USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Tewksbury > Town of Tewksbury annual report 1956-1962 > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97
HEREOF FAIL NOT, and make due returns of this Warrant,
55
with your doings thereon, to the Town Clerk at the time and place of Meeting as aforesaid.
Given under our hands this third day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six.
VICTOR N. CLUFF GEORGE A. O'CONNELL JOHN H. HART JOHN D. SULLIVAN Selectmen of Tewksbury
A true copy. Attest:
WALTER JOP, Constable of Tewksbury
Tewksbury, Mass., Dec. 5, 1956
Middlesex, ss.
By virtue of this Warrant, I this day at 10:00 A. M. served the within Warrant, by posting up attested copies thereof at and upon the Town Hall and Post Office, by leaving at least five hundred copies at the Town Hall and Post Office in said Town of Tewksbury seven (7) days at least before the time of holding said meeting.
WALTER J. JOP
Constable of Tewksbury
A true copy. Attest:
ALICE A. PIKE, Town Clerk
VITAL STATISTICS
Births, Marriages and Deaths Recorded for 1956
Births
394
Males
181
Females 213
Marriages 98
Deaths
91
Males
53
Females 38
1955 Births Received and Recorded in 1956
Males
13
Females
9
ALICE A. PIKE
Town Clerk
56
THE TOWN CLERK HEREBY GIVES NOTICE THAT SHE IS PREPARED TO FURNISH PARENTS, HOUSEHOLDERS, AND PHYSICIANS, APPLYING THEREFOR, BLANKS FOR THE RETURN OF BIRTHS AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Received and paid the Town Treasurer for licenses,
permits, recording fees, etc. $2,398.00
Received and paid the Town Treasurer for dog licenses 2,765.50
Received and paid the Division of Fisheries and
Game for sporting licenses 2,765.50
Total $7,647.70
ALICE A. PIKE, Town Clerk
REPORT OF BOARD OF REGISTRARS
The Board of Registrars held numerous meetings in addition to their regular meetings in 1956 due to the state and presidential primaries and the November state and presidential election.
Public registrations were held at the Shawsheen School and Town Hall as required by law before each election. Also many persons registered at the office of the Town Clerk.
Following the annual election of town officers, petitions for recount of votes cast for the offices of Selectman for three years, School Committee for three years and Planning Board for one year were filed with the Registrars and in compliance thereto a recount was held at the Town Hall on March 28th when votes were recount- ed for all three offices. Minor changes were made but the original results of the election officers remained unchanged.
Annual listing of persons over twenty years and all dog owners was carried out under the supervision of the Registrars.
In June the voting list was revised by striking off those who had died, moved away or changed their names through marriage. Those who appeared to have left town were duly notified.
A decided increase was noted in the number of voters during the past year when a total of 5,195 was reached before the Novem- ber election. Check lists showed 3,693 in precinct 1 and 1,502 in precinct 2 at the close of registrations on October 5th.
HERBERT A. FAIRBROTHER, Chair. WILLIAM H. BENNETT GEORGE J. McCOY ALICE A. PIKE, Clerk
57
REPORT OF TREE AND MOTH DEPARTMENTS
To the Honorable Board of Selectmen
Gentlemen:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Board for its cooperation and understanding it has extended throughout this past year.
We have removed all known Dutch Elm Disease trees which are on the roadside. I am happy to report Dutch Elm was not on the increase this year. We had approximately forty-three trees which were cut down and burned as prescribed by law.
The new Thee Department truck has saved us many hours of heavy lifting. This truck is the most modern tree truck in the surrounding towns and cities. I would also like to thank the voters of the town for granting this piece of equipment.
Japanese Beetles are getting to be a major problem. This department will spray some of the heavily infested areas this coming year. This is also a reminder to the home owners, to get out and spray their lawns with either Chlordane or try to acquire Milky Disease Spore Powder, which is natural control.
We had a very busy year spraying Poison Ivy. There wasn't enough money to do all we would have liked to do, however, we sprayed all within reason so as to give everyone who requested this spray, their share.
