HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 271 STEVENS STREET 10/2/2016 October 2, 2016
North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
Albert P. Manzi III, Esq. Chairman Associate Members
Ellen P.McIntyre, Vice-Chairman Deney Morganthal
D. Paul Koch Jr., Esq Clerk Alexandria Jacobs, Esq.
Douglas Ludgin Nathan Weinreich
Allan Cuscia Zoning Enforcement Officer
Donald Belanger
Re: 271 Stevens Street
Dear Members of the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals,
Unfortunately we are not able to attend the 10/11 meeting to hear the pro and cons
of the proposed project at 271 Stevens Street. Please take the following concerns
into consideration.
On August 24 Mr. and Mrs. Brecher presented their proposal for building 2 homes
on the 2 lots that Mr. Brecher reported exist on Mr. Melvin s property. This was a
surprise to us as we had looked at the towns zoning map and this parcel was listed
as 1 lot. The 1963 variance was discussed and after further research we have
reviewed the special permit that was approved by the town on 11/14/63.
(That was sometime ago, actually before we were born and each of us has lived in
the town for over 50 years.)
After further research it appears this variance was never recorded with the registry
of deeds. If as stated that Mr. Melvin was under the impression that it did exist as 2
lots we are confused about the fact that his taxes would have reflected 2 lots as well
as when listing the property for sale it was listed as a single family, single lot.
It appears on the original Notice of Variance, although the owners name is blacked
out, Mr.and Mrs. Melvin purchased the property in 1957 so presumably it would be
Mr. Melvin s name. This acceptance letter does indicate the notice is to be recorded
by the landowner. Certainly we do not wish Mr. Melvin any hardship and wish him
all the best at this stage of his life but feel a misunderstanding of this magnitude
should have been recognized over the course of 50 years.
Unfortunately since it is not Mr. Melvin, the land owner, requesting this variance,we
are not able to clarify with him.
We see there are 2 cases referenced that overturned the 1975 Zoning Enabling Act.
Not being in the field / or lawyers access to all of this info is challenging. Questions
that arise regarding these cases are: were these applicants the original owners of
the property? Was the variance for their primary residence or for a real estate
investment?
Above and beyond the variance from 52 years ago, there are practical concerns for
our neighborhood. The present flow of traffic from the Old Center is quite heavy
and the street is narrow without a sidewalk. As runners and bikers and actively
involved in organizations supporting both,we are very familiar with the volume of
traffic that ride, run and drive this section of Stevens Street.Any development is
going to impact the safety.Adding an additional driveway will add additional safety
concerns. This route is a prime route to the High School with many teen-aged
drivers, we see the challenges of pulling out of our driveway on a regular basis.
We have also already seen the impact of development with the homes that were
built further up on Stevens Street.These homes were built within the guidelines and
there were issues with water running along the westerly side of the Street and
deterioration of the street and shoulder. What will happen with another home
placed on the property with identified wetlands, and land less then recommended
C.B.A.?
With any development there will be changes and as neighbors we can not control
the changes of the land, and esthetic changes of the neighborhood.
We can however ensure our voices are heard. We support people making a living,
and investing in property but we also support that the town has zoning rules and
regulations to protect our town, its land and citizens.
We feel that The Brecher's proposal is one option for the land but there are many
options available to work within the foot print of the land as it exists today.This
property is being sold, it is a blank canvas for an owner to develop. The applicant is
not modifying to accommodate a need for his family, or to build a home for an ailing
parent to live next door. The applicant has no plans of making this his primary
residence. The applicant lives in the neighborhood but presents this proposal as a
real estate developer. The proposed homes may or may not meet the exact needs of
future owners and they have little options to personalize the properties as they are
already 22.9% or 7.9%below the recommended C.B.A. The options the applicant
selected do not fit with in the network of what the town has set forth as best for the
land. The applicant has implied that if the proposal is not accepted the
neighborhood residents would suffer a hardship not being able to control the
design. We were not involved in this proposed design and only communicated with
as of 8/23 long after this process began. To imply that any other future
development would be potential hardship to us as neighbors is very presumptuous.
It is very unfortunate that the home was built on the very corner of the lot, It is
unfortunate that there are wet lands, and it is unfortunate that the land it too small
for 2 lots. Unfortunate as it is these are the facts.We do not support this variance as
it appears only the applicants will really benefit from this project,we do not see it
being advantageous to the neighborhood. Mr. Melvin will certainly benefit from the
sale of his property and the equity he has gained over his property in 60 years will
hope fully be adequate to meet his needs. Perhaps the Trustees would be interested
in additional conservation land to add to the 10.46 acres that abut the property.
Whether the property is preserved as a historical home and renovated or a potential
single family is built we respect that the town has a building department and the
neighborhoods best interest will be considered with potential future proposals.
Respectfully Submitted;
Patricia and Scott Massey
411 Pleasant Street