HomeMy WebLinkAbout001-004-75
"~._.;---~ ~
... .- . .,
".
"",". ~
~
.. -'. ". "
. .' . ..:. .'.' ,."
l
-)
Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Appeals, February
18, 1975. Attending were members Holmes, Taylor and Backus.
The Chairman called the meeting of the petition of Paul
Kilner. No person responded and the Chairman stated that he
would call the matter l~ter in the hearing.
In the'matt'er of the petition of Laurence Caldwell 003-75;
personally appeared Lau~ence Caldwell and Stated that he re-
quired a variance to put an addition on his hous~ at 8 Chester
Street. The addition would be used as a bedroom. The new
structure would be 3' from the adjoining premises.
Mr. Caldwell stated that he did not now conform to zoning
.
since he was way over the allowed ground cover.
The proposed addition would be 12' x 14'.
No other person appeared in favor.
In opposition appeur~d Mrs. Philip Smith. Mrs. Smith
stated that the addition would not be architecturally compatible
with the remainder of the house. She also stated that the
Caldwell house now occupied almost all of the lot and the ad-
dition would eliminate any open area on that corner.
No other person spoke in opposition.
The Chairman read correspo~dence from Mr. and Mrs. Alfred
Munier opposing the variance.
Mr. Munier's letter stated they were abutt~rs and if the
addition is allowed, it will seriously affect his property.
After due deliberation, it was found:
1. No hardship was established as a basis for granting
the variance;
2. The addition, if allowed, would cause depreciatic;>n
to the premises of Hunier.
On motion of ~r. Tay~or, and seconded by Mrs. Backus, it
~ ~ (i 1<1';70;-
~~~~'
'I'.....
. .0
. :
0'
.
was voted to deny the' p'et i tion for a variance and therefore,
the variance is DENIED~
I;\I\'\'\"}\~ O\, ",
. ',iI, '- \v'\. \1 v~~........., ",: --')
/, ,//.-.' -/ _/.~
. / )' ~(/ r: /7 /, ; >~/<<.tJl,-"
/"
v
,
~ ..",
o.~".A.\ \D. J8~~".
In the matter of the petition of Paul K~lner (P02-75)
Mr. Paul K~lner appeared before the Board and stated he
petitioned the Board for a special permit allowing the use
of premises on Dave Street as and for a motor and motorcycle
repair shop. He stated. the operation would be in a building
to be constructed and'~hat the lot was not part of a subdivision
of land of David Cowles. He stated th~ subdivision had re-
ceived "Approval Not Required" status from the Planning Board.
The proposed building would be a two story frame structure,
36' x 24' in size. The second floor would be a dwelling unit.
The first floor would cQnsist of one area 16' x 24' to be used
by David Cowles for storage of supplies used in his business
and one area 20' x 24' to be used by Kelner for his motor
repair business.
Mr. KElner stated the premises would be used to repair
motorcycles and motors - the motors having been previously
removed from the vehicles. No outside storage of vehicles is
contemplated.
In response to questions from the Board, Hr. Kelner stated
that he could not fix' the hours of op eration and could not
6$timate the amount of business. He stated that the business
was intended to supplement his income and if he was employed
as a carpenter, his primary occupation, he would operate the
.,...
..
... c
repair shop at night or' on weekends. In the event Mr. Kelner
is not employed as a carpenter he would operate the repair
shop durirg normal daily hours.
He stated that hew~uld use the remainder of the lot
to test drive the cycles except if the vehicles were registered,
he would use the pUblic ioad~. Since this ls a new venture,
Mr. Kelner stated that-he' i.s unable to estimate the amount of
business he would do~
No other person spoke in favor of the petition.
In opposition, appe~red Attorney Robert Campbell.
Mr. Campbell stated Ihe appeared for Mr. and Mrs. Stone who
own property on W. Creek Rd. He stated the present use of
the property as a motor vehicle repair shop was now an illegal
use. He stated there wefe not about 15 cars on the property
and it was unsightly. ~e stated that the Stones were inter-
ested in m~~ntaining their property in a neat, clean and
orderly state and if allowed, a motor vehicle repair shop,
would serve to lessen th~ value of their property.
Mr. Campbell requested the Board to fix conditions
for the operation if the special permit is granted. He
requested the Board to consider. fencing, limited hours of
operation and prohibi tion's governing exterior storage.
Mr. Campbell stated 'that the Board was authorized
to issue a special permit only if the petitioner established
that the use was in harmony with the intent of the By-law
and would not be detrimental to the present or future
character of the neighborhood. ,He stated the petitioner had
failed to do this.
No other person spoke in opposition.
In rebuttal, Mr. Kilner stated that he was not connected
with or involved with the present motor vehicle operation on
. -. .-.:".;.'.';
; 'Ii ~ ~;~ \
,--_.
