HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 138 HIGH STREET 4/30/2018 (3) Olt,
X.3
c
I
4
I
� I
t �`
U r U , �
' a ��
U--'�'
Gc%..c�C,
� 0
�. ��
'�--���
`,�/
a
u
i
(617)628-7850 FAX(617)776-0231
I � �
CRAIG I,. WALDRON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
I
Ir
319 BROADWAY
$oj jERvu LE,MA 02145
+
I
/0 P
RECE = Town of North Andover E 40RT#l ,
JOYCE BRZ HAW OFFICE OF 3?O�"'90 .6
�t
TOCLERK
NOR�3OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
IF,Few
3 146 Main Street
JUL 2 I1 �s PM 96 • 94 ...... ,
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
WILLIAM J. SCOTT SSACHU
Director
BOARD OF APPEALS
Notice of Decision
Property: 138 High Street
lot A & Lot B
Tatlock & Rice Date: 7/23/96
138 High Street Petition: 014-96
North Andover MA 01845 Hearing: 7/9/96
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening,July 9,
1996 upon the application of Tatlock & Rice for a variance from the
requirements under Section 7, Paragraph 7.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning
By Law so as to permit relief of street frontage of 24.72' on Lot A and
street frontage of 24.71' front setback of 6.2' , side setback of 0.69'
on Lot B.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle on April 24, 1996 and
May 1, 1996 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion by Raymond Vivenzio and seconded by Joseph Faris a
decision was made to deny the petition on the basis that the .petitioner
was not able to show hardship, unique soil conditions, shape or
topography as corresponding to the statute in Chapter 40A, Section 10
of the Zoning By-Law.
The following members were present and voting: Walter Soule, Raymond
Vivenzio, Robert Ford, Scott Karpinski and Joseph Faris.
Board of Appeals,
WTlliarii Sullivan, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Y
Town of North Andovero MORTN
1
OFFICE OF 3a E�`,`e D h°oL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES A
* -
- 146 Main Street � Z
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �9Q04,TED "y 5
9SSAC HUS�t
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the
Senior Citizen's Center located at the rear of Town Hall Building, 120 Main
Street, North Andover, MA. on Tuesday the 14th day of May 1996 at 7:30
o'clock P.M. to all parties interested in the appeal of Carrie Tatlock & Lydia
Rice requesting a variance pusuant to Section7, paragraph 7.2 and Table 2 of the
Zoning Bylaw.
Said premise is located at 138 High Street which is in the R-4 Zoning District.
Plans are available for review at the Office of Community Development &
Services, Town Hall Annex, 146 Main Street.
By the Order of the Board of Appeals
William J. Sullivan, Chairman
138 HIGH ST.
Publish North Andover Citizen on 4.24.96& 5.1.96 LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
The applicant is responsible for AND SERVICES
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Ap-
payment of legal fee. peals will hold a public hearing at the Senior
Citizen's Center located at the rear of Town
Hall Building, 120 Main Street,North Andover,
MA.on Tuesday the 14th day of May 1996 at
7:30 o'clock P.M.to all parties interested in the
appeal of Carrie Tatlock&Lydia Rice request-
ing a variance pursuant to Section 7,paragraph
7.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Said premise is located at 138 High Street
which is in the.R-4 Zoning District. Plans are
available for review at the Office of Community
Development & Services, Town Hall Annex,
146 Main Street.
By the Order of the Board of Appeals
William J.Sullivan,Chairman
North Andover Citizen,4/24,5/01/96.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
M
NpRTM p
-1
R
ie
N��; o �'►;S, r -2 IP
appeal shall be filed
Any
QCT tJSA CIN vdithin (-0) days after the
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER �GiO Of Gf tilis Notice
MASSACHUSETTS in the office of. the Town 'I
RECEIVED Clerk. _ ...... i
BOARD OF APPEALS 1
OCT 2. 8 198
NORTH NDOVERI
i�hlLDliv.� DEPT. October 22 , 1986
Petition #87-23
Myron A . Eastwood
138 High Street
Mr . Daniel Long , Town Clerk
120 Main Street
North Andover , MA 01845
Dear Mr . Long :
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on October 14 ,
1986 upon
om
the application of Myron7A. Paragraph requesting. , . nd Tablen2eofrthethe
requirements of Section g
Zoning Bylaws so a's to permit relief from setback on existing house
were present
and frontage on Lot A and Lot B . The followlAu ustng briesNickerson ,
and• voting : Alfred FrizeWalter1SouleaandaRaymond Vivenzio .
Clerk , William Sullivan ,
Th e. hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on September 4
and September 11 , 1986 and all abutters were notified .by regular mail .
aseconded
Upon a motion made by Walter Soule nd one (1)
William Sullivan ,
) opposed
posedto .GRANTthe
the Board voted , four (4) in favor a
variances requested subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50 ' from front lot lino ,
on Lot B . be constructed on Lot B .
2 . Only a single-family swelling may
., with 75 ' frontage each satisfy
The Board finds that Lot A and, Lot B , h 7 , 2 , The Board
the minimum . requirements of Section 7 , Paragrap each having
further finds that the size of the lots t question ,
, iaubstantial hard-
adequate area but lacking
sufficent frontag
not in
ship and that in granting ning derogation
Z B
will it adverselynaffect
e
intent and purpose of the o g Y
the neighborhood . f
Sincerely ,
BOARD OF- APPEALS
A#fed Friz�l , Vice-chairman
/aw t
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 86-2814
----------------------------
LEONARD WINDLE, ET ALS
Plaintiffs
VS . AGREEMENT FOR JUDGEMENT
FRANK SERIO, JR. , ET ALS
Defendants
----------------------------
Now comes all parties and do hereby agree for judgement a
follows :
1 . The decision of the North Andover Board of Appeals
being petition #87-23 is declared null and void with
no force and effect .
2 . All claims and counterclaims are dismissed with
prejudice , all costs and interest waived.
D borah Pitocche i Leona d indl is
jthjea torn y by e ' or ey
MICHAEL T. ST9A LPH R. J YC
BBO#t/7$•�Gfl � e BBo #255000
E Law Offices of Mich 1 T. Stella Law Office f Ralph R. Joyce
P.O. Box 1528 95 Main Street
Lawrence , MA 01842-3528 North Andover, MA 01845
( 508 ) 683-2132 (508 ) 685-4555
North Andover Board of Appeals
by their attorney .
BO
Koppelman & Page
LAW OFFICES OF Boston, MA
RALPH R. JOYCE
95 MAIN STREET (6 1 7 )
NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01U5
" 'y P 2� �
16B51S aA� i•
FAX:(508)SINS-3146 91,
I
COMMONWEALTH OF ,MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX , SS SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 86-2814
-----------------
LEONARD WINDLE, ET ALS
Plaintiffs
VS . AGREEMENT FOR JUDGEMENT
FRANK SERIO, JR. , ET ALS
Defendants
Now comes all parties and do hereby agree for judgement a
follows :
1 . The decision of the North Andover Board of Appeals
being petition #87-23 is declared null and void with
no force and effect .
2 . All claims . and counterclaims are dismissed with
prejudice , all costs and interest waived.
D borah Pitocche i Leon d indl is
t "raorn yby e ' or ey
MICHAEL T'. ST A LPH R. J YC
BBO#47-619'60 e BBo *255000
Law Offices of Mich I. T. Stella Law Office f Ralph R. Joyce
P.O. Box 1528 95 Main Street
Lawrence , MA 01842-3528 North Andover, MA 01845
( 508) 683-2132 (508 ) 685-4555
North Andover Board of Appeals
by their attorney ..
BO
Koppelman & Page
k Post-It""brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages ►
To From
LAw OFFICES OF Boston, MA _ R
RALPH R. JOYCE J co.
45 MAIN STREET (6 1 7 ) C * c3
NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01045 Dept. Phone#
(5m)MAW Fax# V
FAX:(500)US-3148 Fax#� `
.r
REC'!V ED Town of North Andover
JOYCE BR.k `:HAW of NORTIy ,
TOV L i i f1 OFFICE OF 3� ytt< E D 6� 1�L
NOR ON&MNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES °
JUL 23 l S$ P 146 Main Street
. a
9 North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 M'"14.1,
WILLIAM J. SCOTT 9SSACjH
Director
BOARD OF APPEALS
Notice of Decision
Property: 138 High Street
lot A & Lot B
Tatlock & Rice Date: 7/23/96
138 High Street Petition: 014-96
North Andover MA 01845 Hearing: 7/9/96
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening,July 9,
1996 upon the application of Tatlock & Rice for a variance from the
requirements under Section 7, Paragraph 7.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning
By Law so as to permit relief of street frontage of 24.72' on Lot A and
street frontage of 24.71' front setback of 6.2' , side setback of 0.69'
on Lot B.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle on April 24, 1996 and
May 1, 1996 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion by Raymond Vivenzio and seconded by Joseph Faris a
decision was made to deny the petition on the basis that the petitioner
was not able to show hardship, unique soil conditions, shape or
topography as corresponding to the statute in Chapter 40A, Section 10
of the Zoning By-Law.
The following members were present and voting: Walter Soule, Raymo8nd
Vivenzio, Robert Ford, Scott Karpinski and Joseph Faris.
Board of Appeals,
William Sullivan, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
N/F THE DAMS do FURBER MACHINE CO., INC.
150.57' S00'25'00" W
i
---�
I n
I I of
I �
I I
I
1 1
I ,
1
I N 0110'00' E 75.28'
; LOT Al
3 1 19.892 S.F.
I X0.46 AC. I LOT v a
N I I N
W j I 12.500 S.F.
r�
z oo I =0.29 AC.
0 Go
I
ir Z 1 1 3 m0
L I o�
N I I �m
Y I N
W I I Go
io I Z 0.69'
W I I
D:
i N W
O
CARPORT v 1.24' N °d
Wm o ---- o m
I I Y
p
p 0 U. K
Z vi j I a 24.70' 8 U.
"o
O t6 m
1D
——————— 2
0 2 1/2 STY-
W.F.D.
O O
8138 23.23'
0
O p OR ?
A
D
oo .20'
1 _ 75.29' IP FND
FND 72.93' N 00'00'00" E
OH X75.28• TOTAL FRONTAGE
N 00'27'30" E
2.35' STREET
( PUBLIC — WIDTH VARIES )
HIGH W
m
� W
CRAIG L. WALDRON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
319 BROADWAY
SOMERVILLE, MA 02145
Tel. (617) 628-7850
Fax (617) 776-0231
June 13, 1996
North Andover
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
146 Main St
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Applications for Variances
Date of Applications- April 18, 1996
Extension of Hearing Date to July 9, 1996
138 High St. , North Andover
My Clients: Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Dear Mr. Chairman"
This letter will serve to confirm our agreement reached at the
June 11, 1996 continued meeting on the above applications . On
behalf of my clients, the applicants, I have agreed to an
extension of the date by which the Board will hear and act on
my clients ' Application until and including the 7 :30 PM,
Tuesday, July 9, 1996 public meeting, and the date by which
the Board will act upon my clients ' applications for Variances
to Tuesday, July 16, 1996 .
Your co-operation and assistance in this matter is sincerely
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
r
1
ai L. al n
CC : Carrie Tatlock
138 High Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Town of North Andover o t "ORT"
OFFICE OF 3a �' 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES A
146 Main Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
SSACHUst
I
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the
Senior Citizen's Center located at the rear of Town Hall Building, 120 Main
Street, North Andover, MA. on Tuesday the 14th day of May 1996 at 7:30
o'clock P.M. to,all parties interested in the appeal of Carrie Tatlock & Lydia
Rice requesting a variance pusuant to Section7, paragraph 7.2 and Table 2 of the
Zoning Bylaw.
Said premise is located at 138 High Street which is in the R-4 Zoning District.
Plans are available for review at the Office of Community Development &
Services, Town Hall Annex, 146 Main Street.
By the Order of the Board of Appeals
William J. Sullivan, Chairman
._t3l�HI61K
Publish North Andover Citizen on 4.24.96& 5.1.96
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER`::..
COMMUNTY.DEVEtOP.MENT:` • t
AND SERVICES'
The applicant is responsible for - F r a
°Notice:s hereby giver'tfthat the'9oardt'
of legal fee. alswil
payment g Ci I hold,a publ hearf6g_att,ijhe;Senior
Cuizen's.0enter,loo 00 at the,,.fear:,gf;Town
Hall Bufldiiiioi20 mo!rY Street;;.4orfh.gndover,
MX.ort=7uesdsjd ttigw;4llf'ilay,:of.May f 996'at
7:30 o'c*k•P Ni:jjalipartl lrlterested in the
appeal of Ca[6:Tadt$6k tTLO[a:Rice.r`eGuest-
ing a variance pursuant to Secti6n.7 paragraph
7.2 and Ta616.2 of the Zonind`Bylaw:.
