1968-02-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MEARINGS - FEBRUARY $ 1968 On Thursday, February 8, 1968 the Planning Board held public hearings in Science Lecture Hall, Senior High School, on several pro- posals to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law. Present were Planning Board Chairman Mrs. Riffin and members Greeley and Worrell; also planning director Zaleski and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Approxi- mately 60 citizens were also present. Mrs. Riffin called hearings to order at 7:35 and explained the procedure to be followed. She then read the notice for the first hearing as it had appeared in the January 18 and 25 editions of the Lexington Minute. -man, and presented Mr. Worrell who spoke on this proposal. He explained. that under Sec. 8(c)l. the provision in C 2 Districts is for a 20 ft. side and 10 ft. rear yard, all of which may be used for parking, and the new proposal is that 10 ft. of the required yard next to the boundary on side and rear which abuts on R 1, R 2 or A 1 district must be devoted. to a green strip of grass, trees, shrubs, etc., while the remainder may be used forjparking. This provision is intended to give greater protec- tion to adjacent residential areas. Maps were shown of two of these districts which would be affected; the effect on the remaining district would be negligible. There has been talk of the possibility of extending C 2 zone down toward Forest St. or extending the use, and if extended from this present zone the new re- striction would be in full effect. Nobody spoke in favor nor in opposition, but Mr. Mollo-Christianson asked if there were any zoning articles in the warrant which this might affect, and was told no. He also asked what about a driveway if there was one now, and Mr. Worrell replied that it would be legal although non- conforming. Mr. Cole wished to be recorded in favor. Nobody registered opposition. This hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Mrs. Riffin then read the next article and introduced Mr. Greeley who explained the purpose of the proposal, which is (1) to clear up the questions in regard to small lots of which there are a great many; (2) to make it impossible to build on absurdly small lots which have less than 50 ft. frontage and less than 5,000 sq.ft. area, although the Board of Appeals could grant a variance if it were necessary; (3) to encourage the acceptance of a standard for lots in a neighborhood and to have these small lots combined if it can be done without hardship to the owners. Charles Cole: What you are saying is that lots of 7,500 sq.ft. and 75 ft. frontage could be used for building, but smaller lots would only be allowed under certain conditions, such as comparable lots in the neighbor- hood. Mr. Greeley replied that he said the Board of Appeals could permit the use of such lots. We do not know where houses are located with respect