This Department also supervised Mosquito Control. I am sure the money was not wasted. The infection of the pesky insect would have been much greater if no spraying had been done. Many more communities will have Mosquito Control in the next few years. In this way the problem will be handled as a community program. Mosquito Control is comparatively new, especially in this area. It definitely works. Proper timing in spray application is a highly important factor. It takes less than four percent D.D.T. to kill wigglers or larvae in the water, as compared to twelve percent where the mosquito has reached adult stage.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention the great need of replanting of young trees. This could be a costly project for the town. We have an article going in the warrant for nursery stock this year, but a great deal can be done by the individual home
58
owner. The proper trees planted around a home will beautify, give well needed shade and also increase the value of your home.
Plant a tree and make Tewksbury green.
In closing I would like to mention that this department always stands ready to give any assistance it can, if it is within the scope of the department.
Respectfully submitted, WALTER R. DOUCETTE Tree Warden Moth Superintendent
REPORT OF BOARD OF APPEALS
The year 1956 gave the town's Board of Appeals 32 requests for a variance from the Zoning By-Laws. The Board granted 27 cases and denied 5.
One request for relief, that was granted by the Board, brought opposition from certain individuals who failed to weigh all the facts. These individuals may have personal reasons for their actions- and didn't want to see justice done. These comments are in reference to the Miles Record case.
The Miles Record case also brought about considerable adverse publicity for the Board of Appeals - from such reporters who set themselves up as having the same legal knowledge of an honor- able judge of the supreme court.
The only purpose of this report, and for the Board of Appeals, is to inform the townspeople of all the true facts in the Record case.
First, we should consider what a Board of Appeals is - and what its powers and functions are.
The first Zoning Law was passed by the State Legislature in 1920. Zoning is an exercise of the police power and is subject to all of the constitutional limitations which are applicable to other forms of regulation under the police power, namely, that they must not take or destroy private property, they must be enacted in behalf of the public health, morals, safety, or welfare, and they must not discriminate arbitrarily between persons and property of like character.
It can safely be said, that zoning regulations could not be suc- cessfully imposed if there were not provided some means of re- lieving owners of land from the hardships that occasionally arise
59
from the strict application of the law. However carefully the ordinance, or By-Law, is drawn and however fairly and judiciously it is administered, special cases are bound to arise, in which the literal application of the law will deprive the owner of all, or almost all, beneficial use of the land and at the same time the provisions of the law could be waived in some particulars without great detriment to the public interest. Unless some means of re- lieving this situation could be devised, not only would zoning get a bad name through the unnecessary ruin of many good citizens, but the law itself would be held unconstitutional in so many par- ticular instances that it might finally be held to be void altogether. Since, however, these cases of unnecessary hardship may arise under so many wholly different circumstances it would be impossible to frame legislation specifying the conditions under which the provi- sions of zoning regulations would be varied. For this purpose, therefore, we must have a government of men, and not laws, and the power to vary the zoning regulations must be granted to some tribunal clothed with authority to grant dispensation when in its judgment the regulations ought not to be applied literally. When the legislature passed the zoning law they saw the need for such a tribunal, thus creating Boards of Appeals and granting them the power to vary.
The power to grant variance is established in Chapter 40 - General Law and reads as follows: To authorize upon appeal a petition where a particular use is sought with respect to a particular parcel of land, a variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance where owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel of land but not affecting the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant and where desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance.
Mr. Record filed a petition for a variance with the Board of Appeals on August 17, 1956. His petition was properly filed with the Board and met all the requirements of the Board. Mr. Record purchased his land in 1954 at a cost of $21,000.00. He had the land properly engineered at a cost of $2,400.00 and spent $200.00 clearing the lots in question. He filed a preliminary plan with the Town Planning Board July 28, 1954. He filed his final plan October 19, 1954. The Town Planning Board held a hearing on his final plan December 28, 1954. His plan was approved by the Planning Board March 22, 1955, and recorded. Mr. Record bulldozed out streets and had stone bounds put in. Mr. Record requested the Town Water Department to install water mains in the streets which he paid for at a cost of $1,600.00. The Town holds a cash bond for $2,000.00 furnished by him to assure that the streets will be properly brought up to grade and finished at Mr. Record's expense. Mr. Record went
60
further and had the Lowell Electric Company install power and light poles and wires at his expense.