Said premise is located-at f36,;High Street
which is in ttge,.p -zMihlg'" ."t�Plans are
available for revieWAih9 EN 1ciEbf Community
Development,8cSer4fces ,TowTI.Halb Annex,
I f46 Marn Street, + ' > c{°
By the Order of the Boaid of}Appeals
WilhamJ:'Sul4van,cChairr►FarV�-•^+�ce; ',-;;�.
• '?v: i+� '.�1�t,e?ifs,
North Andover Ortizrnaen 4/24 S/Ot 96
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
I I -
APO
Jeannette Belben, GRI
May 2, 1996
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm writing in support of the application of Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice to gain a
variance in order to build a single family home adjacent to the home they currently own at
138 High Street,North Andover.
As a Real Estate Broker with Re/Max Preferred in North Andover, I feel confident that
the addition of such a property(ie. a single family dwelling with a value well over
$200,000)would only serve to enhance real estate values and add the stability of an
owner-occupied single family to this family neighborhood.
Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
ette Belben, GRI
Preferred
451 Andov r
e Street
No. Andover, Massachusetts 0184
Phone: 508.686.5300
Fax: 508.975.0291
Independently owned and operated
REALT®, w. urwr
...............7.....................
..................................:..
R G I°.1 • tib L.07 A
�pY4 t "A
-ro�N��I Eo
NOR
P r € 3
Received Oown Clerk.
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant � ��'� j- j 1�TL�C-K Address H-1(
- H S i
ff� 2f E Tel . No. �r; -7 -` 9 2-
1 . Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section 7
Paragraph 7. Z and Table Z of the Zoning Bylaws .
b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph
of the Zoning Bylaws .
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by
the Building Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land X and building (s)
numbered 15p) C�1-1 ST- Street.
b) Premises affected are propert frontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( ) W�(Ksideof
Street .
Street, and known as No. ( 39
Street.
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District '"nn
A and the
premises affected have an area of 32� square feet
and frontage of ISO.S 7 feet.
3 . Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all
names) :
C a c -r�-Tt�c Sc N►� Ly A (2.tC
Date of Purchase WCkt 1997- Previous Owner p t�TOCGHEL-1--�
b) 1 . If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises :
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
Rev. 10/95
I i
136 1- G- t+ 5l'
�-
P2
2 . Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit
required.
OKISTINc%
4 . Size of n4building: 22•S front; 44 feet deep;
Height Z V2- stories; Z8 feet.
a) Approximate date of erection: 1 9 2—C)
b) Occupancy or use of each floor: 1' �ID�1NT1 L
•
c) Type of construction: I.J00 D 'F12✓�-1'1'1
S. Has there been a previous 'appeal, under zoning, on these
premises? —S If so, when? Gc ;Z51' 19� -PET-1-nON # g�-
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain
in detail below. (If requesting a variance or special permit
please fill out the attatched table. ) J
1�E Q u EST 2-4.7 2— STPC-E� F266,7�E IE!EU Cl=
ON L_O-F
I
7 . Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book 341(p Page 1+6r
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
The principal points upon which I base my application are as
follows : (must be stated in detail)
'S.F AIM:C HiET�
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
incidental expenses*
INCOMPLETE AND ILLEGIBLE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR HEARD
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Name o
f Applicant (s) (Print) Signature o-T Applicant (s)
� � rr �. �!� d��,fry • /(��,=�
Rev. 10/95
138 VhG,R ST
? 3
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: 1
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot Dimension _
Area I�� SC O 5.1- 19, 80 2- NON
Street Frontage C7 0 / 1 i
7S • Z� 2�-• -12
Front Setback 30 , NONE NON E
Side Setback(s)
(�bNE NoN G:
Rear Setback 30 No N E (vo N --
Special Permit Request: NIP,
Rlw ST
1-0-T-
UST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST: PAGE I OF_L
SUBJECT PROPERTY
MAP I PAR #I NAME ADDRESS
ABUTTERS: L
z 1 e c ti c� S 1(-"2-A c� ✓ � PA-tv 4
C-J -2i Aa'
4 l— .2101 G
S.�
2
12
CER . BT Y : / ' -
DATE: `�' io
I
I_o
P �
Principal-Points/Basis of Application Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
138 High Street
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Lydia intend
to keep and maintain the current two-family house on Lot B under the current
ownership with no changes.
Carrie and Jim intend to build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a
modest,traditional style, single family house with attached garage. We intend to build
the house set back at least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak
trees. The L-shaped lot allows for a back(or side)yard. This will preserve the
appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We are requesting this because of the following hardships:
1. Carrie and Jim have lived in this house for four years. The living quarters are
very small, much too small for a family.
2. Buying a single family home in North Andover, or converting the existing two-
family house is outside of Carrie and Jim's financial ability. Carrie and Jim have
roots in North Andover, and in this neighborhood. They want to raise their
family here. Without this variance, Carrie and Jim will not be able to remain
here.
3. We are being taxed on both lots. The taxes for this entire property are
very high compared to the value of the house. Taxes for the existing two-
family would be reduced to a manageable level.
4. The undeveloped lot is a cut-through for kids, who leave trash on the property.
This problem will disappear when the land is developed.
5. This proposal provides lot sizes with frontages which are average for the
neighborhood.
This arrangement will allow us to:
1. Clear and landscape the back of lot A,which is overgrown and unsightly.
2. Have Came remain as an on-site landlord, as she has been on High Street for the last
four years, and Lydia has been on Garden Street for the last six years.
3. Keep the number of cars parked adjacent to the street to a minimum.
Carrie and Jim feel that this neighborhood is an ideal place to raise a family. This plan
makes it possible for them.
4 I
r ) 3a 1 l (1 f-t ST-
JOYGAGI�AW l—OT
NORTH�PdDG��R P
Receiveh y Town Clerk:
I
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant C� I �� Address 13g f k IG,l I- ST_
Yn f f4 l C F-
Tel . No.
1 . Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section_
Paragraph 7. Z and Table Z of the Zoning Bylaws .
b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph
of the Zoning Bylaws .
s
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by
the Building Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land X and building (s) A
numbered ( 3S H!;- t T Street.
b) Premises affected are propert rontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( )(W—est X ) side of
Street.
Street, and known as No. 13g (-�G,�-F S1;�- T
Street.
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District - and the
premises affected have an area of 52-,MZ square feet
and frontage of ISO-S-7 feet.
3 . Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all
names) :
Date of Purchase IN1WOA Icf:1Z Previous Owner D• �ITC�C�.H-E1C-1
b) 1 . If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises:
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
Rev. 10/95
13S H1 G�N ST"
Pz
2 . Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit
required.
Exi Sri Nc)
4 . Size of p�elsese building: '27-- S front; feet deep;
Height 2 V2, stories; Zg feet.
a) Approximate date of erection: ZO
b) Occupancy or use of each floor: ( ID EY\M-AL
c) Type of construction:
5 . Has there been a previous appeal, under zoning, on these
premises? - S If so, when? Oar a3 ( 98(o FenTION S7-a3
I
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain
in detail below. (If requesting a variance or special permit
please fill out the attatched table . ) s
2g-.-7 1 ST2.EE T 'EeON - POLI - —
a3 � SETg pte K R.C-Ll - Ory LC)T 3
I`E-- 3► S j-DE s E T6Pe,1,� RE
Tift5 �sc2►B a Tt-te e,,4 is-n rJ G, FtousF PrN D G,flP GSE . njo UONMEs
E P NLS .
7 . Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book311(oPage 144-
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
The principal points upon which I base my application are as
follows : (must be stated in detail)
SFE A-t-t-PtP t-fF�
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
incidental expenses*
INCOMPLETE AND ILLEGIBLE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE. ACCEPTED OR HEARD
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Name of Applicant (s) (Print) Signature of pplicant (s)
Rev. 10/95 /
1
S T
t_OOT- �3
1P 3
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: R
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot Are Dimension , 1 'SOv S. P. (2I S b o S . F. N O N�
Street Frontage 10 O
7S . z9 �
Front Setback
,
Side Setback(s)
15T NbNe7
Rear Setback 30 '
Special Permit Request:
l38 E-� �i sT
' L-0r6
� 4
UST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST: PAGE I OF_L
SUBJECT PROPERTY
MAP I PAR #I NAME ADDRESS
ABUTTERS: C- i
Z.i ,l z�l.c c.�S ,��?n c� 2 ✓ '�7�-ti I Z - �-t 1 E, S_��.
EE-7-
,:3-3 N o o) S �E A EY �2 c'I , � - - S�.
S3Q��T-
3'f ,J
r �.
i
i
I
I
I
I
I �
I
DATE:
. LOT �3
I� S
Principal Points/Basis of Application Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
138 High Street
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carne Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Lydia intend
to keep and maintain the current two-family house on Lot B under the current
ownership with no changes.
Carrie and Jim intend to build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a
modest, traditional style, single family house with attached garage. We intend to build
the house set back at least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak
trees. The L-shaped lot allows for a back (or side)yard. This will preserve the
appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We are requesting this because of the following hardships:
1. Carrie and Jim have lived in this house for four years. The living quarters are
very small, much too small for a family.
2. Buying a single family home in North Andover, or converting the existing two-
family house is outside of Carrie and Jim's financial ability. Came and Jim have
roots in North Andover, and in this neighborhood. They want to raise their
family here. Without this variance, Carrie and Jim will not be able to remain
here.
3. We are being taxed on both lots. The taxes for this entire property are
very high compared to the value of the house. Taxes for the existing two-
family would be reduced to a manageable level.
4. The undeveloped lot is a cut-through for kids, who leave trash on the property.
This problem will disappear when the land is developed.
5. This proposal provides lot sizes with frontages which are average for the
neighborhood.
This arrangement will allow us to:
1. Clear and landscape the back of lot A, which is overgrown and unsightly.
2. Have Came remain as an on-site landlord, as she has been on High Street for the last
four years, and Lydia has been on Garden Street for the last six years.
3. Keep the number of cars parked adjacent to the street to a minimum.
Carrie and Jim feel that this neighborhood is an ideal place to raise a.family. This plan
makes it possible for them.
i
I
o
�� •' Sri`-�'.. I �\ "41
C`�
_SAC.
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
On June 2 , 1988, a justice of the Superior Court, sitting in
Peabody, Essex County, remanded the variance which this Zoning
Board of Appeals granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October 21 , 1986
back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for this board
to "articulate the specific findings required under G. L. c . 40A,
s . 10" .
The procedure to be employed to satisfy the justice ' s order
was discussed at both the June and August meetings of the Zoning)
Board of Appeals . It was decided, after conferring with Town
Counsel , to hold a public hearing for the purposes set forth in
the justice' s order. A legal notice was prepared and advertised,
setting down the matter for public hearing on September 13 , 1988 .
On September 13 , 1988 , a public hearing occurred. Deborah
Pitocchelli, the new owner of the property who purchased it from
the Petitioner, appeared and testified, and so did her counsel ,
George A. Stella. Several other residents also testified, as
well as Attorney, Ralph Joyce, who represented an abutter. As a
result of the September- 13 , 1988 public hearing, the North
Andover Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings .
HISTORY
On October 14 , 1986 , after due notice and publication, a
public hearing occurred on the application of Myron A. Eastwood
to subdivide his property situated in a RES . 4 district , having
an address of 138 High Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan
filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Each lot satisfied the
minimum lot size requirement of 12 , 500 sq. ft. as set forth in
Table 2 , 16 , 213 sq. ft . for Lot B and 16 , 174 sq. ft. for Lot A,
However, variances were required as each lot was not in compli-
ance with the frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage
on Lot B was 75 . 28 feet and on Lot A, 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet, provided that the present frontage was not greater that the
average of all front setbacks of dwelling units within 250 feet
on either side of the lot . If the average front set back of
these homes was equal to or greater than the set back on Lot A, a
variance would not have been required.
i
3 _ 1
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, two abutters to whom
notices were sent spoke in opposition to the variances sought.
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that "he wanted to buy 25 ' to 30 ' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6 ' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . An examination of the plan submitted by Myron A.
Eastwood showed the Spirdione home to lack the required front
yard set back, and, the side yard set back from Myron A.
Eastwood' s lot line to the Spirdione home was 3 . 2 feet at the
front of the home and 2 . 9 feet at the rear of the home. .
