HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-03-08PLANNING BOARD HEARING
' March 8, 1960
The Lexington Planning Board held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 81 1960 at 8:00 p.m. in
Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to consider
the following proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning
B7 -law:
1. To amend Section 51 Permitted Buildings and Uses,
by striking out in sub -paragraph 7 of paragraph (a)
R-1 Districts the following clause: "a. Trucking and
express business."
2. To amend Section 14; Board of Appeals, by striking
out the second sentence in the first paragraph and in-
serting in place thereof the following: - The Select-
men shall also appoint five associate members of the
Board of Appeals, and in the case of a vacancy, absence,
inability to act or interest on the part of a member of
said Board, his place may be taken by an associate
member designated as provided in General Laws, Chapter
40A, Section 14, and any amendments thereto.
Present were Vice Chairman Grindle, Members
Burnell, Mabee, Meyer and Soule, Planning Director Snow,
and Mrs. Richard W. Souza, acting as recorder. Sixteen
persons attended the hearing.
Mr. Burnell presided at the hearing and opened
the same by reading the notice of the hearing as it had
been published in the February 11 and 18, 1960 issues
of the Lexington Minute -man and by explaining how the
hearing would be conducted. He also explained that
the first proposal was the Planning Boardts and was be-
ing recommended in an effort to strengthen the zoning
by-law by preventing the establishment of new trucking
and express businesses in residential districts while
allowing said businesses existing legally to continue
as non -conforming uses. He pointed out that new estab-
lishments of this category could be allowed subject to
the Board of Appeals permits in C 1 and C 2 districts.
Mss. Alfred Assetta of 964 MassachusettEr Avenue
stated that in the R 2 district in which she lived
there was a trucking business operating without per-
mission although the owners have denied that they are
operating from this location. She asked if under the
proposed amendment the owners could claim that they
' had a legal right to continue as an existing business.
Mr. Burnell replied, "Not if they have been denied
-d -6o
!!PZ
permission." Mr. Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman of '
the Board of Appeals, added that the Town Counsel
was aware of this particular zoning violation and
that after the Town Meeting it was planned to take
the case to Court.
Mrs. John M. Belding of 1106 Massachusetts
Avenue asked why express or trucking businesses were
permitted in Lexingtor's residential districts
originally. It was noted in reply that in small
towns, when zoning by-laws were first adopted, these
businesses were sometimes found to be in existence
and allowed to continue as permitted uses. It was
pointed out, however, that as towns grow the mixing
of such business and residential uses have detri-
mental effects on one another and that then it was
necessary to eliminate the mixing of business and
residential uses in residential districts to improve
property values and desirable environmental features
in said districts.
Mrs. Edmund P. Hoxie of 884 Massachusetts
Avenue and Mr. Verner S. Dempsey of 6 Locust Avenue
asked whether the exclusion of trucking and express
businesses would apply to R 2 as well as R 1 districts.
Mr. Burnell answered, `tyes.n '
There being no further questions or discussion
in regard to the first proposed amendment as set forth
above, those attending the hearing were asked to indi-
cate whether or not they were in favor of the same.
Fourteen people indicated they were in favor of the
said proposal, no one indicated that they were opposed.
Mr. Burnell next read again the second proposal
as set forth above to amend Lexin7tor l s Zoning B7T-law.
He stated that this was a Board of Appeals proposal
and asked Mr. Nickerson to present it.
Mr. Nickerson stated that the amendment was
proposed by the Board of Anpeals for the reason that
on several occasions during vacation times it had been
found that it was not possible to assemble five members
of the Board of Appeals to act. He said it was thought
this situation could be corrected by having one more
associate member to call upon during vacation periods.
Mr. Nickerson concluded by stating that it was on this
basis that the Board of Appeals had asked the Board of
Selectmen to insert an article in the warrant for the
March town meeting, said article being the same as the
second proposal set forth in the notice of the public I
hearin 9 .
3-8-60
-3-
No comments were made or questions asked.
Thereupon, Mr. Burnell asked those attending the
hearing to indicate whether or not they were in favor
of the proposal. Sixteen persons indicated they were
in favor of said proposal, no one indicated opposition
to it.
The hearing was adjourned at 8:25 P.m.
12j -A (r.
I
hard H. Soule
Clerk
1