Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout001, 004, 005-74 II ! ,..~~ - ~-A ;1 .1 1/ ~\j ;; ...~ ~ \ .....~.'.i'j."S.. ~,:,\'\; - " , :" Ii 'I " J Ii Ii Ii i' \- I.' ;\' -- rY..J.._JIfItII1I' .~.. . " .. Q) r '-.cL - , . I Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March 19,1974. The meeting open~d at 8:00 P.M.'Present were members Harding, Greene, Wayne Holmes and alternate Harriet Backus. I, i: Prior to begjnning the hearings the Chairman announced this II .{meeting was the last ;.neeting to be attended by Mr. ..Greene. The "Chairman paid tribute -to Mr. Greene for his initiative'. and ded- i: :!ication in assisting the Board to begin its function. I' In the matter ofths:' petition of Robert Fletcher 004-74; Mr. 'I j.Fletcherappeared before the Board and explained that he wanted lito construct a garage', type building on his lot in Monomoy. His I II :!parcel is situated OD, DeWolf Avenue and is 82' front by 263' !lin depth. The lot .is presently improved with a single family ;'jwelling. The size of the lot prohibits further development \ ~ ;/wi thout exceeding the ,allowed ground cover. Mr. Fletcher ex- il I' :plained he intended to <::onstruct the new building in the south- " Iwest corner of his lot which would place it 200' from the road. Ii liHe stated he would store three boats and a car in the building. l~ Mr. Fletcher stated 'he now has no storage facilities and the j' ,lcost of storing the boats in a commercial boatyard was prohibitive. " .. I No oth~r person spoke in favor of the petition. In opposition appe~red Attorney Robert Mooney. Mr. Mooney I, . - , !!stated he was representing abutters, Mr. and Mrs. Vlicny, Mr. i;and Mrs. Hodges. Mr.. Mooney rev1C>led the h1story of the SUbd1ViS101 ;;O'f the land area involved and stated the' petitioner once owned a I qlarger tract and elected to sell off portions of his property and , :~as thus created his OWN hardship. Mr. Mooney stated the area I that this was not a case of I intend1 stated I improve- I 1: '~esidents opposed out-b~ildings and I I I :required garage use. The proposed use is storage and is not lito alleviate on-street ,parking. In addition, Mr. Mooney Ii . Ilthere appeared to be ade'quate cellar storage area' in the I: I l~ent now on the property. Also opposing the petition was Mrs. Mary Hettinger. Mrs. Ii !~ettinger stated she was opposed to the location of the building ; , ~'''''(l~.tllt:;,,!,; . ,~,'~'\", I' , :Ii. , ,; .' . ~"'l'..il/;~.",,,..j ~.~"tt ....;. .4, ~i~:.!r,:! :. ..~, 1, ,lj.,~.:,,~' '; .i~'i . _' _. ,~ '7~ ,i ~~~"~'." n,:..~l~.~~~v~, 'If. "-':"l".f~~_Ji . ~ ~ ' . ;t' ~ '.t:. , ~ ,/. .' . ',. .,,!'"., . "', I~nd the proposed size. ;1 Attorney Mooney presented a brief to the Board members which was accepted into the record. The Petitioner addressed the Boara and stated that in I view of th1 permissio 'opposition, he desired to withdraw his petition and asked I~O withdraw the application. His request was grante~ and the petition was withdrawn. " ~~~.~ / '~ + jja.'l 4-0 .. 0 J..ec'o- "" .. ~ ~ vJ 0 '?:,... 0< \<- <&r.> - l' I ~ ,In the matter of the petition of Gloria Jones (001-74). -Appeari g Ifor the Petitioner w.as Edward Aiken. Mr. Aiken stated the Jones ihouse was under construction and had been designed and approved by ! !~he HDC with an attached garage. The lot size is such as to make it a pre-existing lot of record that does not meet the minimum lot isize under the zoning by-law. Therefore, the maximum allowable iground cover is 1200 square feet. The house now being constructed i' :Iis 1198 square feet a'nd' 'the proposed garage is 572 square feet. I) !I Ii , Mr. Aiken stated that the zoning by-law in defining "floor area" excludes garage and storage areas. II Mr. Aiken stated the, design without the garage presented an I' ,; . :'incongruous appearance and was not acceptable to the HDC. In !: ;addition, without the garage, the petitioner could not safely ,I store his automobile and yard implements during off-season !times. ~ ; Mr.Aiken stated the g~rage area when added to the house ex- \' I! ceeded 1200 square feet but did not exceed the ground cover ratio II ; ~ lthat would otherwise be applied to a lot of this size. :1 il In opposition appeared Attorney Michael Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll i,1 ,I Ii I!stated he was appearing for Mr'. John F. Mannix, a Pocomo resident II II and abutter to an abutt~r of the petitioner. Mr. Driscoll reviewed I ~ Ii .~jMj'i.::"" " ,iI'" " ; ,. .~~,.,~,. ,1 ,f",~l"~l;i.i'."; '';;_ ~ ~;~!~i~~.~;L" . ..'':;. ~ , )J.;' ~.r.. M____O .+."0// ;,':" I:.~ ._', fu~~,~:",...,~~Jt."'~:l~:i$,~~~ uOl ... ......