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this , two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21 , 1986 , the Zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be back at least 50 ' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
ARTICULATED FINDINGS
A. DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
Mr. Eastwood, the original petitioner who received the
variances applied for, owned the premises which were located in
an Residence 4 .._zQning district on the westerly side of High
street . Across from the Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of
High Street, is Furber Avenue which forms a "T" intersection
with High Street. Furber Avenue also forms the southerly bound
of a 1906 sub-division of a vast area of land into 184 lots of
land and 5 public ways . The approximate or average width of
these lots was less than 501 , and, the approximate or average
area of these lots was less that 4 , 500 sq. ft . The Zoning Board
of Appeals acknowledges that several individuals purchased more
that one lot within this sub-division, creating lots larger in
area and larger in lot frontage than the dimensional averages set
forth above , however, even some of these larger lots within this
sub-division do not comply with the present requirements of Table
3 2
a
2 , and, a large number of homes are on lots with less than 5 , 000
sq. ft. and with frontages less than 50 feet.
on the south-westerly side of High Street, south of the
Eastwood locus , are 4 residential lots ( Spirdione, Windle and two
others ) followed by a vast IND. -S Zoning District. To the west
of the Eastwood locus and these 4 residences (the rear yards) is
a continuation of the IND. -S zoning district. Finally, north of
the Eastwood locus, on the westerly bound of High Street, are 3
residences and then a public ,way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
er' s locus on the westerly side of High Street are situated very
close to High Street, and, all of the lots located on the
westerly side of High Street in this area drop off in elevation
as the IND.-S district is approached. With respect to lot B in
the Eastwood plan, the majority of the 75 foot frontage to a
depth of approximately 15 feet from High Street consists of an
area that is level with High Street and this area is paved. This
area is used for parking. At the end of this paved area is a 4
to 5 foot retaining wall that the paved area abuts , leaving an
approximate 4 inch high curb before the wall drops 4 to 5 feet to
an area that slopes westerly to the IND. -s district. Along the
westerly boundary of lot B are hugh and dense Pine trees that
form a natural and dense barrier that shield and insulate the
Spirdione locus from that of the Eastwood locus .
B. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The Eastwood locus situated at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer was .present at the meeting and
was represented by counsel . Mr. Eastwood, the Petitioner, who
was retired, desired to sell the locus and move to another
section of the country that he could more easily afford. The
proposed purchase price far exceeded the true value of the locus
if the variances were not granted. The structures on Lot A were
old, and in somewhat disrepair, requiring needed maintenance . In
order to achieve the greatest value for his property, thQ
variances would have had to been granted.
The front portion of Lot B was an eyesore . Vehicles with
trailer hitches , automobiles and a small mobile home type trailer
are parked on this locus , daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances, as allow-ed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties , generally.
3 - 3
C. HARDSHIP AS TO C014DITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
than enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been described in paragraph A. ,
supra. There is only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that
separates the top of the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5
foot drop to a yard that has a slope. During the Winter months ,
this portion -of lot B presents a serious hazardous condition for
vehicles travelling down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High
Street, that could lose control due to road conditions . , Additio-
nally, the existence of this parking lot in the RES . 4 district,
between homes situated close to the High Street boundary line,
detracts from the homes in this area. The homes that abut the
Petitioner' s locus have either attached garages or detached
garages located behind the front •of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
D. DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURE( S)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE .
The granting of the variances would not only benefit the
Petitioner because his property would be worth more, but the
granting of the variances would also greatly benefit the neighbo-
rhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties would
be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and with the
construction of a new single-family home set back 50 feet from
High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the granting of
the variances were not truly aggrieved and presented no strong
arguments for denial . Mr. Spirdione' s opposition was based on
the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his land to him
because his home sits a few feet from the common lot line . Mr.
Windle' s objection was based on his speculation as to the effect
that this new residence would have on the traffic pattern on High
Street taking into consideration the future development of the
Ind. -S district . Mr. Spirdione' s concerns were addressed by
this Board when it imposed the 50 ' set back requirement to the
construction of the new home , thus insuring Mr. Spirdione open
space between his home and that of the Petitioner' s and the
proposed home . Mr. Windle ' s speculation concerning the overbur-
dening of traffic on High Street by one or two more cars is not
reason enough for this board to deny the variances sought.
2 - 4
o -
Additionally, Mr. Windle ' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the Spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine, trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
At the September 13 , 1988 hearing, two abutters, other than
Mr. °Windl-e and Mr. Spirdione, expressed dissatisfaction with the
granting of the variances , now, because Mr. Eastwood sold the
locus and they had no objection to his petition when he owned the
locus and originally sought the variances . The Zoning" Board of
Appeals is still not impressed with the arguments made in
opposition to the granting of the variances .
The Zoning Board of Appeals is aware of relief that it has
granted on numerous occasions by the granting of similar varian-
ces to others within the same area of North Andover and has
strived to be- fair and consistent in its deliberations .
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner' s locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. The Zoning Board of Appeals is cognizant that
numerous lots in the immediate area to the Petitioner' s locus are
in violation of current zoning regulations, some of those lots
are the following:
L. Provost 157 High St. 6 , 095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 5 ,600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St. 9 , 625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St . 7 , 547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 -High St . 6 , 675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St . 4 , 190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St . 5 , 127 sq. ft.
A. Spirdione 126 High St. 81 . 75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 .35 ' front
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular, because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High Street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . Some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
3 - 5
F
F
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the RES . 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an IND. S district. The circum-
stances
ircumstances of this case do not affect generally the zoning districts
in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners locus .
DATED:
The th And ping Board of Appeals .
Alf r Frizel , ce-cha rman Walter Soule
Augu i#e Mi--L-arson, Clerk
William ullivan
ATTEST:
A Teas Copy
Town C30k
3 - 6
138 HigJi Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Came and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood,and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name ' i afore Street Address in North Andover,MA
�iZgnZ6tt/16�O A4d
rs3 �
I-I c� 5
y f7-7 S-1
x
/ / �'
�j �I� �ll8�j l
138 High_Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the.street fro aesthetics.
nt
negative We,the undersigned neighbors,agree that flus would not have a gave'�act on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good., `
Address
in North Andover MA
Name
11-2
Ile
k�
L7�f� L
Si afore Street d ,
i
138 High Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carne Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name Signature Street Address iinn North Andover,MA
2��1aa St A/4 IqA x
3ZS
3RY b� sem #i. N, A
2-1
yrs Z, 4-M
0
i
138 High Street Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name Si a Street Addr s in North Andover,MA
?H(LunCU In sno
n x
138 Hiah Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name Si atu a Street Address in North Andover,MA
13 Ll '
*14 f
f
s.• -F) X...L r 410. 14,dTV e4l,
a�
r
138 High Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Came
Tatlock to Came Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Came and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name ature Street Address in No Andover,MA
�i
i
.l
t
138 H1 1 Street Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Came Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest, traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
�
Name(Signature) Street Address in North Andover,NLk
40 a
is3
37 �
3 x
�77 z ,
/77
Gt r 1 1 l
vl
/Y)
o / / 2/ Sr �'
138 Hi4 Street Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest, traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the,street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name Si ature Street Address in North Andover,MA
k-A
o 0 �
L33 6�.
i
138 High Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Came and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest, traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We, the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name(Signature) Street Address in North Andover,MA
kat� q6 Q'o 9 CV.-&K 5 0•
2�Noe S� AZ A�VNf--'- fqA x
32S
3aS 6� Som 5 . Mt A
22
V. IM4.
11f z a`
fl
i
..:
M
8M h _t Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim WySe. This will allow Came and Jim
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Came and Jim intend to
' build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest, traditional s o
single family house with attached garage. We int tyle,
least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. sThisa�lat
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
r
We, the undersigned neighbors,'agree that this would not have a negative
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good. pact on the
N e Si a
Street Addr sin North Andover, MA
1,
n
A
U8 M6 Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice 3
O
ur intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Came and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Came and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest,traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend
hemlock and oak trees. Thisack t
will
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
stantial detriment to the public good.
neighborhood, and would not be a sub
Name Si atu e Street Address in North Andover,MA
� f
ry
i
II 4
138 HigJi Street Came Tatlock and Lydia Rice
our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Ta to
tlock Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Came and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Jim intend to
build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a modest, traditional style,
single family house with attached garage. We intend to build the house set back at
least 60 feet from the street,behind the mature hemlock and oak trees. This will
preserve the appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We,the undersigned neighbors, agree that this would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, and would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
Name. Si ature Street Address in No Andover,MA
i
A
' •'fin. �""
V 1
�' t.
` . i 3t)
L-07 A
Received *Wan �lerk:
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant ()off,I f--� I C_ C Address I-?�Z Hl!- H S i
LL/ p l 2f C a Tel . No.
1 . Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section 7
Paragraph 7. 2 and Table Z of the Zoning Bylaws .
b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph
of the Zoning Bylaws.
s
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by
the Building Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land X and building (s)
numbered 13� N1C�(-� ST- Street .
b) Premises affected are propert frontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( ) West (K side of
(--�I G, {-� Street.
Street, and known as No . ( 38
Street.
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District RA and the
premises affected have an area of 32� square feet
and frontage of IS0.S-1 feet.
3 . Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all
names) :
Date of Purchase MI4 cti 1992- Previous Owner PITOCC HELL-k
b) 1 . If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises :
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
Rev. 10/95
•� nor �
P2
2 . Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit
required.
4 . Size of EX4- building: 22'S front; _ }- feet deep;
Height 2- V2- stories; Z8 feet.
a) Approximate date of erection: 192-0
b) Occupancy or use of each floor: R S IC)E L
a _
c) Type of construction: 1J0017 'F2✓�'►�'L�
5. Has there been a previous 'appeal, under zoning, on these
premises? - If so, when? Oc-- a31 9�% tom-ET-1-nOtJ 8-7
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain
in detail below. (If requesting a variance or special permit
please fill out the attatched table. )
r�EgL)EST 2 -•72- ST JT' F72nLSEN
ON Lo-F
7 . Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book3+1(OPage ►9�-
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
The principal points upon which I base my application are
follows: (must be stated in detail)
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
incidental expenses*
INCOMPLETE AND ILLEGIBLE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR HEARD
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Name of Applicant (s) (Print) Signature of Applicant (s)
Rev. 10/95
138 i-h G,R ST
P3
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: R T
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot Dimension G� _
Area I a SCO S-P 9, / Z NON
Street Frontage 10 O / 1 i
—] 2
Front Setback 301 NON C NON E
Side Setback(s) �
NON E N o N �
Rear Setback 30 �p/"i E N
Special Permit Request: NSP,
a
UST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST: PAGE I OF�(_,
SUBJECT PROPERTY
MAP I PAR #I NAME ADDRESS
ABUTTERS: L
2! r 1(c?A ci 2 J PAtJ
S � 2-2-
6" a
�-3
S3 ! v )li(o ./
51 18A
r 1 Q
ZM v' Iv
6:3 i5.3
CER . By
Y : / --
DATE:
SIT
I-OT-
PS
Principal PointsBasis of Application Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
138 High Street
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Lydia intend
to keep and maintain the current two-family house on Lot B under the current
ownership with no changes.
Carrie and Jim intend to build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a
modest, traditional style, single family house with attached garage. We intend to build
the house set back at least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak
trees. The L-shaped lot allows for a back(or side)yard. This will preserve the
appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We are requesting this because of the following hardships:
1. Carrie and Jim have lived in this house for four years. The living quarters are
very small, much too small for a family.
2. Buying a single family home in North Andover, or converting the existing two-
family house is outside of Carrie and Jim's financial ability. Carrie and Jim have
roots in North Andover, and in this neighborhood. They want to raise their
family here. Without this variance, Carrie and Jim will not be able to remain
here.
3. We are being taxed on both lots. The taxes for this entire property are
very high compared to the value of the house. Taxes for the existing two-
family would be reduced to a manageable level.
4. The undeveloped lot is a cut-through for kids, who leave trash on the property.
This problem will disappear when the land is developed.
5. This proposal provides lot sizes with frontages which are average for the
neighborhood.
This arrangement will allow us to:
1. Clear and landscape the back of lot A, which is overgrown and unsightly.
2. Have Carrie remain as an on-site landlord, as she has been on High Street for the last
four years, and Lydia has been on Garden Street for the last six years.
3. Keep the number of cars parked adjacent to the street to a minimum.
Came and Jim feel that this neighborhood is an ideal place to raise a family. This plan
makes it possible for them.
RECEIVED �GH ST
JOYCE 6RA6SNAW LOT
TOWN OLFRY\ P I
NORTH ANDOVER
3299N ° 6
Received by�Tow�n Clerk:
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant C,, c (Z,1��OCI< Address
�f[� 114 Tel . No. (meg-7 -2-
1 .
1 . Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section_
Paragraph 7. Z and Table Z of the Zoning Bylaws .
b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph ,
of the Zoning Bylaws .
s
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by
the Building Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land X and building (s) X
numbered Street.
b) Premises affected are propert frontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( )(W-est X ) side of
�} Street.
