HomeMy WebLinkAbout026-75
~_.........,'
,. ....f.~ ".'1.
J
;'
./?",
,..~
.",...
~
-__'...~' :"" -~_.........;.r..;~..;:~:..~...
_~f...._,.,._.,r~__"-J"'~~~~"";'~T~ '.~~___'_" _"
I
,','. l'
____---.-....-4.---..-.-.--~ .--..-.----------------- - .
~'
"
Minutes of the Board bf Appeals meeting, August 26, 1975.
Present were members, Holmes, Backus and Hyde.
In the matter of the p~tition of Charles I. Clough 026-75.
Attorney Robert Mooney appeared for the petitioner and stated
the Cloughs' now own Lo~ 11 & 17, off West Miacomet Road. Lot
17 is a waterfront lot 9f 2.5 acres more or less and Lot 11
is situated across a way ,and consists of 3.5 acres. Each lot
may be used as one single family dwelling. The petitioner
desires to re-structure the two lots so as to make two lots,each
lot being divided by the road. Each lot would be 3.0 acres
more or less.
Mr. Mo(~ey stated the lots would be used to accomodate one
single family dwelling unit. The purpose of the subdivision is
to aliow two lots with each lot having frontage on the ocean
rather than having one lot on the ocean and one lot on West
Miacomet Ave.
Mr. Mooney stated that each new lot would have 147.78' of
frontage and would be 2.22' short of the required frontage. He
stated that the Town in placing West Miacomet Ave. through the
property did not follow the original curved line but rather used
a straight line path. Mr. Mooney presented a copy of L.C. Plan
17368A showing the original curved line for the center of West
Miacomet Ave. as placed in 1969. Had that curved line been
followed, the required frontage would exist for each lot. This
error, Mr. Mooney stated, constitutes a hardship from which the
petitioners have no appeal except to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mooney stated the petitioners would agree to restrict
the two lots to one house per lot if the variance is granted.
He stated there will be no increase in the number of allowed
dwellings out rather the number may be decreased by such a
covenant. Each lot may
i
---~
,
,
.,..'
.!""~ ,,' J-' ..
. : ~
..
I 1-'
,,/' ,
,..
/'
"
;,>1"
"
-;_.._--.-_~~_"'.I"
__',A"A""__. ,':',~- .J.~."~""_""",_,,_,_,,_, "'~._'._"'_'A'_.~_'.'
1,_.____
,..-f
.,.
..
plus one other cottage or garage apartment making a total of
four dwelling units. In the event the variance is granted and
the covenant accepted, the total allowed living units will be
two.
No other person spoke in favor of the petition.
Ms. Elizabeth Little spoke in opposition.
She stated she was tbe owner of Lot A7 and was concerned
about the development .of this area and opposed additional
homes in the area. She stated additional houses would spoil
the view and generally contribute to the deterioration of the
. ,
area. She stated that lf new houses are to be built, she hopes
they will be built where they cannot be seen.
The Chairman read a, letter received from the Planning Board
recommending the subdivision be allowed.
After due deliberation, the Board found:
1. The subdivision could be allowed without damage to the
surrounding area;
2. The covenant by the owner to restrict the lots to one
,-
dwelling each would be beneficial in that it decreases the
number of potential dwelling units;
3. The petitioner-does suffer from the incorrect installation
of West Miacomet Ave.''- and would otherwise have been able to sub~
I
divide;
4. The granting of the variance will not derogate from the
intent of the zoning~y-law.
On motion of Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Hyde, it was
voted to grant the variance sUbject to the petitioners' making
executing and delivering to the Board of Appeals a written
agreement in recordable form restricting the use of each to
one single family dwel~ing unit;
WHEREFORE, the variance is conditionally granted.
ww;1~J~
"
.-'
-2-
-----------.-
#
. 'j
__----- ........--'-'---1