|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
1928-10-02
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Planning Board-PB
>
Minutes
>
1920-1929
>
1928
>
1928-10-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 2:07:34 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 3:16:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Author or Source
Planning Board
Department
Planning
Keywords or Subject
PB-1 to PB-24, 1918-1988 Planning Board Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING BOARD MEETING <br />Lexington, Mass. <br />October 2, 1928. <br />Present; Messrs. Emery, Duffy, Cutler and <br />Milne. <br />Copies of the engineer's complete report <br />on the Vine Brook drainage and development project <br />was received. Copies were given to Messrs. ,Duffy, <br />Cutler and Milne for further review. <br />W. D. Milne, <br />Clerk. <br />11 <br />Discussion was chiefly on the proposed <br />division of the zoning by-law, particularly on the <br />limitation of individual lot sizes. Mr. Emery <br />stressed the necessity for putting the amendments <br />of the zoning law in shape for a town meeting to <br />be held in November. It was proposed to amend the <br />law to read to the effect that in all land hereafter <br />' <br />laid out, each lot shall have a seventy foot frontage <br />on the highway and an area of not less than 7000 sq, <br />ft., also that a side yard of not less than 10 ft. <br />be required on each side of house and that a rear <br />yard of not less than 30 ft. be provided, not over <br />30 per cent of which may be covered with accessory <br />buildings. Mr. Duffy was quite insistent in his <br />argument for a greater depth, but others present <br />regarded 7000 ft. as the maximum in the way of a <br />limitation which it would be expedient to try to <br />secure. <br />W. D. Milne, <br />Clerk. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.