Street, and known as No. I3s (--�1G,l-F 5T 2EET
Street.
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District IR-I' , and the
premises affected have an area of 52-,MZ square feet
and frontage of ISO-S-7 feet.
3 . Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all
names) :
C'C-'eRI C
Date of Purchase (y0k.Ctt t99Z Previous Owner 0. PIT(Dcc -1 Z.0
b) 1 . If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises :
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
Rev. 10/95
13S Hi c-)N S-F
P
2 . Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit
required.
Exi Sri NI
4 . Size of p� building: 2-Z. S front; feet deep;
Height Z V2, stories; zg feet.
a) Approximate date of erection: �9 2-0
b) Occupancy or use of each floor: KES1DEY\MAL
c) Type of construction: Uk—)00D PRPrf )
5 . Has there been a previous appeal, under zoning, on these
premises? If so, when? Qom- a� 195 I n-nON
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain
in detail below. (If requesting a variance or special permit
please fill out the attatched table. )
2g-
.-71 ST2E 4::Q-cN - —
a3. 0 LOT 3
S t-DE S E T6PvCA-4� RED
Tans sc2�B T}� �ts-rt rJ G, E-tOUSE PSN D C SE c 1C��S
E Pccfd�vvNBO .
7 . Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book3ii(oPage 144-
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
The principal points upon which I base my application are as
follows: (must be stated in detail)
<I—E A�t r- t-tT'L
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
incidental expenses*
INCOMPLETE AND ILLEGIBLE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR HEARD
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
rte,t -R-6 Ck- C-
Name of Applicant (s) (Print) Signature of-Applicant (s)
Rev. 10/95
I-6F-)
r 'e
Lr-)T—
DESCRIPTION
r-)TDESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: t1 4
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot
AreaDimension :4 S 00 S. F. 12/ Soo 5 - F. N O N�
Street Frontage 100 7S . Zq 2-+, -7 1
Front Setback 3o ' 2 Z3
Side Setback(s)
Rear Setback 301
Special Permit Request:
l38 HI(��i ST
V LoT f3
� 4
LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST: PAGE I OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
MAP I PAR #I NAME ADDRESS
L-C,C C AU, (c7- `l _ C 1. 3HI R S E e C —
ABUTTERS:
2 I z ko r-o ✓ ate ti I Z
�-3 Z {� N D(vc N\ lL-LS- `.LA{_PY v21oi
Qe-T—
ss 18A
b. 31JCL (l.L C-i 14I
r �_ C
_ C' `Q
Z C.
I
I
I i
i I
CER BY ---
DATE: `1/ /n
a • , a
LOT (3
I� S
Principal Points/Basis of Application Carrie Tatlock and Lydia Rice
138 High Street
Our intent is to subdivide this property and transfer Lot A from Lydia Rice and Carrie
Tatlock to Carrie Tatlock and her husband Jim Wyse. This will allow Carrie and Jim to
build a single family home for themselves and their new baby. Carrie and Lydia intend
to keep and maintain the current two-family house on Lot B under the current
ownership with no changes.
Carrie and Jim intend to build the house to fit in with the neighborhood. It will be a
modest, traditional style, single family house with attached garage. We intend to build
the house set back at least 60 feet from the street, behind the mature hemlock and oak
trees. The L-shaped lot allows for a back(or side)yard. This will preserve the
appearance of the neighborhood and the street front aesthetics.
We are requesting this because of the following hardships:
1. Carrie and Jim have lived in this house for four years. The living quarters are
very small, much too small for a family.
2. Buying a single family home in North Andover, or converting the existing two-
family house is outside of Carrie and Jim's financial ability. Came and Jim have
roots in North Andover, and in this neighborhood. They want to raise their
family here. Without this variance, Carrie and Jim will not be able to remain
here.
3. We are being taxed on both lots. The taxes for this entire property are
very high compared to the value of the house. Taxes for the existing two-
family would be reduced to a manageable level.
4. The undeveloped lot is a cut-through for kids, who leave trash on the property.
This problem will disappear when the land is developed.
5. This proposal provides lot sizes with frontages which are average for the
neighborhood.
This arrangement will allow us to:
1. Clear and landscape the back of lot A, which is overgrown and unsightly.
2. Have Carrie remain as an on-site landlord, as she has been on High Street for the last
four years, and Lydia has been on Garden Street for the last six years.
3. Keep the number of cars parked adjacent to the street to a minimum.
Carrie and Jim feel that this neighborhood is an ideal place to raise a family. This plan
makes it possible for them.
N/F THE DAVIS & FURBER MACHINE CO.. INC.
150.57' S 00'25'00" W
-----------�
rI n
I I v
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
IN 01'10'00" E 75.28'
1 � i
LOT A ,
1 19.892 S.F. I
=0.46 AC. I LOT B cv
roNit
I 12.500 S.F.
zo co
=0.29 AC.
o I i 3 00
0! z I
a I I
N
Y I I to N
I ao �
a I j o 0.69'
z o I 1 z
1
� 1 I r---- y
o j I O I OPEN m e N W
I I CARPORT m o 1'24' a
m p ---- o m
I
a i ;
Z oz
n o
I I o
ri 1 �N 24.70' c k o
1 v 0� z
N 1 Cp
O OD
-------J z
o 2 1/2 STY.
W,F.O.
o O
0138 23.23'
0
0 a ORC ?
A
ao .20' 6.35 !
75.29' IP FND
SB FND 72.93' N 00'00'00" E
DH x.75,28' TOTAL FRONTAGE-�
N 00_27'30" E
2.35' STREET
( PUBLIC - WIDTH VARIES )
HIGH W
� m .
N/F THE DAVIS do FURBER MACHINE CO., INC.
150.57' S 00 25'00" W
_�
I I -
I
I I v
I I
I I
I I
N 0110'00' E 75.28'
I I
ILOT A
3 I 19,892 S.F.
I =0.46 AC. LOT B N
N I
r I
I I I 12,500 S.F.
zz I I -0.29 AC.
I
Z I i 3g
I I m
i p I Z 0.69'
w I I
Q:
OIOPEN a Om
j
CARPORT A0is
m
I
K
2 n O
ON 24.70' $o k o
N I a0 ynr z
O tO m
b
° 2 1/2 STY.
W.F.D.
o O
0138 23.23'
0
O i OR
O w ,2d GAS`:
72.93' 75.29 IP FND
FND N 00'00'00 E
DH ._.~75.28' TOTAL FRONTAGE—�—
N 00'27'30' E
2.35' (Y STREET
( PUBLIC - NADTH VARIES )
HIGH W
m
fy W
:D >
- W Q
1
HIGH ST NEIGHBORHOOD
Neighborhood comparison of current single lot at 138 High St.
150.57'frontage and 32,392 s.f (0.75 acre)
Percentage Count
LOTS WITH LESS THAN 150'FRONTAGE 98% 177
LOTS WITH LESS THAN 150'FRONTAGE
AND LESS THAN 32,392 S.F. 99% 179
Neighborhood comparison of proposed lot A& lot B at 138 High St.
Lot A - 75.28'frontage and 19,892 s.f. (0.46 acre)
Lot B - 75.29'frontage and 12,500 s.f. (0.29 acre)
Percentage Count
FRONTAGE: LOTS LESS THAN 100' 70% 126
LOTS 75'OR UNDER 36% 65
LOTS 50'OR UNDER 25% 45
AREA: LOTS LESS THAN 12,500 S.F. 78% 141
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS = 181
I
High St. Neighborhood Number
Frontages of Lots
Greater than 150' 4
100'- 150' 50
75'- 100' 62
50'-75' 17
50'or less 48
High St. Neighborhood Frontages
Greater than 1517
2%
5Q or less
2796 —
100'-150'
28%
`>
s
50'-75
9%
75-100'
34%
HIGH STREET STATS
PLAT# PARCEL I STREET FRONTAGE AREA
53 1 174 HIGH 87.3 9,634
53 2 COLUMBIA? 108 10,491
53 3 PERLEY? 100 9,492
53 4 COLUMBIA 50 5,000
53 51RVING 75 7,500
53 6IRVING? 107 10,478
53 7IRVING? 105 6,308
53 8 THORNDIKE 99 13,945
53 9 THORNDIKE? 105 6,320
53 - THORNDIKE 97 9,625
53 10 THORNDIKE? 1411 14,089
53 11 PERLEY 120 11,293
53 12 PERLEY 50.6 4,985
53 13 PERLEY 99 9,946
53 14 PERLEY 75 4,960
53 15 PERLEY 125 12,362
53 16 PERLEY 99 10,000
53 17 HIGH 147 13,886
53 18 HIGH 128.7 22,780
53 19 HIGH 115 24,680
53 20 138 HIGH 75.29 16,174
53 26 HIGH 75.28 16,213
53 21 HIGH 81.75 17,678
53 22 HIGH 119.15 25,970
53 23 HIGH 86.35 19,320
53 24 HIGH 186 40,200
52 40 SUTTON 110.4 11,924
52 41 HIGH 99.5 11,998
52 42 HIGH 50 5,172
52 43 HIGH 50 5,160
52 44 HIGH 98.5 7,014
52 45 HIGH 98.3 10,217
66 40 HIGH 98.9 9,835
66 41.1 HIGH 39 4,864
66 41.2 HIGH 39 5,545
66 43 HIGH 88.6 14,938
66 44 HIGH 81.1 13,775
66 45 HIGH 84.7 13,943
67 33 HIGH 83.4 13,943
67 34 HIGH 83 14,100
67 35 HIGH 81 14,230
67 36 HIGH 80.3 13,400
67 37 HIGH 40.88 6,098
67 38 HIGH 40.89 5,600
67 39 HIGH 90 9,625
67 71 HIGH 97.5 12,444
67 72 HIGH 136 24,400
671 73 HIGH 57.85 7,547
671 74 HIGH 100.06 13,605
671 75 HIGH 50.3 6,673
Page 1
HIGH STREET STATS
67 68 HIGH 50.05 12,175
67 43 HIGH 50.07 4,190
67 76 HIGH 90.91 6,925
68 6 HIGH 144.2 29,169
68 1 MT VERNON 123 12,097
68 2 MT VERNON 116 12,260
68 3 MT VERNON 48.3 5,000
68 4 UPLAND 95 9,100
68 5 UPLAND 110 9,6721
68 12 UPLAND 90 9,100
68 7 PRESCOTT 159.6 35,538
68 8 PRESCOTT 99 14,500
68 9 PRESCOTT 85 12,326
67 1 IWENTWORTH 94 9,193
67 2 WENTWORTH 47 4,547
67 3 WENTWORTH 46 4,514
67 4 WENTWORTH 94 8,937
67 5 WENTWORTH 1391 13,143
67 6 WENTWORTH 107.41 9,2911
67 7 HIGHLAND VIEW ( 137 12,978
67 9 HIGHLAND VIEW 94 8,795
67 10 HIGHLAND VIEW 48 4,447
67 11 HIGHLAND VIEW 1421 13,541
67 12 HIGHLAND VIEW 94.3 91093
67 14 HIGHLAND VIEW 93.3 11,548
67 16 HIGHLAND VIEW 1 50 4,035
67 17 HIGHLAND VIEW 50 4,115
67 18 HIGHLAND VIEW 50 4,173
67 20 HIGHLAND VIEW 103 8,775
67 21 HIGHLAND VIEW 991 8,458
6722/23 IBRIGHTWOOD ( 141 12,896
67 24 BRIGHTWOOD 100 8,420
67 25 BRIGHTWOOD 100 8,150
671 26 BRIGHTWOOD 95 12,636
671 27 BRIGHTWOOD 227 15,191
671 28 BRIGHTWOOD 89 6,879
67 29 BRIGHTWOOD 79.5 9,390
j 67 30 BRIGHTWOOD 40 4,800
67 31 BRIGHTWOOD 98.5 4,300
67 32 FURBER 88 8,550
67 40 FURBER 134 13,250
67 46 MT VERNON 129 13,201
67 42 MT VERNON i 601 5,940
67 78 MT VERNON 631 6,237
67 79 MT VERNON 66.51 6,584
67 44 MT VERNON 66.31 6,564
67 77 MT VERNON 48.5 4,8021
67 45 MT VERNON 50 4,950
67 47 FURBER 45.5 4,500
