1967-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD HEARING ' May 18, 1967 The Lexington Planning Board held six public hearings on Thursday, May 18, 1967 in Estabrook Hall, Town Office Building. Present were Planning Board Chairman Greeley and members Fowle, Lund, Riffin and Worrell; Planning Director Zaleski; Secretary Mrs. Macomber; and approxi- mately 175 interested citizens. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m, by reading notice of the first hearing and explained the procedure. The first proposal is in reference to Land Use, and more specifically defines "junk yard." Mr. Weiss asked if legal counsel had been consulted as he thought there wase something about "intent" which seemed a little strange. Mr. Weiss was informed that legal counsel had been consulted and that this was worded with the intention of protecting legitimate use. A question was asked as to who enforces, and it was explained that the Building Inspector is the enforcing officer of all zoning laws, who then takes it to Town Counsel if necessary and who in turn takes it to court. Mr. Nickerson inquired if this was not to eliminate such situations as that on Westminster Ave. where there is an operation of at least eight automobiles in various state of repair or disrepair and Mr. Greeley re- plied yes, he thought so. Mr. Weiss said he did not like to see laws which could not be en- forced and he didn't see how it could be determined whether items were discarded or intended for further future use. Mr. Greeley said that you can't say any property that has something old in the back yard is a junk yard, but the extreme they are trying to get rid of is an accumulation that has been discarded with no further in- tention of using, and is unsightly. It is tried to negotiate with the owner instead of taking it to court. There being no further discussion the hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. The second proposal deals with penalty for violation. The present by-law provides for $20 penalty for offense. The State by-laws have been changed from $20 to $50, and to allow the interpretation of each day being a separate offense. It is desired to incorporate this into our by-law. Mr. Kingston asked what if it is something that cannot be taken care of the following day. Mr. Irwin (Building Inspector) replied that there first must be a violation which requires investigation. Then the person ' is notified and a reasonable time must be stated for the correction before it goes to court. The $20 now in effect doesn't mean anything to many people who break the law - the violation is worth the money spent - but if this amount was increased to $50 per day after the time allowed expires, it would mean more to most people.