HomeMy WebLinkAbout1938-06-13PLANNING BOARD HEARING
June 13, 1938
' Present:- Messrs, Greeley, Kimball, Nickerson, Ferguson and Ellis.
A public hearing was held under the provisions of Section 17
of the Lexington Zoning By -Law in the Selectmen's Room of the Town
Office Building at 8:00 P. M, for the purpose of considering the
following proposed amendment to the Lexington Zoning By -Law: -
To substitute under Area Regulations, Section 6, a new section
6 to read as follows:
Section 6. (a) In R,1 and R,2 Districts no dwelling shall
be erected upon land laid out for house lots after the adoption
of this by-law unless there be provided for each such dwelling
a lot frontage of not less than 100 feet upon the frontage street,
and an area of not less than 12,500 square feet. On each side of
each dwelling or other permitted main structure there shall be
provided a side yard of at least fifteen feet in width, which
shall be kept open from the front line of the main structure to
the rear line thereof.
This paragraph shall not apply to lots of less than 100 foot
frontage duly recorded by plan or deed at the time this by-law is
adopted,
(b) Where a corner lot has its corner bounded by a curved
line connecting other bounding lines which if extended would inter-
sect, the frohtage and area shall be computed as -if such bounding
lines were so extended.
The Chairman declared the hearing open at 8:00 P, M, and the
Clerk read the notice of hearing which was published in the May 261
1938 issue of the "Lexington Minuteman",
t
The Chairman explained that the matter to be considered was
the same as was presented to the Town at a previous Town Meeting
but that the Attorney General refused to approve it because of a
technicality. The Planning Board felt th4t the Town favored the
proposal so is going to present it again,
He asked to hear first from those who favored the proposal
and there were none who wished to speak.
He then asked for those who were opposed.
bIr. Walter Black stated that he did not want to,speak in
opposition but would like to see a little more consideration given
to side lines, He would like to see the side line fixed at 12 feet
and.the setback increased to 35 or 40 feet. He felt that a 20 foot
setback meant a poor neighborhood but with 35 or 40 foot setb&'ks
there is a very differdlit neighborhood, He felt that it was a.
' hardship to build a garage on -a lot with the side lines fixed at
15 feet.
Mr. Greeley stated that if a house was built with garage on
a 100 foot lot, the garage must be 15 feet from the next lot line
and there is 15 feet plus the width of the house and 15 feet left
'
on the other side. _
Mr. Black felt that the tendency was to crowd to the service
side of the house and leave as much yard as possible on the liv-
ing room side.
Mr, George Fuller stated that he owned 17 acres of land on
North Hancock Street and asked what chance he would have selling
lots of 100 feet when the developments on three sides of his land
were laid out and recorded with 75 foot lots.
Rir. Greeley stated that the Board would be glad to give the
matter study and report to him. _
Asir. Eugene Buckley felt that 10,P00 square feet would suffice
and that the depth should be decreased to 100 feet. He stated
that he had talked with other citizens and they felt that 7500
feet would suffice and that 5000 foot increase was quite a lot,
One person suggested 90 feet frontage and a depth of 125 feet.
He stated that he was hoping at the last Town Meeting that the
meeting would decide on 10,000 square feet.
Mr. Greeley stated that the Planning BoardIs aim was to
present what it felt was good policy and discover what the citizens
wanted. He asked Mr. Buckley if he thought the jump would be '
too sudden from 7500 to 12,500 square feet,
Mr. Buckley stated that he favored 100 by 100 foot lots and
would rather spe the area set at 10,000 square feet rather than
12,500 square feet.
Mr. Robert Uerriam felt that 10,000 square foot lots with
100 foot frontago,•was large enough near the center of the Town.
He felt that farther out 12,500 foot lots are alright but can
see the difficulty of drawing the line, In regard to the side
line, he felt as Mr. Black, He stated that he thought it would
be well to leave out the secpnd paragraph because it is not
proposed to have this amendment retroactive to lots already
laid out.
Mr, Greeley asked Mr. Merriam if he felt that the amendment
should not be retroactive, that any lot of any size previously
recorded should be permitted to stand. Mr. Merriam replied in
the affirmative.
Mr. T. A. Custance stated that he was in sympathy with Mr.
Black in regard to the setback and would like to see it increased,
He would like to see a tentative layout made of all large areas
of the Town as yet undeveloped,which developers and builders could
refer to. He stated that he thought 10,000 foot lots with 100 '
foot frontage would be for the best interests of the Town.
r3 -
Mr, Hutchinson of Blossom Street stated that he thought
7500 feet was the fair size lot and that 10,000 feet was'plenty
large. He felt that 15 feet on each side of the lot is making
' a lot of waste land which will be allowed to grow up in weeds.
Mr. Black stated that a house should not be set in the
middle of a lot but the larger part of the lot should be left
on the living room side of the house.
Mr.,Greeley stated that the service side of the lot may
be the living room side of the next lot and felt it desirable•
to have some distance between the houses required.
fir. Black felt that the land left on the service side of
a house was not as valuable as if'you left that land on the
other side, He thought 12 feet plenty for a side line but
felt that the 20 foot setback inadequate and detrimental to
the Town. He does not approve the 100 by 100 foot lot but
would rather see 90 feet frontage. Mr. Black stated that he
built a house for a man from out of town who'told him to set
the house back 20 feet but he suggested it be set back 30 feet
and built the house back 60 feet and the man liked it. The
man did not realize how close to the street 20 feet was. Mr.
Black stated that developers came in`from Cambridge and set up
stakes to build houses with 20 foot setbacks on Highland Avenue
but Mr. Emery explained what they were doing to the street and
they set them back 30 feet.
' 1dr. Hutchinson stated that he built a house last year
and set it back 35 feet.
Mr. Buckley stated that he would like to see the second
paragraph retroactive for lots now registered.
Mr. Greeley stated that if this law is passed, at the
time it is passed, lots previously laid out and recorded of
less area than the new requirement shall be allowed to stand
as theay are.
Mr, Custance remarked that among the better type of
houses, there are very few builders who want to keep to the
20 foot setback, They all want larger setbacks,
Mr. Greeley advised those present that whenever they
found some information that would be of assistance to the
Planning Board to inform them of it so they might progress
along with the citizens.
Mr, Buckley thought it was well established by the
expressed opinions of the various people present that the 20
foot setback was not large enough.
' Mr, Greeley felt that there was very little sentiment
expressed for a frontage less than 100 feet excepting Mr,
Hutchinson who favored 75 feet.
-4 -
Mr. Hutchinson stated that with 7500 feet for a house lot
you could make the frontage 100 feet or 90 feet.
Mr. Greeley asked Mr. Hutchinson if he opposed the 100 ,
foot frontage and Mr. Hutchinson replied that he did not oppose
it.
Mr. Black asked if a man laid out 290 feet in one place,
would he have to make the lots 200 feet and 90 feet or could
he have three lots.
Mr. Greeldy replied that he thought it would have to be
two lots but that the Board of Appeals might allow a variation
because of unnecessary hardship. He explained that in protect-
ing the people in general there are bound to be hardships on
some people.
Mr. Kimball read the reasons that the Board of Appdals
may allow variations. '
Mr. Greeley explained that the matter before the Board
would be prdsented to the Town again at a future Town Meeting
the date df which is unknown.
The chairman asked for other speakers either in favor or
in opposition and as there were none, declared the hearing"
closed at 9:00 P. M.
After the hearing was declared closed; the Board voted
unanimously to insert the subject matter of the hearing as
an article in the Warrant for the next Town Meeting.
Re spe c tfully,submi tt ed,
Clerk
1