67 48 FURBER i 901 8,750
Page 2
HIGH STREET STATS
671 49 MT VERNON 121 12,640
671 50 MT VERNON 90 9,000
67 51 MT VERNON 50 5,000
67 80 MT VERNON 50 5,000
67 52 MT VERNON 40.1 4,063
67 53 MT VERNON 100 10,000
67 54 UPLAND 123 10,000
_ 67 55 UPLAND 30 2,500
67 57 UPLAND 98 10,000
67 58 UPLAND 78.5 8,068
67 59 UPLAND 44.5 4,500
67 60 UPLAND 86 8,980
67 61 FURBER 85 9,000
67 62 FURBER 100 9,800
67 63 FURBER 100 19,897
67 65 UPLAND 91 10,765
67 67 UPLAND 99 11,000
67 69 UPLAND 47.5 8,096
67 70 UPLAND 117.7 14,236
66 2 CHADWICK 103.7 10,890
66 3 WENTWORTH 101.6 10,177
66 4 WENTWORTH 89.7 9,138
66 6 WENTWORTH 87 9,019
66 7 WENTWORTH 46.8 4,712
66 9 WENTWORTH 95 9,325
66 10 CHADWICK 104.9 10,980
66 52 HIGHLAND VIEW 85.5 9,358
66 11 HIGHLAND VIEW 88.6 9,158
66 12 HIGHLAND VIEW 43.8 4,524
66 13 HIGHLAND VIEW 44.1 4,496
66 15 HIGHLAND VIEW 141.4 14,037
66 17 HIGHLAND VIEW 98.2 4,856
66 191 HIGHLAND VIEW 88 8,737
66 20 HIGHLAND VIEW 45.3 4,243
66 23 HIGHLAND VIEW 87.8 8,068
66 26 CHADWICK 52.6 5,250
66 27 CHADWICK 531 5,280
66 28 BRIGHTWOOD 99.71 5,250
66 18 BRIGHTWOOD 441 9,400
66 29 BRIGHTWOOD 43.5 4,410
66 30 BRIGHTWOOD 89 8,570
66 21 BRIGHTWOOD 44 8,318
66 22 BRIGHTWOOD 43.7 4,076
66 31 BRIGHTWOOD 44.9 3,992
66 24 BRIGHTWOOD 45.5 7,816
66 25 BRIGHTWOOD 44.7 7,630
66 32 BRIGHTWOOD 123.81 11,250
66 33 BRIGHTWOOD 62.4 9,257
66 34 BRIGHTWOOD 50 5,163
66 35 BRIGHTWOOD 49.5 5,053
66 36 BRIGHTWOOD 1 98 9,790
Page 3
HIGH STREET STATS
66 37 BRIGHTWOOD 501 4,730
6638/39 CHADWICK 90.1 9,450
52 46 COLUMBIA 136 7,713
52 3 COLUMBIA 104.7 9,844
52 47 COLUMBIA 50 5,000
52 48 COLUMBIA 50 5,000
52 49 COLUMBIA 99.3 13,300
52 50 COLUMBIA 98.3 10,000
52 51 COLUMBIA 101.6 7,699
52 23 COLUMBIA 48.51 5,000
52 52 TROY 1001 5,000
52 58 TROY 101.81 10,414
52 59 COLUMBIA 48.4 5,000
52 36 COLUMBIA 48.8 5,000
52 60 COLUMBIA 97.8 10,000
52 57 SUTTON 74.2 14,840
52 56 SUTTON 74 9,690
52 35 SUTTON 49 5,254
52 54 SUTTON 50.4 5,336
52 13 SUTTON 74.3 12,877
521 53 TROY 501 5,000
521 55 TROY 100 10,000
521 34 TROY 75 5,723
52 62 IRVING 201.5 24,714
52 61 TROY 102.41 10,414
52 1 IRVING 1001 10,000
52 2 IRVING 721 7,500
52 30 IRVING 100 7,862
52 63 THORNDIKE 100 8,366
52 64 THORNDIKE 150 14,270
AVG = 86 9,761
Page 4
scc RAT wa eo WENTWORTH • AVENUE WENTWORTH AVENUE
co 0
iDl
.a — .e r ❑
Ld
cc
w I _ R _ _ •' MT. VERNON STREET ur. vea« r
~ —
r�A
N HIGHLAND VIEW ~AVENUE HIGHLAND VIEW _AVENUE Q ;
ED
1 {TWOOD AVENUE UPLAND 14-IF YSTREET p Y%A110IMG •��a ECT W
AVENUE ,O, a _
BRIGHTWOOD - ��� -
HIGH STREETFtEE
T SWE-AO fEFf.INOt SQ/L
1 H 1 G H •Q ..• `tom' U ►C.D o, I
Yt:OLUTABIA ROAD
WCOLUMBIA lull�� O� " /i�/ •�. _ .
O
�^IRVW
G OA /
RVING
I
Z _
~ }
O _ / SO
z
0
i
� 111-21M45 fix.-..
xrk kkr Q
*'Y" s. a 5 ; RUN
s n,t Y,ll tvnU
F 1
fly�qfk. ,:�� �! ✓ .r`�
x✓Y �i✓✓y� s k�
Fnf d kAtI'� tkv u 4 5��� c
Nil
11
d y h h
i V Y� ��f✓ 4 I ✓ �:k
sh �'r'��r r v ✓ F�'^"f ,� M.
s2f k r s r Y �+��" "✓✓���
J J
�✓ A ��fr�-c:r f✓.ct,��e� fi� Y ::f Y v so � a iCu'.^
✓ .i,.«...:,7 2 � "r � � ✓ S::J r f F,""fX,'F� ✓ vx F ' ^+
y �,!, � +�,T' Vo v� 1 >r�,>•'�?�r*r"��`��,�iX✓�K� d��� y�s� ��s �.�`+'.Y ��d9`
a Ak �y �o va s'!✓ N ar ?���
it
1tJ��dJ���
r 9 �fk w ✓ ✓ <'s's!�x✓ � + � �Et o
s Y z d''s���ev."�'�-� X54����' � � �✓✓ F �cry. �✓m✓�r W
w✓a � tt
in
�"°�,�'s a � Y� �f i 1 i �� � u✓r° z�`.�s�".,�ss'��.�,o�,r�'fy .+
„Y P 6j'l '.✓�,�. S r
� '� !. n ✓ r n kR�J 1�1 �
..�
,a'`yt
's -� r"!�1 1 i ���f�k * y ✓ xv �,.. ! ! r+�9a:>s°✓"F� Y
1
WEEF a !e ! �� r 1 !' ,✓f`
N.
S M�✓F a ��gs y,� .� �fr��l a 7 3 I� Y��,�''..z,+ z����
f: ✓f f �
P
2
.. ,ems,j F f..6 .�.(=F � l✓" - �DSG i��"� 8' Y?'S'Y 32"'�'"��f � 7'
'f
'Fx
s G t l o -44141
c✓ fs f< d
fi 2 F
k`f' ✓s 4��sfa t*kyt��'�
�✓t y"
fF 'mss h'
! .s ✓�t.
�oQQQ i'r r�
E
ILA
Qo
Q �� O
p i
AW
U �
F'
r as
� ! r
d �.r=�• �"'� #-fid A k5 R f 4. �'b�f '4
_ •l �� � q I f t l
t6 f
1
r" 1 f 9rT Gfyl h
1 x
:
�p f
i
a
u�
0
o�
U n�
�d
fi 5
Y F Fri,
AL
------------
t 2 l
J flfiA �t�f s f in f
fftUSj II'% /'MM. . f
4'.
a e
a9 i a:
-12
�$Q$Q
� 0
p
Els
Ann Apkarian
Carrie Tatlock,&Lydia Rice
154B High Street
138 High Street
North Andover MA North Andover MA 01845
Orzechowski
126 High street
North Andover Ma 01845
Leonard&Mary Windle
118 High Street
North Andover Ma 01845
Andover Mills Realty
2101 Rosecrans Ave
#5252 Fl 1
Segundo Ca 90245
Miary Dizzazo
148 High Street
orth Andover MA 01845
Dorothy Barker
146 High Street
North Andover MA 01845
Gayle Apkarian
145 A High Street
North Andover Ma 01845
Thomas Daly
147 High Street
North Andover MA 01845
Jeffery&Lisa Buritt
137 High Street
North Andover MA 01845
Nancy Melvin
127 High Street
North Andover MA 01845
/7 of
H GAN 5TKErT
. a
Li
J
r
w
y
Legal Notice
TONIN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
pORTFr NOTICE
August 16,1988.
3? •`e� '•�'•°� Notice is here given that
' A the Board of Appalwill give
a hearing at the Town
±L "ter Building, North Andover, on,
Tuesday evening the 13th day
�SSACHUS of Septemt&r, 19.88, at 7:30
o'clock, to all parties in-
terested in the appeal of Myron A.Eastwood#87-23,deci-.
sion dated 10/21/86 requesting a.variation of Sec.7,Para
7.2&7.3&Table 2 of the Zoning By Law so as to permit
relief'from setback on existing house and frontage on Lot A
and Lot B.Public hearing.readvertised pursuant to an order
of the Superior Court in Essex Superior Court Civil Action.
No. 86-2814, remanding this matter back to the Board of
Appeals, concerning the premises located at 138 High St.
The purpose of the hearing is to make the specific findings
required by law in support of the prior decision of the Board
of Appeals.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman
Publish in North Andover Citizen August 18 and August 25,
1988 66787-8
I
! + _J f
V ,' J {/
/� r `.f
/�� T U •
l
� I
't•:• law
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
' NOTICE
August 16 . . . . .1988.
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,on. Tuesday. . . .
. . . evening. . . . . . the 13th" day of September. . . . . . . . . . . .
1 19. 88, at7:3%'clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
�'.. • . . . Myron A,, Eastwood. #8.7-23, " decision.dated .10/21/86
requesting a variation of Sec.7",. .Pana. 7.•.2. A . . .of the Zoning
7.3 & Table 2
By Law so as to permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
relief from setback on existing house and frontage on
Lot' 'A *and,Lot 'B.' Public hearirig 'teadvertised pursuant to
an" order.of, the .Superior .Court. in .Essex. Superior-Court
Civil Action No. 86-2814, remanding this matter back to
the' Board'of" Appeal;' concetning "t'h6 "premises located at
138. High.St_ . .The .purpo.se .of. the. hearing. isto make the
specific find; ngp_ reguired by law in support of the
prior decision of the Board of Appeals.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Publish in N. A. Citizen on August 18 & August 25, 1988
• t
r Y
d<r'•�'iJM,
law .:•
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
. .Augus.t. .16 . . . . . .19. .88
I
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a j
hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,on Tuesday evening
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the . .13thday of .September
19. .88, at.7.:.3O'clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
Myron .A. .Eastwood .#87-23.,. .decisian .dated 10/.21/86,.
requesting a variation of Sec..7, .Para.. .7.2. &. .of the Zoning
7.3 & Table 2
By Law so as to permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
relief from setback on existing house and frontage on lot A
and Lot B. Public hearing readvertised heiise-
rt ordered- ^
G/7/S2R S �
an
�6 �
ao the prenuses,looted at. . . . 138 High. St.... k.daw�8W
%2C�G�iGlZ
By Order of flze of A
Frank S�rppeals
io, J , Chairman
- -
A4'P22'Cf'S'2 in the NA Citizen on August
s 1 --
�� - t q Yf�
,0
i
i
LEONARD KOPELMAN, KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. JOSEPH I. MULLIGAN
DONALD G. PAIGE OF COUNSEL
ELIZABETH A. LANE ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOYCE FRANK -
JOHN W. GIORGIO 101 ARCH STREET
BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE '
JOEL B. BARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-1137
EVERETT J. MARDER
JOSEPH L. TEHAN, JR. BOSTON OFFICE
WILLIAM HEWIG 111 16171 951-0007
THERESA M. DOWDY FAX 16171 951-2735
PATRICK J. COSTELLO
KAREN V. KELLY NORTHAMPTON OFFICE
DEBORAH A. ELIASON 14131 585-8632
JEANNE S. MCKNIGHT WORCESTER OFFICE
JUDITH C. CUTLER 15081 752-0203
ANNE-MARIE M. HYLAND `
RICHARD BOWEN
CHERYL ANN BANKS
BRIAN W. RILEY
KIMBERLY A. HOLLIDAY
MARY L. GIORGIO March 30� 1993 D
KATHLEEN E. CONNOLLY
MARY JANE EUSTACE
APR 2 19W
Zoning Board of Appeals BOARD OF APP_j
EALS
North Andover Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re:, L. Windle et al v. F. Serio et al. (North Andover ZBA)
and Myron Eastwood
Essex Superior Court C.A. No. 86-2814
Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Enclosed please find a copy of an Agreement for Judgment
executed by all parties and filed by plaintiffs' counsel in the
above matter. Pursuant to this agreement, the frontage and
setback variances granted by the Board in October, 1986 for 138
High Street have been declared invalid. All the parties,
including the current owner of the property, have agreed to this
settlement. This case will terminate upon entry of Judgment by
the Court.
