1937-12-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 8, 1937 ' Present;- Messrs, Ellis Fer son Greeley,Kraetzer, Nickerson and Kimball. It was decided that the subjects covered in the Regional Planning Bulletins were so localized to New York as to be of little value to our Board, the subscription is not to be renewed. Support of the Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards was approved and it was voted to make the usual.fifteen dollars ($15.00) contribution to that work. Continued discussion of lot areas and frontages centered around the basic reasons for controlled lot areas which are con- sidereds- l. To provide suitable light and air and to prevent fire hazards. 2. To safeguard the Town against an unbalanced financial condition through an excessive number of properties returning less in taxes than the Town expends for water, sewer, schools, etc. The following views were advanced as a means to such endss- 1. Can areas be satisfactorily treated through a minimum ' frontage specified by law and the location and distance between future streets controlled through Board of Lot Areas Survey approval so as to provide platting consistent & with the overall location? 2. Can the desired results be obtained through side yard Frontages control? 3, Is there a sound reason for adopting more than one area size and if there is, what governs the size and location of the different areas? Under number 1., it was unanimously agreed that it would be wise to increase the minimum frontage to 100 feet and that with the adoption of the new Enabling Act the control would lie with the Board of Survey. The thought was advanced that so long as satisfactory cooperation existed between the Planning Board and Board of Survey and to long as the Planning Board considered the cases with mare, results would be satisfactory, However, it leaves the administration dependent upon a chang- ing personnel in Town Boards and however conscientious a Board might be, there would be changing opinions. Furthermore, a land owner or developer would have little basis to make even preliminary layouts. Number 2 is based on the principles of the police power to provide light space and air. It would prevent congestion ' and would be a definite minimum. It does not prevent narrow, deep lots.