Letter: Station should be located in non-residential area (Printed Nov. 2, 2007)
Editor:
For three years now, my wife and I have been silent with regard to the placement of a comfort station on our neighbor’s property, next door to our lot. The neighbor tried on many occasions to sell us the idea that the facility would allow the towns people to enjoy the beach and that neighbors would not be impacted by its presence.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are several issues which would make it much more practical to have the station located in non-residential areas and away from congested neighborhoods. From the odor of the chemical traveling down the street to adjacent homes to the loud whining noise of the station being pumped out from 7:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. every morning, a residential neighborhood is not the place for a comfort station. Neither is it an acceptable situation when cars and vans are parked on both sides of a narrow street thereby making it difficult for normal traffic flow to exist.
The comfort station is now gone and will not be back in this neighborhood. However, there is a pending proposal to have a public access facility behind the Tides Inn. If the station is similar to the one formerly put on Proctor Avenue, neighbors will experience the same discomfort the Proctor Avenue neighbors had.
If the comfort station is a regular toilet facility in an enclosed building, most of the problems listed above will be mitigated. The traffic problem, possible noise problem, and the fact that it is in a residential neighborhood, forty feet away from a private home is disturbing.
Public facilities should be placed in public areas with sufficient parking available to serve the need. Infringing on the rights of neighbors who enjoy peace and tranquility as they have for many years could lead to more problems for the town in other neighborhoods.
Harvey and Margaret Waugh
Kennebunkport
For three years now, my wife and I have been silent with regard to the placement of a comfort station on our neighbor’s property, next door to our lot. The neighbor tried on many occasions to sell us the idea that the facility would allow the towns people to enjoy the beach and that neighbors would not be impacted by its presence.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are several issues which would make it much more practical to have the station located in non-residential areas and away from congested neighborhoods. From the odor of the chemical traveling down the street to adjacent homes to the loud whining noise of the station being pumped out from 7:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. every morning, a residential neighborhood is not the place for a comfort station. Neither is it an acceptable situation when cars and vans are parked on both sides of a narrow street thereby making it difficult for normal traffic flow to exist.
The comfort station is now gone and will not be back in this neighborhood. However, there is a pending proposal to have a public access facility behind the Tides Inn. If the station is similar to the one formerly put on Proctor Avenue, neighbors will experience the same discomfort the Proctor Avenue neighbors had.
If the comfort station is a regular toilet facility in an enclosed building, most of the problems listed above will be mitigated. The traffic problem, possible noise problem, and the fact that it is in a residential neighborhood, forty feet away from a private home is disturbing.
Public facilities should be placed in public areas with sufficient parking available to serve the need. Infringing on the rights of neighbors who enjoy peace and tranquility as they have for many years could lead to more problems for the town in other neighborhoods.
Harvey and Margaret Waugh
Kennebunkport
Comments