Considering the above facts it could be properly argued that the subdivision made and planned by Mr. Record a few years ago is a legal one because the plan of the subdivision had been duly recorded, at the Registry of Deeds long prior to the adoption of the one acre lot. Mr. Record formulated certain plans for the use of this land beginning July 28, 1954 and from that date on has been working to carry out said plans. To deny him relief at this time would result in interference with the contemplated use of the premises consistent with long formulated plans. This was not a case of trying to jump the gun or to be a new by-law - but rather to conform to the rest of the lots and houses on the same street which are of a like size and nature.
There are those that will cry that the Board of Appeals in granting relief in this case was not carrying out the will of the people. This is not so. At the public hearing held September 19, 1956, the night Mr. Record's application was acted on, the Board acted on 13 other applications of which none were challenged. Mr. Record's application was challenged. Why? It should be pointed out here that the majority of those present that evening, expressed a desire that the Board grant Mr. Record relief.
There are those who cry that the Board of Appeals refused to recognize their obligation to the people of the Town and that the Board was not carrying out the will of the people. THIS IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT. The Board of Appeals, by its very nature, is a Board set up by an act of Legislature with Authority to review a decision made by some officer of the town. It is a Board sworn to see that justice is done - and is subject to review by a higher tribunal itself. It has been stated that the Board of Appeals cannot grant a variance which nullifies the purpose of Zoning and that the decision given in this case established a precedent.
In quoting the law once again: The power to grant a variance is established by state law and reads as follows: To authorize upon appeal or petition where a particular use is sought wih respect to a particular parcel of land, a variance from the terms of the applic- able zoning ordinance, where owing to conditions especially affect- ing such parcel of land but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appli- cant and where desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying the intent and purpose of such ordinance.
As to setting up a precedent, every application presented to the Board of Appeals is considered by the Board on its own merits and the particular circumstances surrounding it. This procedure fol- lowed by the Board does not set up a precedent.
61
As to the statement made, that the Board of Appeals acted outside of its Authority, certain individuals prevailed on the majority of the Board of Selectmen to authorize the Town Counsel to enter an Appeal and Petition for Review in Superior Court in Equity for the purpose and intention of reversing the decision of the Board of Appeals. Later, the Majority of the Board of Selectmen with their broad knowledge and experience in town government and court cases voted to withdraw action in superior court feeling it was in the best interests of the town to save the town the money that would have to be spent - up to $2,000.00. Later the majority of the Board of Health voted to appeal the case to superior court being represented by counsel other than the Town Counsel. A motion was filed in superior curt in Equity, November 19, 1956, with the honorable Judge Good on the bench. Judge Good after acquainting himself with all the facts on both sides of the case denied the motion. The records show the motion was denied on December 20, 1956.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that Qudge Good would not deny the motion if he did not think justice was done.
It has always been the aim of the present Board of Appeals to consider every application made to the Board on circumstances surrounding it, and at the same time, to render a decision that will be fair to the town and the applicant alike.
The Board regrets that certain individuals, possibly seeking political prestige, would attempt to convey the impression to the townspeople that their Board of Appeals is not looking out for their interests. The Board will continue to grant relief, when in its opinion, relief is warranted - and will apply conditions when necessary. It will also deny relief, when in its opinion, relief should be denied.
DANA F. PERKINS
JOHN J. COONEY PHAIDA J. ROUX
Board of Appeals.
62
REPORT OF TRUSTEES OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Trustees of the Public Library submit the following report:
The work of the Library is contained in the Librarian's report and the expenditures in the Auditor's.
Because of the increasing number of new patrons it was decided to open the Library one extra evening each week.
The Trustees take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Abbie Dempsey and her assistants, Mrs. Marion Carlson and Mrs. Ella Marshall for their continued faithful service.
It is requested that the article in the Town Warrant asking for the continued appropriation of $1,300. and the money received from the Dog Tax be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
HAROLD H. SLOAN, Chair.
