1956-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

R-1 district. It was decided to take no action at this time in regard to the matter. ' MACNEIL Mr. Abbott arrived at 7:45 p.m. at which time PETITION the Board discussed its April 3, 1956 letter to the Board of Appeals in regard to John E. MacNeil's peti- tion which the latter Board had denied at its April 3, 1956 meeting. Also discussed was Mr. MacNeil's April 11, 1956 letter to the Planning Board which had sent him a copy of its April 3 letter to the Board of Appeals. The following points were brought out in the discussion: the building had a good appearance; the construction of the building would create the need for an additional parking space in Depot Square; the location and construction of the building as planned would necessitate the granting of variances all around the building; allowing both Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Black to build to rear property lines on their respective lots would eliminate access to the rear of buildings for service and fire protection; and no facts in re- gard to Mr. MacNeil's case have changed since the hearing. At $:05 p.m. Mr. MacNeil and his architect, Mr. ' Morehouse, met v.rith the Board in regard to the above- mentioned petition. When asked if he had received a copy of the Planning Board's April 3 letter pointing out the problems involved, Mr. MacNeil replied that he had. The Chairman then explained that the Board's objections to the petition were not on his particular case, ,,s such, but on the principles involved, the precedent and pattern which could be created with the granting of variances in similar situations, and the way the Board felt such variances affected the general public interest. At the Board's request Mr. Morehouse showed a plot plan and gave an explanation of the MacNeil pro- posal stating that it was planned to keep the 15' wide plot of land open between the proposed building and the railroad station, that Mr. MacNeil had bought this land for use as a buffer area and that it was proposed to use this land only for a sidewalk and grass plot. Mr. Morehouse also stated that if Mr. MacNeil were not granted a variance that this would constitute a hard- ship as it would not be possible to construct three stores as planned unless the building was to be two stories in height. Mr. MacNeil said that if the pro- posed Canopy posed such a problem as the Board indi- cated, he would be willing not to have it although without the canopy the architectural expression of the building would be entirely different.