Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950-11-02HEARING - ZONING BY-IAWS Thursday, November 2, 1950, 8 o'clock, Cary Memorial Hall The hearing opened at 8 o'clock with the following members of the Planning Board present: Cromwell, Adams, Caouette, Johnson, Potter, Ripley. Town Counsel Harold Stevens also present. The chairman, i1r. Cromwell, opened the meeting by stating that the Board did not wish to foist its views upon the townspeople but that it had spent a great deal of time and thought on the matter and was now willing to listen to the views and suggestions of the citizens. The Planning Board will then meet and consider what has been said and may possibly make changes before the matter comes to vote at the Town Meeting. There were no comments until Section /+. i;Ir. Merriam suggested that the new location of Route 128 be placed upon the map. _CbLR_2. I&% Merriam stated that quite a few of R-2 areas have been eliminated, and that there is quite a mixture of single and 2 -family houses on Grant Street to Sherman Street, both sides of Fletcher Avenue to RR tracks which will be in the R-2 district. He proposed that the area west side of Grant Street to RR track to Adams Press property which already has one or two 2 -family houses remain in R-2 district. ' Mrs.Louise Sexton inquired if she understood correctly that no more 2 -family houses could be built unless it was in the R-2 district and was told that that was correct. (c) 9. Parrett Road and Waltham Street. The people in that neigh- borhood are opposed to an increase in the C-1 district. They feel that the present territory is enough. Speaking in opposition to the change were: John Downey, 4 Farmcrest Ave.; Idr. Kelly, 437 Waltham St.; John Spencer, 439 Waltham St.; IYs. Coleman, 435 Waltham St.; I4rs. Fbx, 410 Waltham St.; Mr. Illorse, 43 Farmcrest Ave. Mr. Downey asked if it would be possible to have a petition prepared for the Town L%eting to have the article dropped. He stated he represented other property owners who wish to sign such a petition. IAr.Cromwell stated that the Board would be willing to receive a petition, but the surest way was to put it before the Town L%eting. 1,1r. lubrey asked if there was anyone present who felt differently about that area, and apparently there was not. (d) C-1 areas. iir. Don Hathaway stated that C-1 areas had been re- duced, one of which is Five Forks. He asked what effect this reduction will have on the value of the properties which are proposed to be put back in the R-1 area. i's. Cromwell replied that any change in zoning is apt to take from some and give to others, it is unavoidable, but that over a period of time it is necessary that zoning laws be changed. ' Mr. Richard Porter spoke of his desire to have his property at 786 Concord Turnpike changed to C-1 district in order that he might erect a Howard Johnson stand. Arw. Benjamin Green spoke in opposition to this request. He stated that , he would like to go on record as saying that if I:tr. Porter was successful in having his zone changed he would also petition to commercialize his place. Idir. Francis Gallagher, 151 Spring Street, also spoke in opposition. He does not think the entire section should be penalized for the sake of one person. b R-2. Haskell Reed, Lovell street, stated that if 2 -family districts are being eliminated in other parts of the town he did not see why the erec- tion described under (b) R-2 - 1 should be kept in. In was his desire that it remain in R-1. Ail. fir. Walsh Jr. asked if "spot zoning" were illegal, and if so Could this not come under spot zoning. 1b. Stevens replied that strictly speaking spot zoning is not legal but of what it consists is a much discussed question. I:2r. Fbllows requested the Planning Board to consider putting hotels into C-1 districts as they are used for commercial purposes - not a specific area but in general. I,Ir. 1Ralsh stated that he thought the town should control all land from the cemetery to Grant St. He believed this would be a good location for.,the new High School. Roland Greeley remarked that there was considerable precedence for , coupling hotels with residential districts and thinks it is wise. HEARING - Louise Sexton et al. At this time the hearing on petition of Louise Sexton et al to have her property on Fletcher avenue changed from R-1 to C-1 district was heard. She stated that the property is of no value to her as it now stands as it is the only residence in a business area. When asked what her plans were if the zone. were changed she said she wished to sell. She stated she had previously offered it to the Town but had been refused. T,Ir. Walsh Sr. spoke in favor of the petition. Bill Phillips also spoke in favor. He thought the property might be of value to the town,. Mr. Nyder also favored. Mr. Blackwell stated that there are property rights to be considered, but there are other avenues rather than rezoning to business. He suggested that Mrs.Sexton again try to sell to the Town. Hearing closed at 9.15. 1 1 (c) C-1. Retail stores. L'',r. I,iorse suggested that the article be reworded to read "retail stores except retail liquor stores." Carl D:r7ant remarked that it should be explained that these would be allowed in 0-2 if taken out of C-1. Er. Hathaway thought it should be made necessary to bring before the Board of Appeals. AA=1. Mr. Ryder wished to know if the Board bad considered other loca- tions for this designation and was told that it had. He stated that he thought considerable study should be given to recommend other areas for the future. Sec. 5 (a) 6. Under this article LIr. Blackwell suggested that "com- mercial poultry" be added. S=A. Mr. Hathaway spoke for 100' frontage& with more depth allowing varying s(kt-backs which would better the layout. Mr. Ryder opposed the ar- ticle. Mr. Blackwell favored. Letter from the Tower Estate (Trustees) opposed to change. Under "accessory uses" Pr. Hathaway asked if it were possible for a salesman or architect to conduct business from his home. hr. Stevens replied that as it was now written they could not, and when asked if it were covered in Section 5 replied yes, that it could be taken before the Board of appeals and that it had been broadened to permit businesses which were not of annoy- ance or nuisance to neighbors. Section 11. is;r. Howard Custance spoke in opposition to this article. 4e stated that it was not the contractor's job to file such information. Mr. Jaquith was opposed to change suggested by Mr. Custance. He said that the contractor should have such data readily available and should be required to give public notice to neighbors that the lot had been recorded. lmb The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. W. Caouette, Clerk