HomeMy WebLinkAbout1924-02-26Fab. 26s 19,04.
Joint Meeting
Planning board & Conference Committee.
The second meeting of the Joint Committee met at Cary hall on
Tuesday evening, Feb. 26, at 8 o'clock, there being -present
Messrs. Emery, L.S. & W,D .Brown, Kilgour, Tladman, Harrington,
Cutler, McIntosh and Harrod; Ur. Duffy being present the latter
past of the time.
The meetingcoming to 6rder, Mr. Wadmen reads a draft of a com-
plete now set of by-laws he hasdrawn up and in which only on.e,gen-
eral residential section In 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-
bars, as vote is taken on the question:
" Do you favor a.dhereing to the scheme already proposed by the
Planning board of separate single residence and two family residence
areas a`s opposed to one general residence area to include both? "
Messrs. Wadman.. Kilgour,.Ha:rrington and Harrodvoted, in the negative
and Cutler, McIntosh, L.S.browx, W.D.Brown and Emery in the affirm-
Ative
An to UANUFACTURING 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 Harrod and opposed by Messrs. Cutler,'MaIxtesh,
L.S.,brown, W.D.Brown and Emery.
As the minority members refuse to entertain any modification of
their proposals as.to'theme 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 swhile longer and
in consequence the balance of the $y -laws are gone over.
As to BUSINESS AREAS there would appear to be ne,great divergence
of opinion-.
The "IUHT AND ARi;A 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.
Yr. McIntosh suggests that BUSINESS AREAS ON STREET INTER&r CTIONS
be required to have set back of from 10 to 20 feott.
it is also suggested and meets with general favor on the part of
the Conference Commit too that the 20. foot BUILDING LINES be retained
on all streets.
Mr. Cutler raises objection to the clause prohibiting obatruc-
tion of the streetsadjacent to STALLS.
The Chairman explains the reason for LACK OF PENALTY in the by-
laws amd all present agree that a fine in bound to be ineffective
and that the only sure tray to stop infra,ctiexa 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
xaiting until such restrictions can be arranged for by private nego-
iations.
As to the contention that only the Selectmen, the major board of
the torat, 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 unanimaus report
from the Committee- stating that the Planning hoard 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 Beet 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