Very truly yours,
Cl B. Bard
JBB/bb
Enc.
cc: Board of Selectmen
Town Manager
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 86-2814
LEONARD WINDLE, ET ALS
Plaintiffs
VS . AGREEMENT FOR JUDGEMENT
FRANK SERIO, JR. , ET ALS
Defendants
Now comes all parties and do hereby agree for judgement a
follows :
1 . The decision of the North Andover Board of Appeals
being petition #87-23 is declared null and void wit
no force and effect .
2 . All claims and counterclaims are dismissed with
prejudice , all costs and interest waived.
D borah Pitocche i Leon d indl is
the ' r a torn y by/f e ' torn'ey
MICHAEL T. ST A LPH R. J YC
BBo#t17-9060 e BBO *25 000
Law Offices of Mich 1 T. Stella Law Office f Ralph R. Joyce
P.O. Box 1528 95 Main Street
Lawrence , MA 01842-3528 North Andover, MA 01845
(508 ) 683-2132 (508) 685-4555
North Andover Board of Appeals
by their attorney,
BO # oa 9/y,0
Koppelman & Page
LAW OFFICES OF
RALPH R. JOYCE Boston, MA
95 MAIN STREET (617 ) ,
NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01815
(5OB)685.1555
FAX:(508)685-9/18
x KOPELQMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
C 1v
4TTORNEYS AT LAW 0.3 . r s�tr�''
`101 ARCH STREET rr ys U.S
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-1137 � MAN�9�
P8 iAEt ER �-..-..
MAs .s 6061258 "
Zoning Board of Appeals
North Andover Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Ilitirt[! ##!t{ttttlsl[ !t Ill [Ill tssIll ss11tts1sil[sfill Ill
�l.
OF AORTH 9
61i 6 tiO
°
�SSACHU`EI
TOWN
OF NORTH ANDOVER Off;T
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
On June 2 , 1988, a justice of the Superior Court, sitting in
Peabody, Essex County, remanded the variance which this Zoning
Board of Appeals granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October 21, 1986
back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for this board
to "articulate the specific findings required under G. L. c. 40A,
s . 10" .
The procedure to be employed to satisfy the justice ' s order
was discussed at both the June and August meetings of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. It was decided, after conferring with Town
Counsel , to hold aublic hearing in for
g the purposes set forth in
the Justice' s order. A legal notice was prepared and advertised,
setting down the matter for public hearing on September 13, 1988 .
On September 13, 1988, a public hearing occurred. Deborah
Pitocchelli the new owner of thero ert
who
P P Y purchased it from
the Petitioner, appeared and testified, and so did her counsel,
George A. Stella. Several other residents also testified, as
well as Attorney Ralph Joyce, who represented an abutter. As a
result of the September 13, 1988 public hearing, the North
Andover Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings .
HISTORY
On October 14 , 1986 , after due notice and publication, a
public hearing occurred on the application of Myron A. Eastwood
to subdivide his property situated in a RES. 4 district, having
an address of 138 High Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan
filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Each lot satisfied the
minimum lot size requirement of 12 , 500 sq. ft. as set forth in
Table 2 , 16 , 213 sq. ft. for Lot B and 16, 174 sq. ft. for Lot A,
However, variances were required as each lot of was not in
compli-
ance with the frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage
on Lot B was 75 . 28 feet and on Lot A, 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet, provided that the present frontage was not greater that the
average of all front setbacks of dwelling units within 250 feet
on either side of the lot . If the average front set back of
these homes was equal to or greater than the set back on Lot A, a
variance would not have been required.
1
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, two abutters to whom
notices were sent spoke in opposition to the variances sought.
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that "he wanted to buy 25' to 30' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6 ' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . An examination of the plan submitted by Myron A.
Eastwood showed the Spirdione home to lack the required front
yard set back, and, the side yard set back from Myron A.
Eastwood' s lot line to the Spirdione home was 3 . 2 feet at the
front of the home and 2 . 9 feet at the rear of the home.
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this, two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21 , 1986 , the Zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
ARTICULATED FINDINGS
A. DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
Mr. Eastwood, the original petitioner who received the
variances applied for, owned the premises which were located in
an Residence 4 zoning district on the westerly side of High
Street. Across from the Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of
High Street, is Furber Avenue which forms a "T" intersection
with High Street. Furber Avenue also forms the southerly bound
of a 1906 sub-division of a vast area of land into 184 lots of
land and 5 public ways . The approximate or average width of
these lots was less than 501 , and, the approximate or average
area of these lots was less that 4 , 500 sq. ft. The Zoning Board
of Appeals acknowledges that several individuals purchased more
that one lot within this sub-division, creating lots larger in
area and larger in lot frontage than the dimensional averages set
forth above, however, even some of these larger lots within this
sub-division do not comply with the present requirements of Table
2
2 , and, a large number of homes are on lots with less than 5,000
sq. ft. and with frontages less than 50 feet.
on the south-westerly side of High Street, south of the
Eastwood locus, are 4 residential lots (Spirdione, Windle and two
others) followed by a vast IND. -S Zoning District. To the west
of the Eastwood locus and these 4 residences (the rear yards) is
a continuation of the IND.-S zoning district. Finally, north of
the Eastwood locus, on the westerly bound of High Street, are 3
residences and then a public way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
er' s locus on the westerly side of High Street are situated very
close to High Street, and, all of the lots located on the
westerly side of High Street in this area drop off in elevation
as the IND. -S district is approached. With respect to lot B in
the Eastwood plan, the majority of the 75 foot frontage to a
depth of approximately 15 feet from High Street consists of an
area that is level with High Street and this area is paved. This
area is used for parking. At the end of this paved area is a 4
nin wall that the paved area abuts, leaving an
to 5 foot retaining
approximate 4 inch high curb before the wall drops 4 to 5 feet to
an area that slopes westerly to the IND. -S district. Along the
westerly Y boundar of lot B are hugh and dense Pine trees that
form a natural and dense barrier that shield and insulate the
Spirdione locus from that of the Eastwood locus .
B. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The Eastwood locus situated at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer was present at the meeting and
was represented by counsel . Mr. Eastwood, the Petitioner, who
was retired, desired to sell the locus and move to another
section of the country that he could more easily afford. The
proposed purchase price far exceeded the true value of the locus
if the variances were not granted. The structures on Lot A were
old, and in somewhat disrepair, requiring needed maintenance. In
order to achieve the greatest value for his property, the
variances would have had to been granted.
The front portion of Lot B was an eyesore. Vehicles with
trailer hitches, automobiles and a small mobile home type' trailer
are parked on this locus , daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances, as allowed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties , generally.
3
C. HARDSHIP AS TO CONDITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
than enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been described in paragraph A. ,
supra. There is only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that
separates the top of the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5
foot drop to a yard that has a slope. During the Winter months,
this portion of lot B presents a serious hazardous condition for
vehicles travelling down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High
Street, that could lose control due to road conditions . Additio-
nally, the existence of this parking lot in the RES . 4 district,
between homes situated close to the High Street boundary line,
detracts from the homes in this area. The homes that abut the
Petitioner' s locus have either attached garages or detached
garages located behind the front of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
D. DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURE ( S)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.
Therantin of .the variances would not only benefit the
g g
Petitioner because his property would be worth more, but the
granting of ,the variances would also greatly benefit the neighbo-
rhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties would
be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and with the
construction of a new single-family home set back 50 feet from
High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the granting of
the variances were not truly aggrieved and Presented no strong
arguments for denial . Mr. Spirdione' s opposition was based on
the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his land to him
because his home sits a few feet from the common lot line. Mr.
Windle ' s objection was based on his speculation as to the effect
that this new residence would have on the traffic pattern on High
Street taking into consideration the future development of the
Ind. -S district. Mr. Spirdione' s concerns were addressed by
this Board when it imposed the 50 ' set back requirement to the
construction of the new home, thus insuring Mr. Spirdione open
space between his home and that of the Petitioner' s and the
proposed home . Mr. Windle' s speculation concerning the overbur-
dening of traffic on High Street by one or two more cars is not
reason enough for this board to deny the variances sought.
4
Additionally, Mr. Windle' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the Spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
At the September 13 , 1988 hearing, two abutters , other than
Mr. Windle and Mr. Spirdione, expressed dissatisfaction with the
granting of the variances, now, because Mr. Eastwood sold the
locus and they had no objection to his petition when he owned the
locus and originally sought the variances . The Zoning Board of
Appeals is still not impressed with the arguments made in
opposition to the granting of the variances .
The Zoning Board of Appeals is aware of relief that it has
granted on numerous occasions by the granting of similar varian-
ces to others within the same area of North Andover and has
strived to be fair and consistent in its deliberations .
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner' s locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. The Zoning Board of Appeals is cognizant that
numerous lots in the immediate area to the Petitioner' s locus are
in violation of current zoning regulations , some of those lots
are the following:
L. Provost 157 High St. 6,095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 5, 600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St . 9 , 625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St. 7 , 547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 High St. 6 , 675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St . 4 , 190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St. 5 , 127 sq. ft.
A' Spirdione 126 High St. 81 . 75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 . 35 ' front
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular, because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High Street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . Some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
5
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the RES . 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an IND. S district. The circum-
stances of this case do not affect generally the zoning districts
in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners locus .
DATED:
The An - r Zoning Board of Appeals .
A10,& Frizell ,_ Vice- airman Walter Soule
T Aug i e M kerson, Clerk
William Sullivan
6
i
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
\/ ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 1000
77 FRANKLIN STREET
LEONARD KOPELMAN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110
DONALD G.PAIGE
ELIZABETH A.LANE (617)451-0750
JOYCE FRANK
JOHN W.GIORGIO
JOEL B.BARD
JOEL A.BERNSTEIN
RICHARD J.FALLON
BARBARA J.SAINT ANDRE
GEORGE M.MATTHEWS
EVERETT J.MARDER
JANE M.O'MALLEY
KAREN V.KELLY
DAVID L.GALLOG LY
SONDRA M.KORMAN
ANNE-MARIE M.HYLAND
November 10, 1988
Ralph Joyce, Esq.
95 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Myron Eastwood: Windle, et al. , vs. Serio
No. 86-2814
Dear Mr. Joyce:
I just wanted to make sure you received a copy of the
enclosed decision.
Very truly yours,
Leonard Kop elman
LK/sb
Enclosure
cc: Board of Appeals
cc: Board of Selectmen
OF NORTH Hti
�9SSNCFIUSEt h
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
November 7, 1988
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
Suite 1000
77 Franklin St.
Boston, MA 02110
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that the Board of Appeals has filed their decision
with the North Andover Town Clerk as of this date, on petition #87-23, of
Myron A. Eastwood, 138 High St. , North Andover, MA. , Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Superior Court case No. 86-2814, Variance - Windle, et al,
vs. Serio, et al Court Ordered Remand.
If you need any further information, please call the Board of Appeals office
at 682-6483, extension 28.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF AP EALS
Frank Ser io, Jr
Chairman
enc/
OF NORT/{9ti
. ° .. O
O y "
u IPP y,�S
��SSACHUSE�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
October 20, 1988
Kopelman & Paige, P. C.
Attorneys at Law
Suite 1000
77 Franklin St.
Boston, MA 02110
RE: Petition #87-23 - Myron A. Eastwood, 138 High St. , North Andover, MA 01845
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court case No. 86-2814
Variance - Windle, et al, vs. Serio, et al Court Ordered Remand
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that the Board of Appeals has filed their decision with
the North Andover Town Clerk on the above petition. I am enclosing a copy for
,your information.
If you need any further information, please call the Board of Appeals office at
682-6483, extension 28.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Vt'0-'1'4 !441 '
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
Encl.
/awt
3 e..,rE...•,.�e OL
o y {y m
Py�
�9SSACFNUS��5 I
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
October 20, 1988
Attorney Ralph R. Joyce
95 Main Street
Ellis Building
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Joyce:
This is to advise you that the Board of Appeals has filed their decision
with the North Andover Town Clerk as of this date, on petition 487-23,
of Myron A. Eastwood, 138 High St. , North Andover, MA. , Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Superior Court case No. 86-2814, Variance - Windle, et al,
vs. Serio, et al Court Ordered Remand.
If you need any further information, please call the Board of Appeals
office at 682-6483, extension 28.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
/awt
�I
i
NOR71� I
Q�tt E o.ib q�Q
�9SSACHUSEt
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
August 10, 1988
Kopelman and Paige, P.C. E
Attorneys at Law
Suite 1000
77 Franklin St.
Boston, MA 02110
I
I
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find complete file on Board of Appeals public hearing and
decision for 487-23, petition of Myron A. Eastwood, 138 High St. , North
Andover, MA. , Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court case No. 86-2814,
Variance - Windle, et al, vs. Serio, et al Court Ordered Remand.
