MIRAMAR FRONTAGES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1853, 12 September 1913, Page 8

MIRAMAR FRONTAGES.

j , • REDUCTION VETOED. i ■ , | COUNCIL RESCINDS A MOTION. : A LIVELY PASSAGE. The Mayor of Miramar (Mr. F. Townsend) expressed liis opinion at last evening's meeting of tho Borough Council that tho ratepayers who con:veiled tho recent meeting with regard to frontages had been guilty of discourtesy in not officially inviting himself and members of tho council to attend the meeting. The meeting had carricd a resolution "of protest against tho proposed reduction of "frontages, and a deEutation waited on the, council tq; place eforo it tho resolution of tho meeting. : ' " The resolution read as follows:—"That this meeting of ratepayers and residents unanimously protest against the action |of tho council in passing a resolution to cut up the sections from a 40ft. to 33ft: frontage, knowing if'jvill be a detrimental step to the future welfare of this borough." \ ' ' It .ttai 'explained by one of tho mem- , bors of tho deputation (Mr. Day) that ! tho opinion of the meeting had been that tho step would bo distinctly detri-' mental. If the borfiugh was to be a residential suburb, the ratepayers should ,; have the opportunity of..improving their sections. A redaction ,of /frbntages to 33ft. would render this impossible. The bigger tho - frontages the Better for all concerned. j ■ Another. member of the deputation ~ rose to speak, but was prevented by the Mayor, on"ihe ground that he was not a ratepayer. Tho Mayor said that tho council had had rto official intimation of tho resolution of the meutinj*.' If any persons , had a grievance, it,would bo better for the borough if a conference were called, -.-'and the council invited-to take part in " ' it.; The residents had recently held two meetings without inviting-itho council, ' and as Mayor ,of the borough,, he had taken it rather,as a slight .tiiai he.had •been overlooked. The council should bo 'takyn more into the..confidence of tho ratepayers;. The . councillors ; and himself were always willing to meet them. • * In answer to a statement by a member of the deputation that-, tho. meeting had been advertised in tho newspapers, , and that aU resiilents-'lia'd been invited, . tho Mayor said tliat-'an official invitation • should "have ' been 'sent to the council They must not' forget that they, had a* : . Mayor 1 and'councillors. ; The question of frontages was'raised - again at a later stage .of the ing, when Councillor Stone moved:— • "That the amendment to the by-law ' relating to frontages passcd-'on- August 28 bo., rescinded,"and that by-law 76 as originally drafted be adopted." The mover stated that the resolution had been "rushed through." Councillor Smith contended that a 40ft. frontage was small enough'. 1 ~ ( Councillor Telford said that a 33ft. frontage was not. sufficient to allow of -the building of,a decent house. Councillor Tracy made tho remark V ' that lie .would not support • the 33ft. frontage, "because the Mayor was not lit .to occupy tho pbsition he held." , The Mayor: I ask you to.withdraw. You are not speaking to the-motion. I 1 will ijot allow a councillor to insult'the < council; ' . Councillor-Tracy: I decline to with.v ■ . draw. . I am speaking straight, out as . ~ a man. ~ I won't withdraw. ' ' Tlio..Mayor: I ask you once more to withdraw: I won't allow the business to go on until t iyou d<?.„-j ' Councillor Tracy:' I have nothing to withdraw. The Mayor: You said the'person in the chair ought not to bo there. I ask you to withdraw. ... Councillor Tracy: I am not hero to create a disturbance. If I made a ' -mistake I shrill withdraw. •< ■ Tho* Mayor: .1 wish you~to withdraw : unreservedly, without any comment at all. . • Councillor Tracer: Very well, your ... Worship, I withdraw unreservedly. The Mayor went on to address tho A council with regard to the motion. He : - was surprised to hear it alleged that ; the proposal had been rushed through. ■■■_.- It,had been fully discussed at a meet- ., mg of the Publio Works Committee, ■ which consisted of all the members of ■v> - the council, with one exception they were all present." A week later the' •' matter came before tho .council..' He enumerated the frontages adopted in neighbouring districts, which were as follow -.—Melrose, 20ft.; ■ Wellington, City, loft.; Karori, 33ft.; Onslow," 40ft.; Lower Hutt, 40ft.; Pctone, 40ft. In ' ' the case of Lower Hutt ,it was further •• provided that the minimum frontage for a shop and dwelling should be 20ft; Tho minimum area iof a city section was : -2000 sq. ft. In Miramar the minimum ivas 4000 sq. ft. He did not fihnk , that in fixing a minimum of 33ft. in [ Miramar-they were dealing' harshly with anyone. It would bo impossible to put two dwellings on a 33rt. frontage, whereas, .if , t it were 40ft., .an .oiper would have a chance to'put a right-of- , 'way at one side of the section and build " . one.house behind another. When the frontage of ,40ft. was adopted, it was thought that Miramar'would be a model boroughs : .However,-it-was-now'clear that as time wfipt on.,the'.:flat J'tfart ~fcf. i the borough at least would be a mami- . ifacturing centre. They should, tliereIfore, look ahead, and cater for the artisan class —tho. people who, would be ..working in the,manufactories. If tho 33ft. frontage were adopted, thero was . "nothing to prevent a-man fronrbuylng two neighbouring sections if to. \ .1'; Councillor, Underwood stated that_ he , ' Jiad read in the papers certain criticism levelled against himself as not, being a resident of the borough. He' wished it to .he understood that he was at the present time arranging 'to make his liome in Miramar as soon as possible. The motion was carried.-