Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1924-02-26 Feb. 26, 1924. Joint Meeting r Planning Board & Conference Committee. The second meeting of the Joint Committee met at Cary Hall on 0/ Tuesday evening, Feb. 26, at 8 o'clock, there being present Messrs. Emery, L.S. & N.D. Brown, Kilgour, Madman, Harrington, Cutler, McIntosh and Harrod; Ur. Duffy being present the latter part of the time. The meeting coming to ♦rder, Mr. Madmen reads a draft of a com- plete new set of by-laws he has drawn up and in which only one gen- eral residential aection is provided; the various neighborhoods be- ing permitted to settle their own status by vote. The Chaiman points out that this cannot be done under the Zoning ordinances of the Statutes. After an informal expression of feeling on the part of the mem- bers, a vote is taken on the question:- " Do you favor adhereing to the scheme already proposed by the Planning Board of separate single residence and two family residence areas as opposed to one general residence area to include both? " U Messrs. Wadman, Kilgour, Harrington and Harred voted in the negative and Cutler, McIntosh, L.S.Brown, W.D.Brown and Emery in the affirm- ative . As to MANUFACTURING Mr. Kilgour proposes that it be permitted continuously along both sides of the Railroad tracks from the Arl- ington to the Bedford town lines. On being put to vote this is favored by Messrs. Wadman, Kilgour, Harrington and Harred and opposed by Messrs. Cutler, McIntosh, L.S.Brown, V .D.Brown and Emery. As the minority members refuse to entertain any modification of their proposals as to these two fundamental considerations it would appear that any hope entertained of united action must be given up and majority and minority reports be submitted instead. Mr. McIntosh urges, however, that the Committee stick together awhile longer and in consequence the balance of the By-laws are gone over. As to BUSINESS AREAS there would appear to be no great divergence of opinion. 11 The HEIGHT AND AREA Regulations will prove acceptable when made to conform to the Building Laws, save that the latter shall provide that no lot shall have a frontage of less than 50 feet . Mr. McIntosh suggests that BUSINESS AREAS ON STREET INTERSzCTIONS be required to have set back of from 10 to 20 fe*t. pa111 rt is also suggested and meets with general favor on the p rt o f the Conference Committee that the 20 foot BUILDING LINES be retained .. R on all streets. Mr. Cutler raises objection to the clause prohibiting obstruc- tion of the streetsadjacent to STALLS. The Chairman explains the reason for LACK OF PENALTY in the by- laws and all present agree that a fine is bound to be ineffective sad that the only sure way to stop infractions of the law is by in- junction. Mr. McIntosh feels that set-back restrictions should be placed at once on business zones at intersecting thoroughfares rather than waiting until such restrictions can be arranged for by private nego- tiations. As to the contention that only the Selectmen, the major board of the town, should have power to grant exceptions, all present agree that the suggested arrangement whereby each Board acts as a check on the other is a preferable arrangement. There is no objection to any of the other arrangements. The Chairman again points out the advantage of a unanimous report from the Committee- stating that the Planting pearl is more than wil- ling to make concessions to this end, and urges the minority members to meet the situation in the same spirit, Mr. Kilgour replies that the minority will meet by themselves and determine just what they are willing to concede; and a joint meeting is agreed upon for next Monday evening. Meeting adjourned at 12/15 . Willard D. Brown, Clerk, 10 I l