Medfield Children Center at PB


The proposal of the Medfield Children Center has been pending before the Planning Board for some time. It seeks to build a child care facility at 75 High Street to accommodate 120 children, on residentially zoned land – such child care facilities have been held to be an educational uses exempt from our Medfield zoning.

I attended the last two PB hearings, and heard the attorney for the neighbors describe the issues, which are in his 9/29/17 letter to the PB below. I have also inserted the 1974 variance for the property, as that appears to be part of the legal arguments against application of the Dover Amendment’s education use exemption.

20170915-jonathan silverstein-l_Page_220170915-jonathan silverstein-l_Page_320170915-jonathan silverstein-l_Page_420170915-jonathan silverstein-l_Page_520170915-jonathan silverstein-l_Page_6

[] i . i I I I l. .. j I _ 135 TOWN OF MEDFIELD Decision #2.38 February 25, 1974 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE APPEAL AND PETITION OF Paul G and Jeanne D. Foucre, 73 High Street, Medfield, Massachusetts. on appl;ication filed with the Board of Appeals for zoning on December 19, 1973·, by: Paul G. and Jeanne D. Foucre of 73 High Street, Medfield, Massachusetts, the applicants seek a variance to allow building on lot 17 adjacent to their home on lot 18. The property lies in an R-T Zone. Notice of said application was duly published in the Suburban Press on January 10 and 17, 1974. All abutters and cognizant Town Boards and officials were notified. A meeting was held at the Town Hall on January 24, 1974, at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Charles Kenny, Chairman, presided. Attorney Steven Gordet represented the applicants. He stated that the applicants purchased the lot where they reside an April 1961. They later purchased the adjacent lot (17) in June 1963 as an investment. At·that time the lot having a frontage of 150 feet was a "legal" lot • . Subsequent to their purchase mne Zoning Bylaws were amended in Section 6.2 to re·quire a frontage width of 175 feet in an R-T Zone. Attorney Gordet stated that the applicants have no present intention to construct a home or sell the lot. The meeting was then open to those in attendance. Several letters from abutters in favor of the variance with the understanding that the use be limited to ·the construction of a residence were read into the record. ·T_hose abutters in attendance also spoke in favor. of the appliq_ation. ' ' The Board of Appeals finds that, at the time of- purchase, lot 17 had a legally required frontage, the lot size is substantially the same as other lots in the area and the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the. neighborhood •. Accordingly, the Board··hereby grari.ts.-the··variance· ·on the condition that lot usage be restricted to the. construction of a residential ·(single family) structure similar to those in the neighborhood. ;'" This decision was UNANIMOUS. . t/ T. -(g)n/ G

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s