Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1936-02-04 PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 4, 1936 Present:- Messrs. Duffy, Borden, Ellis & Kimball. It was voted to make the necessary arrangements coinci- 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 Bearings to replace Section 10 at 9:00, 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 articles for 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 Sod, Loam by-law in respect to wholesale removal. & Gravel 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- Concord mental plans. The Board of Selectmen agreed to the wisdom of Turnpike 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 Non- in the character of an area through natural developments. The conform- latter is in fact an unearned equity. - ing Mr. Wrightington expressed the opinion that a fair ques- Uses tion existed whether the Lexington By-Law as it now stands, could be interpreted to permit a change to some other type of use even though it was one of higher degree : vis. from a manufacturing use to one permitted in, business areas-. The draft of a new Article 10 to replace the present Article 10 of the Zoning By-Law, as drawn at the last Plann- ing Board Meeting, was reviewed with Mr. Wrightington and a final draft prepared. It was voted to propose this draft to the March Town Meeting as an amendment to the Zoning By-Law. 'Horse Bill 218 (an act providing an improved method of Municipal Planning) was 'briefly discussed with particular reference to its provisions fol' "'plot" layouts as influenc- ing lot frontages and areas. Mr. Duffy expressed the opinion that a fixed lot front- age and area did not provide the best means for the overal Frontages development of the Town, and that where a 75 foot limit might well be ample in some locations, a 150 or 200 foot minimum' could be justified in others. In other words, the "plot" layout method offered the best planning method. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P. M. e Respectfully subtuitted, Clerk Pro Tem. 1