MARIAN E. FRENCH, Sec'y EDGAR SMITH HAROLD J. PATTEN
DOROTHY FITZGERALD HARRY PRIESTLEY
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE
Category
Cases Opened
Cases Closed
Referrals or Denials
Active Cases Active Cases
1-1-55
1-1-56
Cases Pending
O. A. A.
21
19
5
124
126
2
A. D. C.
6
7
8
22
21
1
D. A.
9
8
6
13
14
1
G. R.
37
41
20
11
7
0
Total
73
75
39
170
168
4
Changes in Law:
Chapter 653 of the Acts of 1956 extends the Old Age Assist- ance law to cover aliens who have been residents of the United States for a period of twenty years and who are otherwise eligible for Old Age Assistance.
Chapter 118 of the General Laws requires that whenever the cost of living shows an increase of 5% or more, an adjustment will be made in the budgetary standards of recipients of Old Age
63
Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, and Disability Assistance to reflect such change. In compliance with this law, the State Department of Public Welfare in a letter dated June 7, 1956 effec- tive July 1, 1956, directed that the budgetary standards of these categories would be increased to 20% based on a change in the cost of living from August, 1951 to May, 1956 of 5.07%.
The above two changes in law will be felt mainly on Old Age Assistance and, based on the current case load, will require an increase of approximately $7,000.00 over the estimate for 1956. The total case load in 1957 should remain about the same as in 1956, unless there is some sudden change in the present economy. Lien Act:
Recoveries were made under the Lien Act totaling $3,705.55.
GEORGE A. O'CONNELL, Chairman Board of Public Welfare
REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
To the Honorable Board of Selectmen:
The Building Department herein submits the following report, with recommendations for the year ending December 31, 1956.
The Building Department has had a very busy year, due to the accelerated pace of building at the onset of the year and the many changes in our Building-Zoning and By-laws, which require con- stant policing.
The year 1956 gave Tewsbury a building index of 60 (the lower the index, the higher the rate of home building. An index below 100 indicates in-migration and growth, an index below 50 suggests major growth. The index is determined by dividing the total civilian, non-institutional population by the number of permits issued in a given year).
For sixteen months, prior to April 18, 1956 (at which time a proposed zoning change was posted) permits for new dwellings were issued on an average of 48 per month. From April 18 to December 31, 1956, permits were issued on an average of 5 per month. If continued, at this level, the building index for 1957 would be 192. All permits issued after April 18, 1956 utilized one acre of land or were granted by the Board of Appeals.
On January 1, 1957 there were 133 homes in some phases of construction, or completed, but not inhabited.
There are 255 camps or "summer homes" now in our town that are not inhabited, of which there is a noticeable increase in the
64
change of owners and the conversion of these camps or "summer homes" to permanent homes.
If we are to balance the housing scale, which, on one side, we have the great number of moderate priced homes, that have been built in the last 5 years; on the other side, we must encourage the type of home that would bring in revenue, that would exceed its cost to the town. We are now starting, slowly, in this direction. The average cost per home, for permits issued in the last six months, has increased by $2,400.00 due partly to the general increase in cost, but further due to the tightening of our Building and Zoning Laws, which in turn, means increased tax revenue.
Working constantly with the Building Program and realizing the necessity for modern, adequate Zoning and Building Laws, if we are to take our place along with our neighboring towns, in both industrial and residential expansion, this department recommends an accelerated effort in the re-zoning of our town, with emphasis on the re-zoning of Main Street, to establish a substantial frontage to allow for adequate parking facilities. This should be done before too many permanent buildings are constructed, for which plans are now formulating.
This department has received many comments and complaints on the number of homes that were started after April 18, 1956.
I would like, at this time, to inform those who were justifiably concerned, that this department carried out the enforcement of the law, to the letter.
Many permits were issued several days before, and up to 4:30 P. M. on April 18, 1956. All monies received, up to that time, were turned in to the Town Treasurer on the same day, which became a permanent record, with date, name, amount, etc.
