HomeMy WebLinkAbout1934-03-01u
D
PLANNING BOARD DARING
Massachusetts Avenue
March 1, 1934
A hearing was held in Estabrook Eall, Thursday, March 1, 1934
on Mass. Avenue Zoning Amendments. Messrs. Duffy, Glynn, Kimball,
and hobinson were present. Six people appeared at the hearing.
The hearing was called by the Planning Board in accordance with
Section 17 of the Zoning By -Law, and in accordance with the by-law,
the various amendments which the Planning Board proposes, have been
incorporated in a notice which was published in the Times -Minuteman
February 15th and 21st, 1934.
The first amendment taken up was Item (B) on the published
notice of hearing:- By substituting for Section 4, C.1 Districts,
Paragraph 6 (c) the following: -
"(c) Public garages, automobile repair shops, storage -
battery service stations, retail gasoline or oil stations,
greasing stations, or any of their appurtenances or accessory
uses: except that none of the foregoing nor any driveway for
the entrance or exit of automobiles in connection therewith,
shall hereafter be located so that any part thereof is within
fifty (50) feet of any residence district, or within three
hundred (300) feet of the, property used by any public or pri-
vate school, public library, church, hall of public assembly,
historical building, monument, or museum, playground, or in-
stitution for the sick, the aged or dependent, or for children
under sixteen years of age. Every filling -station structure,
pump, or greasing -stand shall hereafter be set back not less
than twenty (20) feet from the established street line, and
no filling shall be done except to cars standing on the prop-
erty of the filling -station."
It was felt that in order to safeguard the Town in regard to
filling stations, these items should be introduced.
Pier. Custance asked why the Board set 50 feet as the distance
of filling stations from any residence district and Mr. Duffy re-
plied that Newton and jr,,inchester had adopted that idea and the matter
came about from cases which hav me before the Board of Appeals.
Yr. Custance stated that/W 5t; back from the street of 20
feet and a setback of 50 feet from any residence line, there wouldn't
be much room left.
Dr. Shannon suggested that something be taken off the rear set-
back of 50 feet because it is the frontage people are interested in.
Ivr. Glynn stated. that this is not a matter to come before the
Board of AT)-)eals and thought that the new article did not fulfill the
problem intended.
1,1r. Duffy suggested redrafting the amendment permitting a
different setback at the rear and P,ir.•Custance stated that he would
work out a redraft.
Item A on the published notice was brought up and discussed
and I4r. Custance stated that he was in favor of the change as he
thought that people applying for a salesroom should not have to go
before the Board of 6e lectmen.
1
-2-
The
2-
The article a,)peared on the published notice as follows:
(A)By adding to Section 4, 0.1 Districts, Paragraph 2,
after the word, "Stores", the word, "salesrooms"; so that the
same will read as follows: -
"2. Retail stores, salesrooms, and shops for custom work
or the malting only of articles to be sold at retail on the
premises."
Item (C) By ar'ding to Section 4, C.1 Districts, Paragraph
6 (e) after the word "depots", the words "public stables", so
that the same will read: -
"(e) Retail dealers in ice, grain, fuel, lumber and
structural materials, milk depots, public stables, and other
commercial non -manufacturing uses not hereinbefore specified."
Dr. Shannon asked how privately owned riding stables were rated
and T;r. Duffy replied that he thought they came under public stables
and any that now exist are non -conforming. He also stated that the
normal private stable is always permitted as an accessory use but
the public stables can be differentiated and should not be in a res-
idence district.
It i%,as felt that a riding stable could be just an elaboration
of farm occupancy and not objectional in a residence district and
again it might be objectionable and under the category of a public
stable.
Item (D) By substituting for Section 10, the following: -
SECTION 10 NON-CONFOINI,� M USES.
Any use or building, non -conforming on May 20 1924, at the
time of the adoption of the original Lexington Zoning by -Law,
may be continued for the same purpose or for purposes not sub-
stantially different; any such building may be repaired or
structurally altered but shall not be rebuilt if destroyed to
the extent of 90;6 of its insurable value; no such use or build-
ing shall be extended or enlarged nor, if discontinued for a
substantial period of time, shall such use be resumed except
subject to the provisions of Section 9."
I,ir. Luffy explained that the purpose of this amendment was to
broaden that section and change it to non -conforming uses as there
are numerous proi)erties not in use because of conditions and because
there is not business enough.
