wisdom of postponing direct action on the setback to a later date and the joint meeting dissolved. Interpretation of the clause provided "for purposes not substantially different", as relating to non -conforming uses was discussed with the Town Counsel with its particular bear- ing on the Merriam Factory and Jefferson Union uses. Mr. Borden expressed the opinion that an equity had been established (in the cases under discussion) previous to the adoption of the By -Law which could not be disregarded and that this equity was entirely different from one enhanced by changes in the character of an area through natural developments. The latter is in fact an unearned equity. ' Mr. Wrightington expressed the opinion that a fair ques- tion existed whether the Lexington By -Law as it now stands, Hearings Sod, Loam & Gravel Concord Turnpike Non- conform- ing Uses