Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
PLANNING BOARD HEARING <br />' March 8, 1960 <br />The Lexington Planning Board held a public <br />hearing on Tuesday, March 81 1960 at 8:00 p.m. in <br />Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to consider <br />the following proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning <br />B7 -law: <br />1. To amend Section 51 Permitted Buildings and Uses, <br />by striking out in sub -paragraph 7 of paragraph (a) <br />R-1 Districts the following clause: "a. Trucking and <br />express business." <br />2. To amend Section 14; Board of Appeals, by striking <br />out the second sentence in the first paragraph and in- <br />serting in place thereof the following: - The Select- <br />men shall also appoint five associate members of the <br />Board of Appeals, and in the case of a vacancy, absence, <br />inability to act or interest on the part of a member of <br />said Board, his place may be taken by an associate <br />member designated as provided in General Laws, Chapter <br />40A, Section 14, and any amendments thereto. <br />Present were Vice Chairman Grindle, Members <br />Burnell, Mabee, Meyer and Soule, Planning Director Snow, <br />and Mrs. Richard W. Souza, acting as recorder. Sixteen <br />persons attended the hearing. <br />Mr. Burnell presided at the hearing and opened <br />the same by reading the notice of the hearing as it had <br />been published in the February 11 and 18, 1960 issues <br />of the Lexington Minute -man and by explaining how the <br />hearing would be conducted. He also explained that <br />the first proposal was the Planning Boardts and was be- <br />ing recommended in an effort to strengthen the zoning <br />by-law by preventing the establishment of new trucking <br />and express businesses in residential districts while <br />allowing said businesses existing legally to continue <br />as non -conforming uses. He pointed out that new estab- <br />lishments of this category could be allowed subject to <br />the Board of Appeals permits in C 1 and C 2 districts. <br />Mss. Alfred Assetta of 964 MassachusettEr Avenue <br />stated that in the R 2 district in which she lived <br />there was a trucking business operating without per- <br />mission although the owners have denied that they are <br />operating from this location. She asked if under the <br />proposed amendment the owners could claim that they <br />' had a legal right to continue as an existing business. <br />Mr. Burnell replied, "Not if they have been denied <br />