HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-13~y - August 13~ 1973
Hearings
The BOARD OF APPEALS met on Monday eve-tug, August 13, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the
Town Office Builat-g. The following members were present and voting: Frank
Serio, Jr., Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William N. Salemme,
Louis DiFruscio and Associate Member Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq. who sat in place
of regular member Arthur R. Drummond.
There were 18 people present for the meeting.
1. HEARI~: The Nillows, ~nc.
Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice~ in' the appeal of The Wi~ 1°ws, Inc. who
requested a Special Permit under Section ~.129 (9)of the Zoning By-Law so as
to permit the addition of four outdoor tennis courts to the existing tennis
club, ~ith the option to add either one additional tennis court or two platform
tennis courts. Also, a request to waive condition ~2 of the special permit to
be allo~ed to remove only those trees necessary for the construction of the
courts; located at the west side of Turnpike Street; approx. 900 feet from the
corner of Willow Street and known as 815 Turnpike Street.
Robert Regan spoke as representing the petitioner. He explained that they want
to expand the tennis courts to make it a year-round facility. They want to
add four outdoor courts and possibly two platform tennis courts. They also want
to waive condition ~2 of the decision dated July 8, 1971 which states that the
existing trees as shown on the plan are to be left as they are for screening.
This waiver would be necessary in order to construct the courts and they need a
special permit in order to construct the additional courts. They would try to
keep as many of the trees as possible. The location of the courts would not
affect the septic system.
Mr. Serio read a letter from Atty. DUly, on.beb_~]e of his clients, ~he Chestnut
Hill Developments Association, which stated they were wholeheartedly in favor
of the special permit being granted.
No one else spoke and there wu no 'opposition.
Mr. DiFruscio made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Salemme
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
2. HEARING: Amedio & Elsie SanAntonio.
Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Amedio & Elsie San Antonio
~ho requested a variation of Section 6.1 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the
division of an existing parcel of land into three building lots; none of them
having the required square footage, and one lot not having the required frontage;
located at the north side of Hewitt Ave., approx. 17.5 feet from the corner of
~inute Avenue.
Atty. Thomas Burke represented the petitioners, who were also present. He explained
that they would like to subdivide a parcel of land into three lots. The corner lot
was acquired separately from the other land. In the immediate area, most of the
lots are not even 10,000 sq. ft.. He does not intend to sell the lots but would
Like them for his children to build on them in the future. He would Like to have
August 13, 1973 - cont.
the Board view the area to see the basic characteristics of the area. Sewer
is available. The property was origin*lly purchased in 1915 & 1917. Lots
"Aw & "B" each contain 12,500 sq. ft. with 125 feet frontage and are vacant.
The corner lot, on which the San Antonio's reside, contains 10,000 sq. ft.
with 100 feet frontage. He feels, that the property should be used to its
highest and best use~ and the formation of these lots would increase the tax
base of the town. 25,000 sq. ft. lots are required for this R-3 area.
William SuLlivan, an abutter on Hewitt Ave., spoke in opposition to the petition.
He said there is a water problem in the area now. and if new homes were built,.
it would make the problem even worse. He said two houses should not be built;
only one is ~llowed under the Zoning By-Law. There would be no hardship to the
petitioner if this variance were not allowed, but he said there would be a
hardship to him if it were allowed. Also, if the lots are for the children,
how do they plan to divide 3 lots with 5 children.
Mr. Salemme asked Mr. San Antonio if they would be agreeable to the Board's
putting a condition that the sale of the land be limited to the children. Mr.
San Antonio said he was agreeable.
Atty. Burke again asked the Board to view the premises before making a decision.
Mr. DiFruscio made a motion to take the matter under advisement and that the
Board view the site; Mr. Frizelle seconded the motion and the vote was unanimOUs.
A letter w~ ll also be sent to Highway Surveyor 0yr to ask if there reall~ is a
drainage problem in the area.
~ORD OOP~OBATION: EaCh Removal Permit.
Mr. Seri0 read the report from the' ~,~ng Inspector on the earth removal
operation of Hereford Corp. on Boxford Street. Mr. Foster said very little work
has been done during the past year and he has received no complan-ts of the
operation. He recommends renewal, of the permit.
Dr. Beliveaumade a motion to renew the permit for one year; Mr. DiFruscio
seconded the motion and the votewas unanimous. There is a continuous bond in
effect.
LANDERS V. tKA?INGCLUB&BOARDOF APPEALS
Notice was received from Town Counsel that Vincent Landers had filed an
appeal to the Board's decision granting a special permit for a private skating
rink. He notified the Board that he has filed his appearance. He also filed
a"Plea in Bar" and "Interrogatories". All of this material willbeplacedon
file.
STETE~ MILL COURT CASE:
Town Counsel notified the Board that he will not be preseat at the hearing
to be held in District 0ourt on August 15, 1973, for legal reasons as expl-4ned
in his letter.
August 13, 1973 - cont.
Mr. Serio announced to the people present that there would be v~ decision frc~
the Board tonight on the appeal of the townhouse building permit for the Stevens
Mill area.
Mr. Frank Trombly appeared before the Board and explained that because of
the ~idening of Rte. 125~ he cannot locate the tower as sho~n on the plan that
the Board had approved on February 23, 1973. He would like to relocate the tower
on the opposite side of the garage and wanted to know what was necessary from
the Board to do this.
The Board was not sure whether or not a new hearing would ~e necessary, so a
letter will be sent to To~n Counsel for his opinion.
RUTH E. ~I~IONS.'
The Board signed the corrected plans for Ruth E. Timmons, for which a
variance had been granted last month.
If the Planning Board does not meet on Sept. 10th, the Board of Appeals
will hold its meeting on that date. Otherwise, the meeting ~ be held on
Sept. l?th.
The meeting adjourned at lO:O0 P.M.
Ohairman~Secretary