Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
1 <br />Hearing on Amendments to Zoning By -Law, held at Parker School, <br />North Lexington, Monday, December 3rd, 1926, <br />Present: Chairman F.L. Emery <br />C.E.Glynn. <br />The Hearing was called to order at 8.05 P.M. Chairman Emery <br />read the Amendments proposed, explaining in detail the purposes_ <br />and what was hoped to be accomplished by the changes. d.z4"_c 3 <br />Mr; Jas. H. Russell spoke in favor of defining the limitations ofJ� <br />the C-1 District referred to in paragraph I, a e 8 to con orm to <br />the intent of the original by-law. He claimed that the proposed <br />amendment extends the limits of this C-1 District. <br />Mr. White spoke in favor of the provisions of Section 6. <br />Mr. Johnson referred to the success of developments by Mr. McPhee <br />off Reed Street, where no lot had less then 60 ft, frontage, or <br />contained less than 7500 ft. <br />Mr. H.H. Johnson voiced a general objection to the limitations <br />proposed by Section 6. <br />Mr. McIntosh asked the Chairman for an explanation of his statement <br />that the McIntosh developments were a liability to the Town on <br />account of causing increased tax rates. <br />Mr. John F.Fleming asked what effect the amendments would have on <br />lots now existing, and was informed by the Chairman that lots laid <br />out prior to the adoption of the amendments would not be affected <br />thereby. <br />Mr. G.W.Bean spoke in favor of limiting the frontage to 60 ft, instead <br />of 75 ft. under Section 6, claiming that the developer cannot find <br />a ready sale for lots with the greater frontage. <br />Mr. McIntosh under reference to Section 10, asked what would be the <br />effect of a mortgagee of a non -conforming structure in case 50% or <br />over of such structure were destroyed. <br />