1936-10-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 16,1936 ' Present:- Messrs. Borden, Ellis, Ferguson, Nickerson, and Kimball of the active board and, by invitation,'Messrs. Duffy, 71. R. Greeley, R. B. Greeley, William D. Milne, W, D. Brown, Sheldon A. Robinson, H. S. 0.'Nichols, and E.B. Worthen, members of past boards. The active board meet at 7.-30 P. M. with Mr. Robert Merriam to discuss the proposed development of the Goodwin property on Ierriam Street. Draft plans prepared by H. J. Kellaway providing for two treatments were reviewed. One pro- vided for a street opposite Chandler Street swinging through the property and back to IvIerriam Street to Oakland Street, and Goodwin the second a continuation of the present so-called Blake Road Develop - in a southerly direction, thence easterly to Merriam Street. ment In general the lot areas will run from around 9,000 to 16,000 square feet. Questions of drainage services and contours were discussed and the Board voted to approve, in principle, the second layout. emeral meeting The convened at 8:10 P. M. with Chairman Borden outlining the topics on which the Board was seeking advice. Mr. Roland Greeley opened a discussion on the proposed new gasoline zone with a question as to its validity when set up as a zone identity. Mr. Wrightington expressed the opinion that if an area was Gasoline ' zoned as proposed and later successfully attacked in court, Zone the most that could be expected would be a reversal to the original R.1 zone. Mr. blilne felt that the Board would be in a stronger position to hold off intrusion if opposing a C.1 zone with its inherent possibilities for general business than it would a special zone although he believed good zoning should anticipate the needs of particular localities. Mr. Viorthen thought the board should solidify its position on the basis of past accomplishments rather than embark on an untried field. Mr. Roland Greeley suggested allowing filling stations in R.1 Districts subject to Board of Appeals action and after general discussion, Mr. Roger Greeley was asked to present his views on "what should be the appropriate actions of the Board in respect to further applications for zoning changes on the Concord Turnpike?" This led into a very general discussion of ideals and ways and means for obtaining the support of the Town in plann- ing matters. The opinions were apparently about equally divided in whether the Board should support Ivlr. Peterson's probable petition. Owing to the lateness of the hour, no attempt was made to discuss the new enabling act (Ch. 211). 1