Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Greeley stated that if a house was built with garage on <br />a 100 foot lot, the garage must be 15 feet from the next lot line <br />and there is 15 feet plus the width of the house and 15 feet left <br />' <br />on the other side. _ <br />Mr. Black felt that the tendency was to crowd to the service <br />side of the house and leave as much yard as possible on the liv- <br />ing room side. <br />Mr, George Fuller stated that he owned 17 acres of land on <br />North Hancock Street and asked what chance he would have selling <br />lots of 100 feet when the developments on three sides of his land <br />were laid out and recorded with 75 foot lots. <br />Rir. Greeley stated that the Board would be glad to give the <br />matter study and report to him. _ <br />Asir. Eugene Buckley felt that 10,P00 square feet would suffice <br />and that the depth should be decreased to 100 feet. He stated <br />that he had talked with other citizens and they felt that 7500 <br />feet would suffice and that 5000 foot increase was quite a lot, <br />One person suggested 90 feet frontage and a depth of 125 feet. <br />He stated that he was hoping at the last Town Meeting that the <br />meeting would decide on 10,000 square feet. <br />Mr. Greeley stated that the Planning BoardIs aim was to <br />present what it felt was good policy and discover what the citizens <br />wanted. He asked Mr. Buckley if he thought the jump would be ' <br />too sudden from 7500 to 12,500 square feet, <br />Mr. Buckley stated that he favored 100 by 100 foot lots and <br />would rather spe the area set at 10,000 square feet rather than <br />12,500 square feet. <br />Mr. Robert Uerriam felt that 10,000 square foot lots with <br />100 foot frontago,•was large enough near the center of the Town. <br />He felt that farther out 12,500 foot lots are alright but can <br />see the difficulty of drawing the line, In regard to the side <br />line, he felt as Mr. Black, He stated that he thought it would <br />be well to leave out the secpnd paragraph because it is not <br />proposed to have this amendment retroactive to lots already <br />laid out. <br />Mr, Greeley asked Mr. Merriam if he felt that the amendment <br />should not be retroactive, that any lot of any size previously <br />recorded should be permitted to stand. Mr. Merriam replied in <br />the affirmative. <br />Mr. T. A. Custance stated that he was in sympathy with Mr. <br />Black in regard to the setback and would like to see it increased, <br />He would like to see a tentative layout made of all large areas <br />of the Town as yet undeveloped,which developers and builders could <br />refer to. He stated that he thought 10,000 foot lots with 100 ' <br />foot frontage would be for the best interests of the Town. <br />