,
:.. .
the Cowles property.
The Chairman read correspondence from Attorney Robert
Mooney, Lt. Col. Benjamine Stone and Ruth H. Penniman, op-
posing the spec~al permi~ and received a petition signed by
16 neighbors oppo:.;ing the special permit.
After due deliberation"the Board found
1. The intended use could not be allowed without a sub-
.stantial increase in the increase in the noise level in the
area;
2. The proximity of Our Island Home, a home for the
elderly, located approximately 250' from the site constitutes
an existing use which wil'l be adversely affected;
3. The premises under consideration are now occupied
by an unauthorized and unsightly repair garage;
4. The area surrounding the premises is primarily resi-
dential and this use canrrot be harmonious with the current
neighborhood. The establishing of an auto or cycle repair
shop will be detrimental to the area.
On motion of Mrs. packus, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it was
unanimously voted to deny the petition and therefore, the
special pe?mit is DENIED.
'. \u ____\ (\
\},,J l \., '-. \ \"j\"\~;--~~AJ--"""
\ I
/7JM;--~~
\\ .~
~~~.._\ tV. ~~~ c..&'.)..
.
,. -~-~'.~
,"'".
." ;',
I
;
.t
In the matter of the petition of Elizabeth Piering (004-
75). Appearing for Mrs. Piering was Attorney Richard Glidden.
Mr. Glidden stat€d that the petitioner wa~ the owner of
a parcel of land off Hawthorne Lane and that the parcel was
land locked. Due to the fact that the lot has no frontage
on a public way or suitable private road, the owner is unable
.
to obtain Planning Baard .approval of the lot as a "buildable
lot". The owner has arranged for an easement over adjacent
lands thus affording access to a public way. The easement
is less than 75' in wi.dth- the required frontage for Planning
Board approval and a variance is required in order to qualify
the lot as buildable.
Mr. Glidden stated the owner could acquire an easement
of 20' to,40' in width~
Without the variance, the owner is denied the desired
use of the land.
, ,
No other person appeared in favor of or in opposition to
the petition.
The Chairman read.a letter from the Planning Board re-
commending the variance. be granted.
After due deliberation, the Board found:
1. The petitioner-does have a clear hardship in that
the, premises involved are land locked and the use of the pre-
mises is denied to the owner;
2. An easement across contiguous lands to a public way
will provilie adequate ingress and egress to the premises;
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the surrounding area and is in accord with the intent of
the by-law.
Upon motion by Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it
was unanimously voted to grant the variance subject to the
I........ .
.. '
..
~ .
condition that the easement across the contigious premises
be perpetual running to the benefit of the petitioners premises
and that the easement be .at least 40' in width and therefore,
a conditional variance is GRANTED.
,
In the matter of the petition of LydIe Rickard 001-75,
Attorney Robert Campbell. appeared for the petitioner.
,
Mr. Campbell stated the petitioner owns a one acre
parcel of land on PolJ]is .Road adjacent to the bus garage and
near Don Allen Ford Motor Co. The petitioner now uses the par-
eel as a work area. In addition to the existing garage and
storage shed, the owner desires to construct a residence,
garage and work shop. The allowed ground cover is 2080 square
feet. The total building area requested is 4934 square feet
of which 2020 square feet is to be used as a residence.
. .
Mr. Campbell stated the area will be screened and all
buildings are set back from the public road to a minimum depth
of 65'.
The area is largely commercial in nature with contiguous
parcels used for the storage and repair of busses and automobiles.
In addition, Island Lumber Co. is located near the site and a
building contractor has a facility near the site.
Mr. Campbell stated the owner has used this tract for
business purposes for ma~y years and anticipates combining
his residence and business on the property. The owner presently
operates from his house bn Broad St~
The garage and shed' facilities will have no living areas
and will not contribute'to the occupied density of the area.
I
. ~ . .
., -, .....
Mr. Campbell presented a plan of the proposed site
development to the Board.
Mr. Chris Holland spoke in favor of the petition and stated
the business vehicles and :materials would be placed under cover
and out of site.
No other persons appearep in favor of or in opposition to
the petitioner.
After due deliberation the Board found:
1. The neighborhood is primarily'commercial in use and
variance can be granted without detriment to adjoining
properties or to the general area;
2. The ground cover denisty for residential use is ade-
quate for the parcel and the additional requested ground cover
will not adversly affect the density factors;
3. The variance will not derogate from the intent of the
by-law and will serve to consolidate such business enterprises
in an area suitable for that purpose.
Upon motion of Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it
was unanimously voted to grant the petition and therefore
the variance is GRANTED~
~~~
/1 Jtd-~ ~/l-
~n~~~L\ \O..:RCL~W'-
,
.r... .
.1."
, ,
. ,