HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-11-15'0cto~an 2~, 1956~
application be denied on the basis that it woLtld amot~t to an amendment of the Zoning
By-laws which is in the provisions of the Planning Board and not the Board of Appeals.
It was unanimouslY, voted.
The application of Donald Bootman was taken under consideration by the Board.
Mr. Lurid made a motion, seconded by Mr. Boeglin and unanimously voted that the petition
be denied because it is beyond the scope of this Board.
Mr. Nicetta made a motion, seconded by~r. Ot~ary that the Bt~ilding Inspector sh,11 be
notified of all decisions.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p. m.
Chairman
Clerk
November 15, 1956
The Board of Appeals met with the P18~ning Board at 8:00 P. M. Members of the Board
present: Ralph Finck, Chairman Alfred Boeglin, Secretary, Kenneth Terroux, Nicholas
Nicetta and Associate ~mber, Daniel O'Leary.
Members of the Planning Board present: Nicholas Nicetta, C~airman, John Osgood,
Secretary, James Bannau and RalphFinck.
The Boards met for the purpose of discussing the difficulty that is arising due to improper
issuances of building permits.
One such case that was discussed was that of Maurice Sergi, ~1 Mifflin Drivwwho wishes to
erect a garage with a breezeway. There was some discrepance as to this, one of the mem-
bers brought out that the Building Inspector stated he..thought the application was just for
a garage. Mr. Sergi's application was signed for a breezeway and garage, from the Building
Inspector.
The Boards reviewed the present By-Law, page 7 regarding rear yeards concerning the above
matter. Mr. Sergi would have to be 15~ from the next lot line to build a garage.
In respect to Mifflin Drive he can build because the By-law he can build because the By-
law permits 65' from the street line. Putnam Road which is on the side of the Sergi resi-
dence could not be used as a measure of 65' from the street line because of the short
distance.
The members of both Boards expressed the same sentiment to the effect of the time and
effort spent by these Boards without any cooperation from various Town officials.
It was suggested to i~Vite the Advisory Board to accompany the Board of Appeals and
the Planuing Board when they go before the Board of Selectmen.
The members Terroux and O'Leary from the Board of Appeals and Mr. Barman from the Planning
Board heartily agreed that it was time something was done.
1.41_
November 15, 1956
It was decided to meet Monday, Nove~
the Boards have had in zoning probl.
and that any permits issued in the
of Appeals
A letter will be sent to Alan McCle
ing any literature that ~fght be a~
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p. m.
aber 19, to go before the Selectmmn due to the difficulty
ms which occurred in the Town to seek their cooperation,
~uture be ~eferred to the Planning Board and the Board
man of the Massachusetts Department of Commerce request-
ailable under #701.
November 19, 1956
The Board of Appeals met at 8:15 p. m. Board of Appeals members present: Ralph Finck,
Chairman, Alfred Boeglin, Secretary, Nicholas Nicetta and Associate Member, D_-~tel 0~Leary.
Planning Board members present: Nicholas Nicetta, Chairman, James Barman, Howard Gilman
and Ralph Finck.
The Planning Board and Board of Appeals met for the purpose of going before the Selectm~u
to protest the improper issuances of building permits issued by the Building Inspector.
Approximately at 8:30 p. m. the Boards w~nt before the Sele~hmen. At the conclusion of
this meeting with the Selectmen, the members adjourned.
Chairm~n
December 10, 1956
The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. 'Members present: Ralph Finck,
Alfred Boeglin, Secretary, H,~y Lurid, Nicholas Nicetta and ~ssociate Member Daniel OtLeary.
Mr. Lottis H. McAloon, accompanied by Mr. William McAl~o~ came before the Board with a plan
&f property located on Chickering Road and Park Street. He was told by the Chairm-~_ that
the Board of Selectmen have adopted ~gttlations that ~pplications must have plot plans show-
ing the botuuds and proposed b~ilding and existing buildings etd., accompanying the application.
Attorney Arthur Thomson, counsel for Ches Konstandin came before the Board for reconsideration
of an application ~Ba~was ~nied~by this Board.in October of 1956.
Mr. Thomson stated that the action of notice of the Board of Appeals made reference to the
PlanN.ing Board, and he could not conceive the application of the Planning Board with the plan
that was submitted by the petitioner.
Mr. Chairman told btm it was the opinion of the Board of Appeals that it was going down to