1924-Annual Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

TOWN OF LEXINGTON 123 Section. The former Section originally prescribing the height of buildings in the business section, has been cancellel, as it is thought it should more properly be placed in the building law regulations. .Should the present zoning by-law be an - opted, the Planning Board will later ask an amendment to the building laws to cover what was originally intended to be covered by this Section. Under the title "Area Regulations" the. first Section has been redrawn to give some further protection than was originally provided. It will be observed that Section 9 now calls for a frontage of not less than 50 feet ana an area of not les than 5000 square feet per dwelling. A lot 50 by 100 feet is as small as any lot should be for a single dwelling house. It was objected to the earlier provisions that corner lot suffered by reason of the customary rounding of the angle at the corner and would place present owners of such lots at a possible disadvantage. This possibility has been removed by the second paragraph of Section 9, which provides that where a curved line has been employed to define a corner, the frontage and area shall be computed as if the lines stood without such connecting curve. Section 13, covering a stall or stand for selling farm and garden products, has been amended somewhat, as has also the preceding Section 10, and the language has been enlarged to permit the sale of cider and like beverages where desired and in accordance with prevailing practices. The language originally employed was intended to compre- hend such use, but in amended form is more explicit in that respect. Under "Exceptions" the former sub -paragraph (c) has been made (d) and a new praragraph (c) has been inserted to cover the use of gravel in the making of concrete blocks; the sawing of timber, etc. Under "General Provisions," Section numbered 16 has been recast to state in affirmative language substantially what was originally stated negatively. The difference is almost entirely inlanguage rather than in substance. When the original report was presented by the Plan- ning Board it was stated that Section 21 entiled "Setback" had been withdrawn in favor of setbacks obtained by special agreement, as has already been done with respect to a num- ber of the principal streets of the town. 124 ANNUAL REPORT While the majority committee still believe that set- backs obtained by special petition and release would be pre- ferable because admitting of greater latitude and freedom of action, such method would take considerable time and the committee has ascertained that building enterprises are imminent that would produce undesirable conditions and congestions unless reasonable setbacks are required. The majority committee, therefore, has voted to restore the ori- ginal provision and has enlarged its scope to include the several isolated business districts at the junction points therein named, to prevent buildings that are about to be erected in some of these districts from being placed forward upon the exterior lines of the streets and so produce con- gestion. It was the original intention of the Planning Board to arrange with individual owners to provide circular areas at these junction points so as to guard against acci- dents, but in some instances, at least, there is not time to carry out that plan, hence the provision for the 20 feet set- back which will produce reasonably satisfactory results. Mention has been made of the omission in the proposed by-law to provide a penalty, and such omission was cited as an alleged instance of insufficient consideration in the pre- paration of the by-law. The fact is the matter was carefully considered by the Planning Board before presenting its original report and it was then decided that a penalty was of little, if any, avail in protecting the town, the only real protection being by in- junction. Further consideration has not led the majority committee to change its position in this respect. When an individual is found to contemplate violating the by-law, the most effective remedy is to enjoin him from proceeding. Since an injunction must be had in any case if an owner persists in the violation of the law, your committee has con- cluded, and in this is supported by competent legal advice, that where the real and effective remedy to be relied upon must be by injunction, it is better not to prejudice the issu- ance of an injunction by providing a penalty, which, if first unposed, might be considered by a court to have reasonably satisfied the requirements of the by-law,