Laserfiche WebLink
LJ <br />U <br />i <br />PLANNING BOARD MEETING <br />April 3, 1935 <br />A meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Con- <br />ference Room of the Town Office Building on Wednesday, April <br />31 1935, at 8:10 P. P,'., Kessrs. Duffy, Ellis, Kimball, Robinson <br />and Sellars, and Greeley were present. <br />An aelmowledgement of the Planning Boardfs letter to <br />the Board of Selectmen, in regard to a parking census, was <br />read. <br />Mr. Kimball suggested that we have some blank forms <br />for petitions for changes in zoning area mimeographed or <br />printed. The Clerk was instructed to get in touch with Miss <br />Maguire in regard to this matter. <br />Mr. Duffy read a communication from Mir. Elwyn G. Preston <br />which stated that the writer was wholly in favor of the straight <br />relocation of Viatertown Street; that the reconstruction of <br />the present location would be a great mistake because of its <br />dangerous curves and intersection; that the writer would be <br />one of 100 citizens to pay $100.00 each to meet the difference <br />in cost between the straight and the curbed layouts. Mr. <br />Duffy was instructed to acknowledge Mr. Preston's letter, in- <br />forming Mr. Preston of the Board1s opinion and stand on the <br />question. <br />The Board expressed the desire to have Mr. Duffy do <br />what he thought best in an attempt to convince the state and <br />county engineers of the necessity for a straight layout, but <br />the Board felt that whatever was done should be done only <br />after having contacted the Board of Selectmen. <br />A letter from Fair. �;ustance was read, in regard to apart- <br />ment zones, and the proposed amendment for a limited apartment <br />zone, drawn up by the Board, but not voted on, in May, 1933, <br />was also read. <br />I;1r. Greeley described the essential features of the <br />proposal made in 1933 by `,,iessrs. VV7. R. Greeley and E. G. <br />hraetzer, Jr. lie stated that he did not know whether Mr. <br />Custance was considering the same proposition. <br />:.r. Duffy said that he doubted_ if the Board wish wish <br />to recommend to the Town the establishment of a general <br />apartment zone. He also stated that there might, however, be <br />some legitimate demand for some form of limited apartments <br />as a buffer between C-1 and R-1 or 2 zones. He questioned <br />whether there was actually an appreciable difference in cost <br />between apartments of high standard and small, single houses, <br />built on a wholesale scale. <br />T1Ir. Duffy moved, and it was passed, that:- <br />Water - <br />town <br />Street <br />Apartment <br />"If and when the Board is informed that there is a <br />proposed apartment development for which the acquisition <br />Zone <br />