Mr. Glynn suggested that another slight amendment be made by
adding the words "or any amendment thereto" so the section would
read "Any use or building, non -conforming on 14a7 2, 1924, at the
time of the adoption of the original Lexington Zoning By -Law, or any
amendment thereto, may be continued for the same purpose or for pur-
poses not substantially different: etc."
Item (E) By substititing for Section 16, the following: -
"Section 16. There shall be a Board of Appeals of five
members who shall be appointed by the Selectmen for terms of
-3-
' five years each, the term of one appointee to expire each year.
The terms of the members of the Board first appointed after
the adoption of this by-law shall expire in such order as the
Selectmen shall designate. The Selectmen shall also appoint
annually two associate members of the Board of Appeals, one
or both of whom may be designated by the Selectmen from time
to time to take the place of a regular member or members of
the Board of Appeals as to cases arising under this by-law in
case of vacancy, inability to act, or interest."
Ivlr. Duffy explained that this is a statutory regulation made
necessary arrendirg all zoning acts. The State has amended the Zoning
Law in regard to Boards of Anpeals and as the Attorney General will
not permit copying the law, the Town Counsel made this draft.
'' Mr. Green, Fern Street, stated that there was a conflict in the
nhrasing of the amended law of 1933 and the one now discussed. Pyr.
Duffy informed him that the draft appearing in the notice was the only
kind of draft that can be incorporated in the By -Law but when the By -
Laws are presented, there will be incorporated, as a note, sufficient
Information to explain the matter.
Item (F) By substituting for Section 17 the following: -
"Section 17 AJoIENDTOENTS. Amendments to this By -Law may be proposed
by the Planning board, by vote of the Town Meeting, or by a petition
signed by owners of 50 per cent in valuation of the property designated
by the Planning Board as affected by the proposed amendment; except that
no proposed amendment which has been acted upon by vote of the Town keet-
ing shall be proposed again.by petition in substantially the same form
within one year of such action. The Planning Board shall hold a public
hearing for consideration of each amendment so proposed, notice of which
shall be published in a newspaper published in the Town and mailed to
such interested parties as the Board shall designate, fourteen days at
least before the date fixed for such hearing. No amendment shall be
voted upon by the Town until after the Planning Board has submitted a
final report thereon with recommendations to the Town Meeting."
Prir. Duffy explained that the Planning Board felt that in order
to use the time to the best advantage, petitions should be presented
to the Planning Board only once a year unless the status of the petition
Is changed. It was felt that thiswasa reasonable method of procedure
bo 6 for the Town and for the Board as amendments are important, require
public hearing and publication and procedure at Town P.Leeting, and one
yea is time is not unreasonabI.e, in which to present the same petition.
Pe also stated that the To,vn Jounsel had affirmed it as legal and T;r.
nar man annroved of it.
D r. 31nari-no.-:z thous -ht that citizens rights should be protected with
out noinc before a lanninn '_;oard. If a citizen has to wait one year,
the zlanr ng bard should be made to report at the Town 1'eeting follow-
ing the hearing.
r. Gl-.-nn stal-led that there is the tendency for people to postpone
action until the last minute and there is just time to haveAfearing but
'I
not alwa,rs sufficient tir,e to ma'1e reports on them.
_a_
i:r. ti- ,.nnor ',, _1 stated th,.-t tie t:hou7,ht the ar.-InO ent a i,rn )osition.
i;.,-. 0-,ISI.;a�.1c e �.' ,i --^.C. 7 tt"Ie person pet7'tl:onin, s 10L1ldYl�t f1aVE' t 18
' rim'.lt, to nles^n' etil ,on a often s 'I.e anted if :�Ze 3s willin to
ya
el --c'-1 r-T1c �s. 1..���n 1�>�licct t.�� i, If tae case is inT)orta,24, the
I'7.ann,.n, 3o ','!, -C,, c^,.1 _ of ; a<r. .z!)on its, o;�1iliative within t-
-e on
e
-ear ani rs� �soi _n_ �, �� n�l.r_Zent 7.s to t:ee5 from rronopolizinc,
the t.ir;e of' Aa-fzn„> azld To7:n i,teetinU Ienbers.
..r. dia.sta ce -i; .ted. ;-L, t .1r- 3_s a question in his mind but thin -1.
t''lat • e (' ?y- "';�1,S.T:st it ,1% the present time as in looking bar,'.- ten.
Tears t'^-.rq Cav- been ver,,- ” cc>_ses ere this has been abused and also
th7_n'.-s it m t clail--e, lnarCship :t; some tir_te .
•-as r',eclarr-,c_ closed at 10:10 P.
espect fully slfnmittod_,
Cler.'L
D