HomeMy WebLinkAbout1928-11-27%ouinptrna, 144090
troaent: `Ieesars, T<merya 'Alne, Cutler Lind `'beefiere
hear was hold at the Town ifioss on
t' a evening or , lQV8 actor a duly published
nottlee of the proposal to change tho bul.1ding 67wlsw.
draft of they now proposed sonlaW bylaw
')eon Prepared Marx« was distributeed;, t.laut bsenty-w
V!zve persons were ptvsent anti thta entire proposed
bywluw wtia rwi earx) WAN various, seat ons discussed*
ome objection developed on ti» pert of '.Sr,
"eaA s .+ail .hen the re quiremente for aidewyearda insofar
tae t'.ey aft'e ated the properties, where iota were laid
out Pr for to the a of -tion oV he zoning, law.
` r* 'Vr`xC'19 ;'inn 11r. iIltowi raised rimations
to V. a a1ze of z,ealf*eatato aims pt+r-mitt®ci.
".,. •ow .took called ettentian to an apparent prohlbition
or trtrmpovsX`f regal-easta p ofrimes on now deveeloI me
t: it v^t?��a •n t*e^ ar•d to tite fropoaed lot sites cif
75 sgofte *!1th 'eta fts n-onta ge, `kr, Jolmse n :nd
x>, "e ntool felt thmt th s would wo ,k n hardship,
but In � envrc l W -.o meeting seemed to favor tti.ie provision„
::leerk o
1
1
Hearing on Amendments to Zoning By -Law, held at Parker School,
North Lexington, Monday, December 3rd, 1926,
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 purposes_
and what was hoped to be accomplished by the changes. d.z4"_c 3
Mr; Jas. H. Russell spoke in favor of defining the limitations ofJ�
the C-1 District referred to in paragraph I, a e 8 to con orm to
the intent of the original by-law. He claimed that the proposed
amendment extends the limits of this C-1 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 then 60 ft, frontage, or
contained less than 7500 ft.
Mr. H.H. Johnson voiced a general objection to the limitations
proposed by Section 6.
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 of a mortgagee of a non -conforming structure in case 50% or
over of such structure were destroyed.