pages: PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-03-24 | 6 | Lodge, and could not speak to potential impacts to future plans for the Lodge. He noted that they had been friendly neighbors for 40 years, that his own father had been a member, and that 25% of their tenants had been Elks as well. Dr. Healey noted that he is a 47-year member of the Elks Lodge, and that they had been working hard to increase their membership, and to implement needed improvements. He understood the Lodge's position, and also understood the applicant's position. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Seal noted that the legal nonconforming use was legal, but could not be expanded. Without a variance, this would be considered to be an expansion of a legal nonconforming use, which would not be allowed. He noted that the City did not consider a deck to be an expansion of a legal nonconforming use if the footprint was the same. It was considered to be an accessory use to the legal nonconforming use. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether there had been any effort to get the two parties together to gain resolution, Mr. Seal replied that there was, in an effort to reach a compromise, but that was not resolved. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand where the proposed transformer would be placed, Mr. Falkner replied that it would be in the first handicapped slot going into the property. The transformer would be approximately four-feet-six-inches. Vice President Kohlstrand did not believe that was the best location for a transformer, but it was not under discussion at this time. President Cook believed there should be a discussion between the Planning Board, APT and staff regarding view corridors during design reviews and the subsequent placement of transformers in those view corridors. She was dismayed that the time and care put into those design reviews was undone by the placement of a transformer. She would like some guidelines to be developed to address that issue. Mr. Falkner noted that was the only location available for the transformer. Board member Cunningham believed the addition of a deck would improve the quality of life for the tenants. He would like to find a way to make the use more legal, and believed the addition would impact the density and open space of the use. He believed the property should be examined in its current state, without considering potential future changes. He was unable to make the first finding of extraordinary circumstances, and that while the property was developed in the 1940s, before the AMC was put in place, the circumstances of the property were not very unique. He noted that a deck did not provide habitable space by Code, but that it would increase the amount of usable space by the tenants. He could not support this variance in its current state. Vice President Kohlstrand expressed concern about equity, and that the four units did not all have access to the backyard. She noted that by providing access to the backyard for the rear Page 6 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf |