1931-01-30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

93 The present garage was not to be removed but the houses were perhaps to be removed elsewhere. Mr. Cotton also stated that Mr. Arthur Field had been in business for over a year and the petitioners own the entire lot in question. Mr. Pichette stated that there would be a set back from the Avenue of 50 ft. to the main building and 40 ft. to the projection nearest the street, all as shown on the plan. The building was to be constructed of blocks made of cinder concrete and plastered, - the building would comply with state and town building and fire laws. He assured the Board that the present buildings ('two houses) would be demolished. Mr. Arthur Field stated that the garage would be used for repairing primarily. Mr. Bartlett J. Harrington, 11 Curve St. stated that on behalf of the residents of Curve Street and himself he saw no objection to the proposed project, provided the property was kept orderly. Mr. John Cotter, aa3 Mass. Ave. stated that he was a resident of Mass. Ave. living diagonally opposite the lot in question and he felt that the proposed project would be a detriment to the neighborhood as a it would depreciate property values b it would tend to increase insurance rates (((c it would tend to make greater traffic congestion on Mass. Avenue. He felt that a garage would be more of a detriment than stores. He stated that Mr. Harrington lives 750 feet away from the lot and that he lives about 100 feet away.from the lot in question; that the residents of the neighborhood are trying to keep the district residentially good; that the traffic conditions are up to town administration; that the proposed cinder block construction is the cheapest. Mr. Edward L. Crown, 26 Curve St. stated that his father-in-law had applied for a gasoline station permit for the lot adjoining the one in question on Aug. 12, 1930, and that he had been refused on the grounds of 11no necessity." He objected to a gasoline station on the location in question. Mr. Crown lives directly adjoining the lot in question. He stated that he objected to the present garage on account offuni s and dirt. He purchased his property for a residence and he objected to a garage next to a residential zone; he understood that the proposed garage was to be of second class construction. The Board informed Mr. Crown that the buildingrLI wou"d not be of second class construction. ' The Board inquired if the petitioners intended to have brilliant illumination and repair activitylate at night. They stated that they would be willing to comply with any restrictions the Selectmen would impose when issuing