Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1923-12-21SAL ECOND.PUBLIC'Z&A1U31G BFSATIVE To ZOXIN(l, Dees• 21, 1823, The ' seconsi of the seGtiorl hearings: relative to zoning that portion P a keo term lying aouth of Adams and Hancock. Streets, Elm and b assachu,a&etts Avenues; ande3ct.ending to the division line between Preelnets.1 and 2, was held at Cary Hall at g o'clock on December 21st with Messrs. Emery, L.S. and W.D". Brown, Mr. Hartman and Mr. Duffy in'attendance , Over 700' notices, had been mailed to property owners in this section. Inoludiz% Viessrs. Scammon; Burnham and Blake of the Board of Selectmen who came in towirds the close, ;there Were 42 persons present.' As at the prevtoua hearing Vr.'�Emery;and Mr. Hartman:rA�* viewed at length the activities of the Board relative to botffi_, building lines and zoning; told wilat it was hoped to accomplish,. explained the map, and asked for critioiems.and suggestions' that the Planning Board might learn the desires of the '01tizens. In response the following persons spoke: Mr. Woods, Thinks business asotione too widel' scattered through the town. He would eliminate all smell outlying business eentres, Mr. Wadman: ••• Differs entirely with Xr Woodae Feels strongly that if stores and -shops `are `confined to the " centre it,will be a hardship on all those living 'a atdistance. Mr. Wri.ghtington m - Inquires as to character of zone at Five Forks* Mr. Hollis Webster: i Asks what is the fundamental reason for the b- jection to stores in outlying areas, Has oRon In other towns seen buildings devoted to such uses that were distinctly more attractive than those of the community ;they , served. Mr. Wood:-- Asked to answer this question but is unable do so. Kr: Clapp:-- Has always been strongly in favor of zouing. Wishes to make clear, however, that. though strictly residential districts are mapped out, it does- not mean that they of necessity remain eo forg11 time, it being posy ble to re»zone sucki areas later bya 2 3 vote,of the towin. r r; t Mr. Temea S. Smith: rqueot Raises it z Is its', favor of � the'zor�Sng.•_i,dea. - as .to .the potsibill, y of ereoting hotel in any but a business zone. 4: Under what alassifZcati.on would: the -Lexington Out- ' doors club come?m+¢ totriOtly buaine$s proposition. Are the business wets. dot templated adequate for future growth of the town; Is satisfied at Mr*Hari"�an'a assurance tbi�t they are twice +the size of Arl ngton' at . the present-' ti" and $ times as. great a;s at p"sexit; the figures as prepared by-the Town"$iginear being Lexin§ton, present businesa....,;3870'`ft. . busy ` 2031ee conk emp].�►ted 21,850 f t. Arlington,': present-business ...-.9,240 ft.` tdx�. Clapp.. (tile in favor ©f excluding-further manufacturing, frau the Town quer tions who Hier +it can be,,, done legally. Mr. Wilsons— Reserves any remarks Until hearing in Precinct 1. `Mr. Wadman: -o- Inquires why Pieasant Stxeest to restricted from business and not intersections as at Five Forks., Asks what are the ab eotions to. `,#alto family, super« imposed houses. Ponta out super3.oxity the semi-deta.tc hed tyype • Claims if they are I not . erected owners cannot afford to'ereot`any but the cheapest farm of single house# the.Town,not olsly losing therebymu.c h irz . the way of taxesbut fixe attractiveness of its. Future grgwtii being greatly lessened. Mr Neil'McIntosh. Replies to lir. 'Nadman by stating that of 700 acres developed ;by him around Boston less than 10% of the buyers desired two-family housee* Out of the 40 houae.a 'already built in his I,exo-; ingt n development. "but, 'two are two-family housea. The objections to this.+class of house seem to be. 1, the looks ' 2o they don"t seem to have' thea sane privacy. In other wordes, they are not so ' "hco"y"•