HomeMy WebLinkAbout1932-05-25 PLANNING BOARD PJEETING
111 May 25, 1932
Present : Messrs . Emery, Scheibe , Milne , and Glynn.
Mr. Trask an the secretary were also present .
Mr. 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 610 .00 for advertising and expens.3s when
they are found to be carrying on this business within the law.
He thought that it was being unjust to charge some people for
I/ a hearing when others sell without 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
with licenses and twenty-five or thirty that have started since
tze zoning laws have been mad- that do it without licenses.
4 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
Roadside
both State and Town that most of these people do not know they Stands
are violating them. It was sugges ,ed that the permits be renewed
at Town Iueeting and then if they were objectionel, a hearing
could be held. Nothing 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
i more than one year at a time because if conditions in the
neighborhood should change in that time making the stand obiectional,
li 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
111 Counsel refuses to give advice on the subject . People are
now hanging out signs and the Town has no right to stop them. Tourists
It is not a business . lir. Emery called Mr. 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-euarters 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 garage and changed the lot line , without
anyone knowing it, so that after the garage was built, there
41 was only one and one-half feet for a side yard instead of ten
feet . He found this out four years afterward, reported it , Violation of
Building Law
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
ZoningLaws as reouiringa 20 ft . setback from the street line .
North &
The Board looked up the matter and found that on May 11, 1926, Lowell Sts.
they voted to make this a business district subject to Section
18 of the Zoning Laws which refers to a 20 ft . setback. At the
Town Meeting held May 12, 1926, it was voted to establish it
r _ _. _. __ _ _ .
-S-
as a business district. Mr. Emery wrote the Building Inspector
Ia 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,
11 Clerk
4
I