If you need any further information, please call the Board of Appeals
office at 682-6483, extension 28.
Sincerely,
I
BOARD OF PEALS
Frank Serio, Jre C.
Chairman
Encs.
/awt
OF NORTH 9
? t'1 Feu 16'tiO
iK
SSACHUSES
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER .V u
®Cj
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
On June 2, 1988, a justice of the Superior Court, sitting in
Peabody, Essex County, remanded the variance which this Zoning
Board of Appeals granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October 21, 1986
back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for this board
to "articulate the specific findings required under G. L. c. 40A,
s . 10" .
The procedure to be employed to satisfy the justice' s order
was discussed at both the June and August meetings of the Zoning
Board of Appeals . It was decided, after conferring
Counsel to hold a with Town
public hearing for the purposes set forth in
the justice' s order. A legal notice was prepared and advertised,
setting down the matter for public hearing on September 13, 1988.
On September 13, 1988, a public hearing occurred. Deborah
Pitocchelli, the new owner of the property who purchased it from
the Petitioner, appeared and testified, and so did her counsel,
George A. Stella. Several other residents also testified, as
well as Attorney Ralph Joyce, who represented an abutter. As a
result of the September 13 , 1988 public hearing, the North
Andover Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings .
HISTORY
On October 14 , 1986 , after due notice and publication, a
public hearing occurred on the application of Myron A. Eastwood
to subdivide his property situated in a RES . 4 district, having
an address of 138 High Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan
filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Each lot satisfied the
minimum lot size requirement of 12 , 500 sq. ft. as set forth in
Table 2 , 16 , 213 sq. ft. for Lot B and 16 , 174 sq. ft. for Lot A,
However, variances were required as each lot was not in compli-
ance with the frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage
on Lot B was 75 . 28 feet and on Lot A, 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet, provided that the present frontage was not greater that the
average of all front setbacks of dwelling units within 250 feet
on either side of the lot. If the average front set back of
these homes was equal to or greater than the set back on Lot A, a
variance would not have been required.
1
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, two abutters to whom
notices were sent spoke in opposition to the variances sought.
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that . "he wanted to buy 25 ' to 30' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6 ' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . An examination of the plan submitted by Myron A.
Eastwood showed the Spirdione home to lack the required front
yard set back, and; the side yard set back from Myron A.
Eastwood' s lot line to the Spirdione home was 3 . 2 feet at the
front of the home and 2 . 9 feet at the rear of the home.
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this, two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21 , 1986 , the Zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
ARTICULATED FINDINGS
A. DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
Mr. Eastwood, the original petitioner who received the
variances applied for, owned the premises which were located in
an Residence 4 zoning district on the westerly side of High
Street . Across from the Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of
High Street, is Furber Avenue which forms a "T" intersection
with High Street. Furber Avenue also forms the southerly bound
of a 1906 sub-division of a vast area of land into 184 lots of
land and 5 public ways . The approximate or average width of
these lots was less than 501 , and, the approximate or average
area of these lots was less that 4 , 500 sq. ft . The Zoning Board
of Appeals acknowledges that several individuals purchased more
that one lot within this sub-division, creating lots larger in
area and larger in lot frontage than the dimensional averages set
forth above, however, even some of these larger lots within this
sub-division do not comply with the present requirements of Table
2
2 , and, a large number of homes are on lots with less than 5,000
sq. ft. and with frontages less than 50 feet.
On the south-westerly g side of High Street, south of the
Eastwood locus, are 4 residential lots (Spirdione, Windle and two
others) followed by a vast IND. -S Zoning District. To the west
of the Eastwood locus and these 4 residences (the rear yards) is
ct
a continuation of the INS. -S zoning district. Finally, north of
the Eastwood locus, on the westerly bound of High Street, are 3
residences and then a public way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
er' s locus on the westerly side of High Street are situated very
close to High Street, and, all of the lots located on the
westerly side of High Street in this area drop off in elevation
as the IND.-S district is approached. With respect to lot B in
the Eastwood plan, the majority of the 75 foot frontage to a
depth of approximately 15 feet from High Street consists of an
area that is level with High Street and this area is paved. This
area is used for parking. At the end of this paved area is a 4
to 5 foot retaining wall that the paved area abuts, leaving an
approximate 4 inch high curb before the wall drops 4 to 5 feet to
an area that slopes westerly to the IND. -S district. Along the
westerly boundary of lot B are hugh and dense Pine trees that
form a natural and dense barrier that shield and insulate the
Spirdione locus from that of the Eastwood locus .
B. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The Eastwood locus situated at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer was present at the meeting and
was represented by counsel . Mr. Eastwood, the Petitioner, who
was retired, desired to sell the locus and move to another
section of the country that he could more easily afford. The
proposed purchase price far exceeded the true value of the locus
if the variances were not granted. The structures on Lot A were
old, and in somewhat disrepair, requiring needed maintenance. In
order to achieve the greatest value for his property, the
variances would have had to been granted.
The front portion of Lot B was an eyesore . Vehicles with
trailer hitches, automobiles and a small mobile home type trailer
are parked on this locus , daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances, as allowed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties, generally.
3
C. HARDSHIP AS TO CONDITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
than enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been described in paragraph A. ,
supra. There is only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that
separates the top of the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5
foot drop to a yard that has a slope. During the Winter months,
this portion of lot B presents a serious hazardous condition for
vehicles travelling down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High
Street, that could lose control due to road conditions . Additio-
nally, the existence of this parking lot in the RES . 4 district,
between homes situated close to the High Street boundary line,
detracts from the homes in this area. The homes that abut the
Petitioner' s locus have either attached garages or detached
garages located behind the front of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
D. DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURE( S)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE .
The granting of the variances would not only benefit the
Petitioner because his property would be worth more, but the
granting of the variances would also greatly benefit the neighbo-
rhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties would
be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and with the
construction of a new single-family home set back 50 feet from
High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the granting of
the variances were not truly aggrieved and presented no strong
arguments for denial . Mr. Spirdione' s opposition was based on
the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his land to him
because his home sits a few feet from the common lot line. Mr.
Windle ' s objection was based on his speculation as to the effect
that this new residence would have on the traffic pattern on High
Street taking into consideration the future development of the
Ind. -S district . Mr. Spirdione' s concerns were addressed by
this Board when it imposed the 50 ' set back requirement to the
construction of the new home, thus insuring Mr. Spirdione open
space between his home and that of the Petitioner' s and the
proposed home . Mr. Windle' s speculation concerning the overbur-
dening of traffic on High Street by one or two more cars is not
reason enough for this board to deny the variances sought.
4
Additionally, Mr. Windle' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the' Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the Spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
At the September 13 , 1988 hearing, two abutters, other than
Mr. Windle and Mr. Spirdione, expressed dissatisfaction with the
granting of the variances, now, because Mr. Eastwood sold the
locus and they had no objection to his petition when he owned the
locus and originally sought the variances . The Zoning Board of
Appeals is still not impressed with the arguments made in
opposition to the granting of the variances .
The Zoning Board of Appeals is aware of relief that it has
granted on numerous occasions by the granting of similar varian-
ces to others within the same area of North Andover and has
strived to be fair and consistent in its deliberations.
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner' s locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. The Zoning Board of Appeals is cognizant that
numerous lots in the immediate area to the Petitioner' s locus are
in violation of current zoning regulations , some of those lots
are the following:
L. Provost 157 High St. 6 , 095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 5 , 600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St . 9 , 625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St . 7 , 547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 High St. 6 , 675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St . 4 , 190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St. 5 , 127 sq. ft.
A. Spirdione 126 High St. 81 . 75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 . 35 ' front
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular, because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High Street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . Some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
5
v
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate- from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the RES . 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an IND. S district. The circum-
stances of this case do not affect generally the zoning districts
in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners locus.
DATED:
The th Ando ning Board of Appeals .
Alf r Frizel , ce-cha rman Walter Soule
Augu i e i erson, Clerk
William ullivan
6
r e of qa0k -A AX-cez
ELLIS BUILDING
s
95 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA OIB45
RALPH R. JOYCE
(617) 685-4555
VIKEN MANOUGIAN
June 27, 1988
Town of North Andover
FRANK SERIO, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: 138 HIGH STREET - VARIANCE
WINDLE, ET AL, VS. SERIO, ET AL
COURT ORDERED REMAND
Dear Mr. Serio:
I recently conferred with Attorney Scalise on behalf of
the Town of North Andover and with Attorney Stella on behalf of
the defendant in the above cited action concerning procedures
to comply with the Court' s order of remand. regarding the above
variance. The Plaintiffs, all of whom reside within the
neighborhood, do hereby request the opportunity to be heard
before the Board makes the findings required by the Court.
While there is some question as to procedure, there is case law
that the Board is required to make such findings pursuant to
advertisement, notice and all other requirements of a public
hearing. I refer you to a decision of the Court in the matter
of the Board of Selectmen of Kingston versus the Board of
Appeals of Kingston, 322 N.E. 2nd 437.
It is my understanding the Board delayed any action
regarding this matter until opportunity to confer with the new
town counsel, whomever that may be. Would you kindly advise
your intent with respect to this request and bear in mind that
Attorney Stella and his client are very concerned with the time
frame. We will certainly accomodate the earliest opportunity
and state that we have no intention to unduly delay these
proceedings.
Please advise.
V y y yo
- yc e
RRJ:mjj
cc: Dominic Scalise, Esq.
Michael Stella, Esq.
Leonard Windle
AORTH
OF tt1 o..a
e , O
� � P
SA US
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
On June 2, 1988, a justice of the Superior Court, sitting in
Peabody, Essex County, remanded the variance which this Zoning
Board of Appeals granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October 21 , 1986
back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for this board
to "articulate the specific findings required under G. L. c. 40A,
s . 10" .
The procedure to be employed to satisfy the justice' s order
was discussed at both the June and August meetings of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. It was decided, after, conferring with Town
Counsel, to hold a public hearing for the purposes set forth in
the justice' s order. A legal notice was prepared and advertised,
setting down the matter for public hearing on September 13, 1988 .
On September 13, 1988, a public hearing occurred. Deborah
Pitocchelli, the new owner of the property who purchased it from
the Petitioner, appeared and testified, and so did her counsel,
George A. Stella. Several other residents also testified, as
well as Attorney Ralph Joyce, who represented an abutter. As a
result of the September 13 , 1988 public hearing, the North
Andover Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings .
HISTORY
On October 14 , 1986 , after due notice and publication, a
public hearing occurred on the application of Myron A. Eastwood
to subdivide his property situated in a RES. 4 district, having
an address of 138 High Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan
filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Each lot satisfied the
minimum lot size requirement of 12 , 500 sq. ft. as set forth in
Table 2 , 16 , 213 sq. ft. for Lot B and 16 , 174 sq. ft. for Lot A,
However, variances were required as each lot was not in compli-
ance with the frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage
on Lot B was 75 . 28 feet and on Lot A, 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet, provided that the present frontage was not greater that the
average of all front setbacks of dwelling units within 250 feet
on either side of the lot. If the average front set back of
these homes was equal to or greater than the set back on Lot A, a
variance would not have been required.
1
I
I
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, two abutters to whom
notices were sent spoke in opposition to the variances sought.
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
1
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that "he wanted to buy 25' to 30 ' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6 ' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . An examination of the plan submitted by Myron A.
Eastwood showed the Spirdione home to lack the required front
yard set back, and, the side yard set back from Myron A.
Eastwood' s lot line to the Spirdione home was 3 . 2 feet at the
front of the home and 2 .9 feet at the rear of the home.
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this, two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21 , 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
ARTICULATED FINDINGS
A. DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
Mr. Eastwood, the original petitioner who received the
variances applied for, owned the premises which were located in
an Residence 4 zoning district on the westerly side of High
Street. Across from the Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of
High Street, is Furber Avenue which forms a "T" intersection
with High Street. Furber Avenue also forms the southerly bound
of a 1906 sub-division of a vast area of land into 184 lots of
land and 5 public ways . The approximate or average width of
these lots was less than 501 , and, the approximate or average
area of these lots was less that 4 , 500 sq. ft . The Zoning Board
of Appeals acknowledges that several individuals purchased more
that one lot within this sub-division, creating lots larger in
area and larger in lot frontage than the dimensional averages set
forth above, however, even some of these larger lots within this
sub-division do not comply with the present requirements of Table
2
Jf
2 , and, a large number of homes are on lots with less than 5,000
sq. ft. and with frontages less than 50 feet.
