HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-10-08October 8, 1956
Regular Mtg.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p. m. by the Chairm~u. Members present:
Ralph E. Finck, Chairman, Alfred Boeglin, Becretary Henry Lund, Nicholas Nicetta
and Associate ~ember Daniel O'Leary who was designated ~y the Chairms~ to sit in
the absence of Mr. Terroux.
2~e poS~-poned Hearing of Donald Boo+mman requesting a variance of the Zoning Ordi-
nance for a variation of the requirements of Section 3, Article 4 was taken up at
this meeting.
Mr. Bootman was represented by Counsel Arthur Thompson. Attorne~ Thompson sta~ed
his case for the petitioner as follows: The applicant was gran%~ a variance in
May, 1956 from this Board so the side walk line was 10' instead of the prescribed
distance, and if it were increased to 12~, it would be a permissive use for a drive-
way. The petitioner is requesting an additional distance for the rear of the lot so
the rear l°t line would be 17', and not as originally appeared on the plan.
Attorney Arnold Salisbury appeared in behalf of Charles McKinnon who is an abbutter
to the petitioner.
Attorney salisbury presented as follows: In the first place, I suppose the power of this
Board to relieve against hardship. That power was given to the Board to prevent the
difficulty caused by the Zoning By-law, and if a person acquires b~rdship on himself
long after the by-law has come into effect, that person has no right to ask this Board
to act. This is the second time the petitioner has come before the Board, and is ask-
ing for a variance to the rear, however, that before this proposed dwelling can be. made
there is a variance of 30' back from the street line.
He called aStention to Section 3, Article 4 of the present by-law relative to Side Yards.
Mr. Bootman, the petitioner, did not wish for Mr. McKinnon to move his garage. Attorney
Salisbury remarked he was particvlarly impressed that Mr. Bootm_-n is going to ~llow Mr.
McKinnon to~ continue on as it has for the last 45 years. He stated from his knowledge
the drive-way in its: present si~e has been in existence before 1918. He also brought
out that the side lot line on the property considered now, is not shown on the presented
plan, b~ut only a dotted line.
Attorney Salisbury state~ that ~he d~cision to grant a side yar~varianee was improper
on the part of the Board. A variance of the side yard was granted to Mr. Bootman in
May, 1956. He i~APther expressed that the Civil engineer had made a mistake in surveying
the property, and the Board should re-examine the decision of last May.
Mr. Chairman took the floor and stated t~at "we as a Board of Appeals are entitled to take
the interpretation of a Civil Engineer. Counsel Salisbury'replied ~hat was not so.
Counsel Salisbury pointed out that under the new plan the lot line is 12:, m~king a 10~
side yard. He further elaborated that on protection of this Board the variance should
be rewritten. He ~ferred to the top of Page 7 of the By-Law. He questioned if the
Board had any moral right to act on this petition. He brought out the subject of
Adverse Dispos ~ession.
~ttorney Thomson, counsel for Mr.' Bootman stated that it would appear on the surface
for the Board of Appeals to determine a lot line established by a recorded act, it should
go under the determination of a land court.