- . . . ~ ithe title history of both the petitioners' lot and the adjacent : 'parcel owned by Chapin Jones. Mr. Driscoll stated no hardship ;1 "had been shown and that 1n the absence of hardship the variance i , :: should be denied. j Also appearing in opposition was iilr. John MendQnC,a. Mr. Mendonca !~: stated he opposed, the petition because the petitioner did not j:have a hardship, and hecause the zoning by-law.shou~d be strictly enforced. Mr.M~ndonca stated he was speaking for Mr.'01Hara, an " ;;abutter, and he stated that the proposed improvement interfered ,with Mr. b'Hara's view. . i: No other person spoke,in opposition. In rebuttal, Mr. Aiken stated there was a definite hardship in ~ ; I ,that the appearance was not satisfactory to the HDC and that the I 'inability to obt&in saf~ storage facilities in this remote area I, :was a hardship on the owner. I ~ Mr. Driscoll, in rebuttal for the opponents of the petition, ,stated t~ere was no hardship here and that the two lots could be I I, joined into one. The Chairman closed the hearing and read correspondence from :: the Petitioner statin;:s the house was almost complete and that the ! ~ , exterior appearance was 'much improved with the addition of the ligarage. The Chairman also read a letter from Attorney Robert Moon~t ,'presented on behalf of, the Pocomo Association opposing the petition. The Chairman announced that before any decision was made, the ;' Board would view the are'a. After due deliberation, the Board found: I' 2. The aesthetic appearance of the structure ground cover ratiol may be permitted I I without the garagel I I I I it 1. The proposed addition does not exceed the " that is applicable to .this area and the addition iiwithout reducing the effectiveness of the by-law as it relates to density. is such as to constitute an unpleasant appearance in this area 'and generally lessens the low profile residential character of : the neighborhood. The addition of the garage unit makes the total I' " ': ~ill~~~~;>"l')p~-'-""''''''''.'''''''''''-''''''._~---'' '. ' . / 4 .. '/" .r~ , ,-~~.......,......--.. _. r .' i improvement more acceptable to the surrounding area. This can . ;' "'IF ,y :Y j " ,,' / be accomplished without deteriment to the present or future char- acter of the neighborhood. 3. A literal enforcement of Section V would involve a sub- HDC approval would be lost and in that her stantial hardship to the petitioner in that herA p,articular lot is unique in size when compared to other lots in the area and she is denied the effective and reasonable use as a residential dwell- i ing unit with garage area.' There also exists considerable confusion i in the definition of grou0~ cover and floor area ratios as to whether I garage and storage areaS2re to be included in the definitions. i ! 4. The relief granted may be given to the Petitioner without derogating from the' intent.. of this by-law. Upon motion by Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was voted to grant the petition. Accordingly, the petition Mr. Holmes abstained from voting. 1S\;3::~~ '\, JL~~ ~~ \P,~~c:.k~- In the matter of the petition of Paul Madden (005-74). Mr. Madden appeared and stated he owned a house and lot at 17 Union Street. The lot size is 3010 square feet and is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Mr. "Madden stated he now has improvements on the lot which total 1170 square feet and wants to add an area , . ~f l3~14'. The total ground cover with the addition will exceed l200.,sq. ft~, allowed by special permit. Mr. Madden stated th~ area to be enclosed was now a deck. He presented a plan of the lot showing the proposed addition together with elevations. The U5e of the addition will conform to the zoning by-law. He has been unable to find a replacement residence and is in need of additional ~pace. Mr. Driscoll spoke for the petition and stated the addition I would improve the premises. ";~.~;_"~,""",' I . ~ "', ... '",' . I I 6- - I I /. b.; .. .. .... '..t C'. . , r There was no oppositi~n. The Chairman read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Scott Stearns in ~ .!; I, :ifavor of the petition. . .,1 :1 Ii I' '! board is an abutter to an abutter. The petitioner stated he had :1 ' !jno objection to Mrs. Backus sitting in on this hear.ing. The Chairman stated that Mrs. Backus, alternate member of the 1'1 After due deliberation, the Board found: " :, l. The proposed addition is not in derogation of the by-law i!and can be constructed without any adverse effect on the neighbor- -'I [I hood. I, ; II 2. ,jand the proposed use; for residential purposes is an acceptable I lluse in that area. II il j' Ii 'unanimously voted to grant the petition. 