Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1932-05-25P L PLANNING BOARD 14EETING May 25, 1932 Present: Lessrs. Emery, Scheibe, Ivillne, and Glynn. Yr. Trask and the secretary were also present. 1:r. Trask stated that he thought people running road - side stands year after year should not be made to have a hear- ing each year and pay p10.00 for advertising and expenses when they are found to be carrying on this business ,,rithin the law. He thought that it was being unjust to charge some people for a hearing when others sell ;,kri.thout licenses. It is a question whether or not the Town should be made to carry the expense of these hearings. There are ten or twelve conducting business vaith licenses and twenty-five or thirty that have started since the zoning laws have been mad= that do it without licenses. These people should be notified that they are violating the law. The Building Inspector should go around Sundays and find the people who are selling without licenses. There are so many laws both State and Town that most of these people do not know they are violating them. It was suggested that the per -its be renewed at Town Iaeeting and, then if they were objectional, a rearing could be held. :clothing can be done to stop people from selling their produce on their own property but roadside stands are erected right on the street line and interfere with traffic. The Board felt that these permits should not be granted for more than one year at a time because if conditions in the Roadside Stands neighborhood should change in that time making the stand objectional, the permit could be discontinued after the year. Mr. Trask informed the Board that he wanted to see what they could do on the question of tourists. The Building -2 - Inspector cannot interpret the law covering it, and the Town Counsel refuses to give advice on the subject. People are now hanging out signs and. the Town has no right to stop them. It is not a business. Lir. Emery called 14r. Hartman and was in- formed that there has been no court case that has established the status of this question. A man owned a piece of land consisting of about one- half or three-quarters of an acre. He built a house and lived there. He later built another house beside it and had an offer ' to sell it if he would provide a garage. The man buying the house told him to build the garage so that it would conform to the Town laws and that he would pay for any extra land needed. The owner built the gerage and changed the lot line, without anyone knowing it, so that after the garage was built, there was only one and one-half feet for a side yard instead of ten feet. He found this out four years afterward, reported it, and found that the building existed in violation of the law. The Town Counsel says it is his own fault that he didn't look Into the matter when the work was being done. Mr. Emery In- formed the Board that he would take the matter up with Mr. Hartman. A man is running a stand at the junction of North & Lowell Streets and wants to move the building out to the sidewalk. This is a business district but is not listed in the Zoning Laws as requiring a 20 ft. setback from the street line. The Board looked up the matter and found that on May 11, 1926, they voted to make this a business district subject to Section 18 of the Zoning Lars which refers to a 20 ft. setback. At the Town Meeting held May 12, 1926, it was voted to establish it Tourists Violation of Building Law North & Lowell Sts. .3 - as a business district. Mr. Emery wrote the Building Inspector a letter relative to this and informed him that the Board thought Section 18 of the 1925 Zoning Laws showed that the Town intended the same setback to be attached to the new business zone established at North & Lowell Streets. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Clerk II 9