HomeMy WebLinkAbout1928-11-27 Lexington, `'iris.
trAoent: lepers. 4 er'j, 411ne, Cutler and heeler.
hear + was held at the Town :ffioes on
t,19t' evening ,,f!,r,,,,,_
of „ liK:B atter es drily published
notice of the proposal to change the building byelaw.
draft of the now proposed toning byelaw
}.t;,i often prepnped and was distributed. i.bout twenty
Untie portions were present ansa the entire proposed
bylaw eras read ran0 the varioue aeot?cube discussed.
orae ob jeotion developed on the print of `,tr.
'€ares h ll her. the requirements for sidoeyerds insofar
as t': ny &fleeted the properties where lots were laid
out -zrior to the aciortion oi' the Boning law.
T. :Urke €anti '{r. 'tolntooh rateed questions
!. ) regar ,... to t .p a is a of i•eal•eetate signs permitted.
'o!E torah oa1lod ntteution to an apparent prohibition
oC tr,mpor .r pawl-ostate otf.ioes on new development.
r. •etc.iriin, 'a . Join on rx. '!r. Cutter vveoented
t.;e,ir v"eine i.n rcga.atd to t e proposed lot Dines of
75 sq.ft. !.th 76 ft. frontage. 1r. Johnson .nil
c•. o:ntooh felt that thLe would woe k n hardship,
Out in .'ener:.l tie meeting seemed to favor thte provision.
L ilne,
::lark.
L
Hearing on Amendments to Zoning By-Law, held at Parker School,
North Lexington, Monday, December 3rd, 1928.
Present: Chairman F.L. Emery
C.E.Glynn.
The Hearing was called to order at 8.05 P.M. Chairman Emery
read the Amendments proposed, explaining in detail the purposes3
and what was hoped to be accomplished by the changes.
Mr. Jas. H. Russell spoke in favor of defining the limitations orj
the C-i District referred to in paragraph I, a e 8 to conform to
the intent of the original by-law. He claimed at the proposed
amendment extends the limits of this C-i District.
Mr. White spoke in favor of the provisions of Section 6.
Mr. Johnson referred to the success of developments by Mr. McPhee
off Reed Street, where no lot had less than 60 ft. frontage, or
contained less than 7500 ft.
Mr. H.H. Johnson voiced a general objection to the limitations
proposed by Section 6.
11 Mr. McIntosh asked the Chairman for an explanation of his statement
that the McIntosh developments were a liability to the Town on
account of causing increased tax rates.
Mr. John F.Fleming asked what effect the amendments would have on
lots now existing, and was informed by the Chairman that lots laid
out prior to the adoption of the amendments would not be affected
thereby.
Mr. G.W.Bean spoke in favor of limiting the frontage to 60 ft. instead
of 75 ft. under Section 6, claiming that the developer cannot find
a ready sale for lots with the greater frontage.
Mr. McIntosh under reference to Section 10, asked what would be the
effect or' a mortgagee of a non-conforming structure in case 50% or
over of such structure were destroyed.