'I II The petitioner is in need of additional residential space Upon motion by Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it 'was Accordingly, the petjtion is if I' ,j II ,I !I I' ,I II Ii II granted. ~ \}J rAAJt'M " , vU~~~ I\CL~ ~ ~!l vu. \5 <L~ ~ UJ:. 1,1 II I, Ii II ji I: II Ii ,i I! I' I II !j II I II 'I II j! 1/ Ii II II Ii ,! 'I II 11 Ii iI 'I ii[~- .:.~, <~' .. . ~~~, ''"', . -,- ~'~~:i".,,ij '~ ' "t.."" c"'!}, A." , '" '''', . "" ,,',. " ,..'.i. '.... ,.',' . .i>, I, ......~. ...~,'<,,~ . ..~~... ._..-_. . .....; '.J'........._.,.j....""...\........t."'.;.. ... eJeJ <0 .- 7+ - .~~-,- . 'I .' '.... ~, ~q;,d/c, /? l~ Minutes of a meeting of the Board of' Appeals, April 16, 1974. Att~nding were Wayne F. Ilolme6, Harriet Backus and Robert L. Taylor. In the matter of the Petition of Laird V. Williams, $02-74, re- questing relief from ground cover requirements, Section V, Protective Zoning By-Law. Appearing for Mr. Williams was Peter Smith. Mr. Smith stated that he wa1? employed as an architectural designer and had prepared plans showing the proposed addition. He presented to the Board a set of plans showing the Williams plot plan and elevations of the addition. Mr. Smith stated the Williams residence has no storage areas and Mr. Williams require,s'srace for the storage of garden imple- ments. He stated the addition would be 6' x 13' and would be a wood frame shed. He stated no other use of the shed would be made at any time. The Chairman asked whether'~ny plans could be made to clean up the debris and remainder of a foundation now on the Williams lot. Mr. Smith stated this would be done .and presented a plan of landscaping for the area. Mr. Williams stated that he ~ould clean up the area and make the . improvements a credit to the neighborhood. The plans pres~~ted by Mr. Smith were retained as part of the re- cord of the Board meeting. No other person appeared in favor of the petition. Appearing in opposition wa3 Mrs. Van Arsdale who stated she wished to speak for several people. The Chairman advised her that she could appear 'and speak for herself only and that j,i' she had correspondence from other property owners she could give it to the Board for consider- i ation. Mrs. Van Arsdale proceeded to examine the drawings presented to the Board and attempted to ask questions of Mr. Smith and Mr. Williams. The Chairman advised Mrs. Van Arsuale that all questions and statements \ were to be directed to the Board. Mrs. Van Arsdale stated she opposed ,'-'~,\"::~.J'!:i~'~_~, f~.,J'~.';Jl' -~, .. . /.71/ ~~#. -- .." ....t -------- -'-- - --------. - . I . to request. Also appearing in ()ppos'itioYl was Attorney Michael Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll stated that he was appearing for Mr. Homan, an abutter. Mr. Driscoll stated he had previously revjewed the plans and found it would increase the ground cover by 1.9% over the allowed ratio which was not too objectionable. Mr. Driscoll stated that varian- ces must be sparingly given. ,He stated the improvement to the Williams property would be beneficial to the area and that Mr. Homan was pleased by the removal of the garage. He stated Mr. Homan liked to look at the Old Mill and could now have an unobstruc- ted view. Mr. Driscoll st~ted that perhaps arrangements could be made for the placement of the shed in or close to hedges bordering the pro- perty but that this was something to be worked out by Homan and Williams later. No other person appeared in opposition. All parties waived reLut~al. he Chairman closed the hearing and read one letter from Albert F. Egan in favor of the peti~i~n. After due deliberation, tre Board found: l. The present condition of the premises is such as to con- stitute an unsightly property and is detrimental to the overall appearance of the neighborhood. 2. The lack of storage fa~illties constitutes a hardship in that the ability of the Petitioner to use and improve the premises is contingent un obtaining storage facilities for tools and imple- ments. Upon motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was un- animously voted ~0 grant the petition subject to the following: 1. That the storage shed be constructed and placed as shown on the plans presented. ;...-,.-' ;5:.. r; \' _ ..~ ;;,f.~ J. .f."" .'~" ',... ~.. ,.:,.. .. . . . .,... .... II ,,''''_ ~ .. 2. That the remainder of the foundation and garage together with all debris be removed from the premises. 3. That the premises be landscaped and improved as shown on the plan presented. 'w~~~ ~ .. /f'~lf.7: ~ J:\~~~ \'0.6 c ,. ~~- n',J,' .. .