HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-01-14Mccray - Jam,*~y 14, 1963
The Board of Appeals held their regular meeting on Monday eve-t~g, Ja~,_~y 14,
1963 at 7:30 P.M. in the To~n ~,tqding. The following members ~ present and.
voting: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chair,~-; Robert J. Burke, Secretary; Will~-m Mortoex,
Howard G~l~an and Associate Member Arthur Drummond who sat in place of Henry Lurid.
~EARING: John Da~ ~ill.
Mr. Burke read the legal notice in the appeal of John Dana w4~ req~,_esting a
variation of See. 6, Para. 6.33 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the ~ubdivision
of a lot so that the frontage will have 200 feet on Salem Street leaving approx~
75 feet with the present dwelling which is set back 350 feet fr~n Salem Street on
the premises, located at the south side of Salem Street k~___~m as No. 121 Salen St.
Mr. and Mrs. ~4~ were present and sho~w~ the plans to the ~oard and explained
that they were p'~a,~,~g to sell the present dwelling and construct a new house on
the front lot, all of which would be an asset to the co~=uaity. Mr. & ~rs. Xurth,
abutters, wereppresent and were recorded in favor. There was ~o opposition.
Mr. Morton made a motion to take the petition under advisome~t. Mr. Drummed
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
2. ~EARING: Leopold Pcmerleau.
Mr. ~ke read the legal notice in the appeal of Leopold Pc~erleau requesting a
variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.33 of the Zo~_~ By-Law so as to permit the subdivision
of a lot and to convey to adjoining owners a ~m~ triangular parcel and parcel to
the rear of adjoining o~ners to ~a_ke both lots more sy~,~_trical on the premises,
located at south side of Hillside Road; 165 feet distant fro~ the corner of Sale~
Turnpike and known as No. 234 Hillside Road.
Atty. ~arold Morley represented tbs petitioner, who was also present. ~e explained
that the adJo~-~g lot is o~med by a m~_~ber of the f~m~y. Mr. Po~erleau is in the
process of tur~g property over to his daughter and wants to ~ the lot lines
te make two straight lt~es to the back to bring th_~ lots to conformity, which would
be an improvement. There are existing houses.
There were no abutters present and there wes no opposition.
Mr. Burke ~ede a motion to take the petition under advieemnt. Mr. Morton seconded
the motion and the vote was I~="~S.
The Board disoussed the petitions and made the following decisions:
Mr. Morton rode a motioa to GRANT the variance, Mr. Drm~nd seconded the motion
and the vote was unanimous.
2, LeopOld Pomerleau:
Mr. Burke ~ a motion to GRANT the variance, Mr. Morton seeonded the motion
the vote wes
~'y 1~, 1963 - Cont.
The following reasons were given for gran~ the variances:
1. There exist certain eomditions, especially affecting the parcel in question,
which do not gener*~y affect the entire xoning district in which the parcel ia
located.
2. U-~ese the variance is granted, the applicant will suffer substantial h*~dahip,
financial ~r otherwise.
3. The requested variance will not adversely affect the public good to any sub-
stantial extent and w~l'l not materially affect the general cb_~acter of the
neighborhood.
4. The requested variance will not be in substantial derogation from the intent
or purpose of the Zoning By-Law.
in the Town Accmmtantts offfiee~ore ~auuary 10, 1953.
Che~rman
Clerk