1966-02-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD HEARING February 7, 1966 Cluster - CM 1 - Board of Appeals A public hearing was held in Science Lecture Hall, High School Building, on February 7, 1966, in re: three proposed zoning amendments: "Cluster" zoning, relaxation of area and yard requirements in CM 1 zones, and the setting forth of conditions to be imposed by the Board of Appeals as a guide. Present were Chairman Campbell, members Bryson, Fowle, Greeley and Riffin; Planning Director Zaleski, and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Approximately 75 persons were also present. Chairman Campbell opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. by ex- plaining the procedure to be followed and introduced Mr. Fowle. who presented the proposal for cluster zoning. In the question period which followed Mr. Kula asked where this land would be and also stated he believed the open land could be built upon at some time. Mr. Campbell replied that if the town owned or had an ease- ment in the property, it could not be built upon, either the town or the Conservation Commission would control it. Conrad Levy said if the town owned it, it would probably be turned into a park so there would be no tax income and it would have to be maintained. Mr. Fowle explained that cluster zoning is an alternative for the developer which permits him to build houses on lots which CLUSTER are smaller than those normally required, in feturn for which he ZONING leaves a certain fraction of the land for permanent recreation or conservation use in the area. It is proposed to have 20,000 sq.ft. lots instead of 30,000 which are now permitted, with a frontage of 120 ft. instead of 150 ft. and depth of 160 ft. Use of a chart com- pared the development of an area by the present and proposed methods. A 10 -acre tract is also proposed as a minimum amount of t space for cluster zoning. The number of lots allowed would be cal- culated as follows: total area reduced by 15% for streets and then divided by 30,000 sq. ft. which gives the normal number of lots per- mitted. This would be the same number of lots allowed thereby not increasing the density. However, by putting a house on a smaller lot, the developer saves by having smaller lengths of street, water mains, etc. which should make it more attractive. In a 10 -acre cluster there would be 2-1/2 acres open space reserved. Also com- pared by chart was what other towns have as compared to that pro- posed by Lexington. Mr. Fawle also stated that some people seemed to fear that at some time or other this open land would be devel- oped, but the town was determined that this would not happen. The town would either own or have an easement in this open land. It was also explained that this land would be accessible for the common use of the neighborhood. In the question period which followed Mr. Kula asked where this land would be and also stated he believed the open land could be built upon at some time. Mr. Campbell replied that if the town owned or had an ease- ment in the property, it could not be built upon, either the town or the Conservation Commission would control it. Conrad Levy said if the town owned it, it would probably be turned into a park so there would be no tax income and it would have to be maintained.