HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220217 17 Park Place Area Variance Public Comment (8) RE: 17 Park Place, project#2022-1217, Christopher& Megan LaPointe
To Whom It May Concern;
We are the neighbors at 21 Park Place, also the people who sub-divided this lot and sold to the
LaPointes. We are not commenting on the design of the house or the carriage house,just the
additional residential units, the parking, and the variances requested.
This parcel was sold with the explicit agreement there would be a single unit carriage house
built for the parents of Megan; Tom and Nancy Burkley, friends of ours. We believe they still
intend to use it but there Is now a plan for an additional apartment in the carriage house, with
no inside parking. Aside from the suggested current use (which has already changed), you
should anticipate there will now be up to 4 cars parked outside and this may now very well be
used for short term Air B&B type rentals.
The original plan for the sub-division approved by both the DRC and the Planning Board with
repeated public review and comment, has a common driveway for both the garage and the
single family home, with the parking and driveway in-between.
But now the applicants are proposing to move the carriage house closer to the main house,
further obstructing the view of the original house at 21 Park Place from the road and also
requesting a variance to park in the setback created to the East adjoining our own driveway.
The DRC and PB were both clearly in favor of maintaining a larger distance between the new
structures to allow a better view of the original building, and that should still be valid.
Also, positioning the parking to the East side of the carriage house now creates 2 problems.
First, the safety issues and visual impacts are conveniently moved away from themselves and
onto their neighbors, ourselves and those next door at 23 Park Place. This includes not only
parking but other items associated with everyday living; garbage cans, lawn mowers, children's
toys, bicycles, grills, etc. These things are required by their own tenants and thus should be
shared with the new home and site, not fully in view of the existing neighbors.
Do these variances meet the means test or are they of their own making? Clearly the latter.
They have stated these units are needed to make this project financial tenable, read profitable.
Having 2 additional units with this home can clearly make this a profitable venture, one that
anyone might ask for. While the zoning may allow it, their obligations to us (per the sale
agreement) and to the neighbors, who don't want two additional dwellings on that property,
should take precedence. There is also an issue of not having contiguous paved access to the
proposed east side parking should the variances be granted. While they have a variance for use
and access, our new driveway will be paved 2 feet from the property line and we do not intend
to pave that green area. Thus any tenants would need to traverse a potential 2 foot mud patch
to get into their own unit.
The new owners have done nothing to try and mitigate these issues with us, thus we are
submitting these comments to the boards to include in your reviews and comments to the ZBA.
Their approach is to put this project in front of the boards and see what they can get, then
maybe talk with the neighbors about it, if they have to... Please recommend they stay with the
original very well thought out, contested, and deliberated plan per the sub-division previously
approved. That was very clearly a plan that the neighbors supported, and does meet the needs
of the developers.