Permits issued on April 18, 1956 continued in force, without the applicant commencing work, until October 18, 1956.
This conversion and change in law could have resulted in much confusion and litigation, involving the Town, had it not been car- ried out in the proper manner.
PERMITS ISSUED IN 1956
Estimated cost to build
New Dwellings
183
$ 2,000,800.00
Alterations and Additions
56
66,175.00
Garages
31
27,100.00
Assembly Plant
1
100,000.00
Retail Stores
2
21,500.00
New Elevator
1
9,000.00
Green Houses
2
6,000.00
65
Move Building Miniature Golf Temporary Building Demolish Building
1
2,500.00
1
1,200.00
1
600.00
10
..
Total Taxable
$ 2,234,875.00
Municipal Building:
Schools
1
$ 815,599.00
Pumping Station
1
10,793.00
Total Non-taxable
$ 826,392.00
With an earnest desire to see our town grow and prosper, this report is
Respectfully submitted, RALPH W. PETERS Building Inspector
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD
January 15, 1957
Board of Selectmen
Tewksbury, Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
We wish to submit our report as follows:
In 1956 the following subdivision plans were approved:
Shady Lane Park 24 Lots
Sullivan Village
39 Lots
River Park
61 Lots
Campbell Village
26 Lots
Galilean Acres
10 Lots
Millstone Village
57 Lots
Windward Homes
11 Lots
Ames Lake Estates 38 Lots
Suburban Estates
24 Lots
Hinton Heights
5 Lots
Since the Acre Lot went into effect we have only received one preliminary plan for subdivision containing 15 lots of one acre or more.
Early in the year the Planning Board laid tentative plans to have the Town surveyed by a Professional Planning Group. Many other Towns had the same idea with the result that it was very
66
soon apparent that competent planners were definitely in demand and not too easy to obtain.
The Board consulted with the State Depeartment of Commerce and through them learned that the Federal Government under the Housing Act of 1954, Public Law 560, 83rd Congress, Title 7, Sec- tion 701, would pay for one-half of the project cost, providing that they had approved the project before any work was done on the project. Any money spent on the project before approval would not be matched.
The Planning Board due to the urgency of the situation in Tewksbury asked the Town to appropriate the money without waiting for Federal approval. Our first application for Federal money was made May 22, 1956. The approval for this money has not been made at the time this report is being written, over six months later.
Two special Town Meetings have acted on the matter of funds for this project, both times with restrictive clauses that prevented any action being taken until the Federal Funds are made available.
On July 12, 1956, we received a proposal from the Technical Planning Associates stating what they could do for the sum $10,500. The proposal read as follows:
"Following my meeting with your Board last week, I am sending you herewith our proposal for a planning program for Tewksbury, which we understand you wish to undertake with assistance from the Federal Government under its Title VII program.
1. Base Map. We will prepare a base map of the Town at a scale of one inch to eight hundred (800) feet, showing streets, watercourse, lakes and similar features.
2. Topography and Drainage. On one copy of the base map we will show the topography taken from the U. S. Geological Survey maps. We will also make a study of the drainage areas in the Town, which will be indicated on a copy of the map.
3. Existing Land Use. We will prepare a map showing the basic pattern of land use at present, including areas used for residence, business, industry, parks, schools, institutions, etc. We will also compute the approximate acreage occupied by these uses.
4. Suitablility of Land. We will prepare a map showing land which is topographically unsuited for development, slopes over 15 percent, swamps, land already developed, reservations and the remaining land which is suitable for intensive development.
5. Population Study. We will make a study of population trends of the Town and surrounding region, and will prepare estimates of the future population to be expected for planning purposes. We will study the present distribution of population in the various neighborhoods.
67
6. Community Facilities and Utilities. We will prepare maps showing the locations of schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, principal church and institutional property, municipal adminis- trative and service uses and other land in public ownership. We will prepare maps showing the extent of public water supply and sewerage systems.
7. Economic Pattern. We will make a study of the trends of Town finances, including assessed valuations, Town income and expenditures, tax rate and bonded debt. We will also make a study of the trends of retail business and industry including employment, within the Town and surrounding area.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.