HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 89 TURNPIKE STREET 7/27/1987 July 27 , 1987
Mr . Frank Serio
Chairman , N. Andover Board of Appeals
Dear Frank : '
The purpose of this note is to give you the thoughts of several
Planninq Board members on the Knightsbridge variance request .
The Planninq_ Board has reviewed the plans for this proposal as part
of the Site Plan review process; our major concern , at this point , is
not with the basic concept but rather with the proposed variance
' request .
We do not believe that the variance requests should be granted
primarily because the proposed exemptions fly in the face of the r
spirit and intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The size of the lot is far
short of the minimum required under the law ( about 50 , 000 sq . ft .
compared to a requirement of 80 , 000) and the decrease in the
setback and qreen space requirements is dramatically under the
specific limits that are noted in the Bylaw. The specific language
and dimensional requirements of the Zoning Bylaw regarding the
size and location of commercial structures were carefully thought-out
and are reviewed on an annual basis. We do not believe that these
requirement=_. should be waived to accomodate a single property ov)ner .
Another point to consider is that the proponents of this project do
have options available to them. For example, they could purchase
sufficient abutting property to achieve the appropriate size and
setback requirements; then , they would merely have to go to Town
Meeting to get the newly acquired property rezoned to- B-4 . Or , they
could go to Town Meeting with a proposal to reduce required
lot sizes and setback requirements.
We also think that these variances should not be granted because they
do not comply with the statutory requirements for granting a variance.
Specifically ,
1 . The proposed variances do not relate to soil conditions, slope or
topography of the lot ; rather , they relate to the size of the
lot and the intended location of structures and parking lots.
2 . There are no unique circumstances that impact this lot only and
not other similar ones in the zoninq district . It would be
unfair to give the owners of this property rights that were not
available to others .
3. There is no hardship that relates to the unique soil conditions ,
slope or topography of the lot . Also , the owner is not beinq
deprived of all use of the land as there is an existing use
that could be maintained.
4 . There is some uncertainty whether a banking establishment (which
inevitably would include some retail use) i..!ould qualify as a
ca
permissable use in a B-4 zone.
Thank you for your patience and consideration .
Sincerely ,
cN�Z,
Members, N. An over Planning
Board