On the south-westerly side of High Street, south of the
Eastwood locus, are 4 residential lots (Spirdione, Windle and two
others) followed by a vast IND. -S Zoning District. To the west
of the Eastwood locus and these 4 residences (the rear yards) is
a continuation of the IND.-S zoning district. Finally, north of
the Eastwood locus, on the westerly bound of High Street, are 3
residences and then a public way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
er' s locus on the westerly side of High Street are situated very
close to High Street, and, all of the lots located on the
westerly side of High Street in this area drop off in elevation
as the IND. -S district is approached. With respect to lot B in
the Eastwood plan, the majority of the 75 foot frontage to a
depth of approximately 15 feet from High Street consists of an
area that is level with High Street and this area is paved. This
area is used for parking. At the end of this paved area is a 4
to 5 foot retaining wall that the paved area abuts, leaving an
approximate 4 inch high curb before the wall drops 4 to 5 feet to
an area that slopes westerly to the IND. -S district. Along the
westerly boundary of lot B are hugh and dense Pine trees that
form a natural and dense barrier that shield and insulate the
Spirdione locus from that of the Eastwood locus .
B. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The Eastwood locus situated at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer was present at the meeting and
was represented by counsel . Mr. Eastwood, the Petitioner, who
was retired, desired to sell the locus and move to another
section of the country that he could more easily afford. The
proposed purchase price far exceeded the true value of the locus
if the variances were not granted. The structures on Lot A were
old, and in somewhat disrepair, requiring needed maintenance. In
order to achieve the greatest value for his property, the
variances would have had to been granted.
The front portion of Lot B was an eyesore. Vehicles with
trailer hitches, automobiles and a small mobile home type trailer
are parked on this locus, daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances, as allowed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties, generally.
3
C. HARDSHIP AS TO CONDITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
than enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been described in paragraph A. ,
supra. There is only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that
separates the top of the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5
foot drop to a yard that has a slope. During the Winter months,
this portion of lot B presents a serious hazardous condition for
vehicles travelling down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High
Street, that could lose control due to road conditions . Additio-
nally, the existence of this parking lot in the RES . 4 district,
between homes situated close to the High Street boundary line,
detracts from the homes in this area. The homes that abut the
Petitioner' s locus have either attached garages or detached
garages located behind the front of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
D. DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURE( S)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE .
The granting of the variances would not only benefit the
Petitioner because his property would be worth more, but the
granting of the variances would also greatly benefit the neighbo-
rhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties would
be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and with the
construction of a new single-family home set back 50 feet from
High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the granting of
the variances were not truly aggrieved and presented no strong
arguments for denial . Mr. Spirdione' s opposition was based on
the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his land to him
because his home sits a few feet from the common lot line. Mr.
Windle' s objection was based on his speculation as to the effect
that this new residence would have on the traffic pattern on High
street taking into consideration the future development of the
Ind. -S district . Mr. Spirdione' s concerns were addressed by
this Board when it imposed the 50 ' set back requirement to the
construction of the new home, thus insuring Mr. Spirdione open
space between his home and that of the Petitioner' s and the
proposed home. Mr. Windle' s speculation concerning the overbur-
dening of traffic on High Street by one or two more cars is not
reason enough for this board to deny the variances sought.
4
Additionally, Mr. Windle' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the Spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
At the September 13, 1988 hearing, two abutters, other than
Mr. Windle and Mr. Spirdione, expressed dissatisfaction with the
granting of the variances, now, because Mr. Eastwood sold the
locus and they had no objection to his petition when he owned the
locus and originally sought the variances . The Zoning Board of
Appeals is still not impressed with the arguments made in
opposition to the granting of the variances .
The Zoning Board of Appeals is aware of relief that it has
granted on numerous occasions by the granting of similar varian-
ces to others within the same area of North Andover and has
strived to be fair and consistent in its deliberations .
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner' s locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. The Zoning Board of Appeals is cognizant that
numerous lots in the immediate area to the Petitioner' s locus are
in violation of current zoning regulations, some of those lots
are the following:
L. Provost 157 High St. 6, 095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 5, 600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St. 9 , 625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St. 7 , 547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 High St. 6 , 675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St. 4 , 190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St. 5 , 127 sq. ft.
A. Spirdione 126 High St. 81 . 75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 . 35 ' front
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular, because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High Street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . Some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
5
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the RES . 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an IND. S district. The circum-
stances of this case do not affect generally the zoning districts
in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners locus .
DATED:
The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals .
Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman Walter Soule
Augustine Nickerson, Clerk "
William Sullivan
6
OFFICE OE
TOWN COUNSEL .
89 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER; MASSACHUSETTS 01845
�10RT/�
DOMENIC J.SCALISEo��° (617)682-4153
a �
PETER G.SHAHEEN i (617)689-0800
TOWN COUNSEL
1SSACHUSE�
June 1, 1988
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman of Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Leonard Windle, et al. v. Frank Serio, Jr. et al .
Civil Action No. 86-2814
Casslery v. Serio, et ali Essex Superior Court
Dear Frank:
Please be advised that the above two cases have been placed
on the trial list for Monday, June 13 , 1988 .at 11: 30a.m. . It is
important that someone from your board be available on that day
to act as a witness in both of these cases. If you -should have
any questions concerning this matter ple feel free to call .
ry t 1 urs,
P ter G. Shaheen
PGS:srd
` 6Ja�V
b
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
�. ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
N0. gdIt
LEONARD WINDLE, ALBERT J. SPIRDIONE,
KEVIN J. SMITH, JAY FARROW, RALPH
WILDE, JR. , MATTHEW COTE,
Plaintiffs
*
VS �.�.......,.._._.. .. _ * gLAI1�TZF � S
�EMENT
FRANK SERIO, JR. , ALFRED FRIZELLE,
AUGUSTINE NICKERSON, WILLIAM SULLIVAN,*
WALTER SOULE, RAYMOND VIVENZIO,as they*
are members of the Board of Appeals of*
North Andover, MA, and
*
MYRON A. EASTWOOD
Defendants
IN
The Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of
w Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgement that the Board of
Appeals of North Andover exceeded its authority when it granted
a variance to Myron A. Eastwood for the property located at 138
High Street, North Andover, Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs state
that they are entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law
and that there are no material facts in dispute. The grounds
for this Motion are:
1. That the Board exceeded its authority in granting the
variance when Myron A. Eastwood did not meet the
requirements of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,
UW OFFICES OF
RALPH R. JOYCE Section 10. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiffs rely
95 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 upon:
(6IT)6851555
/14P 67
� 4
/
V7 16
/.3 7
/�,o•r.«C 7a?. . �� /V CW4(5L AV '
6 /qA
J
r
R4,? Zx L,0 v
D040 rN y 19A�
AVO 14,00ewz
4' 4-2- L-S
Ivlv
wNf� __..
p
A.1,44 ,p
cez A-11S
0 Lozsl�.
i
�1, r
i
HISTORY
On June 2 , 1988, a justice of the Superior Court remanded
the variance which was granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October
21 , 1986 back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for
this board to "articulate the specific findings required under G.
L. c . 40A, s . 10" .
On October 14, 1986 a public hearing occurred on the
application of Myron A. Eastwood to subdivide his property
situated in a RES . 4 district, having an address of 138 High
Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan filed with the Zoning
Board of Appeals . Each lot would satisfy the minimum lot size
requirement of 12, 500 sq. ft. as set forth in Table 2 , 16, 213
sq. ft. for Lot B and 16, 174 sq. ft. for Lot A, However, variances
were required as each lot was not be in compliance with the
frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage on Lot B is
75 . 28 feet and on Lot A, 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet.
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, the minutes disclose
that two abutters only spoke in opposition to the variances
sought.
i
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that "he wanted to buy 25 ' to 30 ' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6 ' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . The plan submitted by Myron A. Eastwood showed the
Spirdione home to lack the required front yard set back, and, the
side yard set back from Myron A. Eastwood' s lot line to the
Spirdione home is 3 . 2 feet at the front of the home and 2 . 9 feet
at the rear of the home.
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this , two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21 , 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to conditions:
1
i
I
1 . House to be set back at least 50 ' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
The petitioner' s land is located in an Residence 4 zoning
district on the westerly side of High Street. Across from the
Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of High Street, is Furber
Avenue which forms a "T" intersection with High Street. Furber
Avenue also forms the southerly bound of a 1906 sub-division of a
vast area of land into 184 lots of land and 5 public ways . The
approximate or average width of these lots was less than 50 ' and
the approximate or average area of these lots was less that 4 , 500
sq. ft.
l
On the south-westerly side of High Street, south of the
Petitioner' s locus, are 4 residential lots (Spirdione, Windle and j
two others) followed by a vast Ind. -S Zoning District. To the
west of the Petitioner' s locus and these 4 residences (the rear
yards) is a continuation of the Ind. -S zoning district. Finally,
north of the Petitioner' s locus, on the westerly bound of High
Street, are 3 residences and then a public way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
eh' s locus on the westerly side of High Street(the same side of
High Street) are situated very close to High Street, and, all of
the lots located on the westerly side of High Street in this area
drop off in elevation as the Ind. -S district is approached. With
respect to lot B in the Petitioner' s plan, the majority of the 75 j
foot frontage to a depth of approximately 15 feet from High
Street consists of an area that is level with High Street and
this area is paved. This area is used for parking. At the end
of this paved area is a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall that the paved
area abuts, leaving an approximate 4 inch high curb before the
wall drops 4 to 5 feet to an area that slopes westerly to the
Ind. -S district. Along the westerly boundary of lot B are hugh
and dense Pine trees that form a natural and dense barrier that
shield and insulate the Spirdione locus from that of the
Petitioner.
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The former petitioner' s land at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer (the present owner & successor
2
I
petitioner) was present at the meeting and was represented by
counsel . The former petitioner, who was retired, desired to sell
the locus and move to another section of the country that he
could more easily afford. The proposed purchase price far
exceeded the true value of the locus if the variances were not
granted. The structures on Lot A were old, and in somewhat
disrepair, requiring needed maintenance. In order to achieve the
greatest value for his property, the variances would have had to
been granted.
The front portion of Lot B is an eyesore. Vehicles with
trailer hitches, automobiles and a small mobile home type trailer
are parked on this locus, daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances , as allowed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties, generally.
HARDSHIP AS TO CONDITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
that enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been previously described. There is
only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that separates the top of
the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5 foot drop to a yard
that has a slope. During the Winter months, this portion of lot
B presents a serious hazardous condition for vehicles travelling
down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High Street, that could lose
control due to road conditions . Additionally, the existence of
this parking lot in the Res . 4 district, between homes situated
close to the High Street boundary line, detracts from the homes
in this area. The homes that abut the Petitioner' s locus have
either attached garages or detached garages located behind the
front of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURE( S)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE .
3
s
i
The granting of the variances would not only benefit the
present petitioner because her property would be worth more, but
the granting of the variances would also greatly benefit the
neighborhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties
would be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and
with the construction of a new single-family home set back 50
feet from High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the
granting of the variances were not truly aggrieved and presented
no strong arguments for denial . Mr. Spirdione' s opposition was
based on the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his
land to him because his home sits a few feet from the common lot
line. Mr. Windle' s objection was based on his speculation as to
the effect that this new residence would have on the traffic
pattern on High Street taking into consideration the future.
development of the Ind. -S district. Mr. Spirdione' s concerns
were addressed by this Board when it imposed the 50 ' set back
requirement to the construction of the new home, thus insuring
Mr. Spirdione open space between his home and that of the
Petitioner' s and the proposed home. Mr. Windle' s speculation
concerning the overburdening of traffic on High Street by one or
two more cars is not reason enough for this board to deny the
variances sought.
Additionally, Mr. Windle' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the Spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner' s locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. It is obvious, that under the cyrrent zoning
ordinance, the following losuses in the immediate area are in
violation ofthe ordinance.
L. Provost 157 High St. 6, 095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 5 , 600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St. 9, 625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St. 7 , 547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 High St. 6, 675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St. 4 , 190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St. 5, 127 sq. ft. !
A. Spirdione 126 High St. 81 . 75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 . 35 ' front
4
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular, because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High Street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . Some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance .
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the Res . 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an Ind. S district. The
circumstances of this case do not affect generally the zoning
districts in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners
locus .
I
i
5
4�7Z
--
JZ
---____
Board of Appealsrea
Town Office BuildingL�) a PM
North Andover, Mass. 01845 18 AUG
Cb
d
<
W.
�G. •
O 2
of
W & M Jukins
'`� 0 ,• �f 147 High St.
D/��`�,o N. Andover, mA 01845
lF
INx legai Notice,
�u„ wa .srt nw n' t
TOWN�NORTH 11
s ANDOVER.:
MASSACHUSETTS
~ BOARD Of
NORTH
I NOTICE
° ,� .tio "August 16'1988
o?• > °A Notice Is hereby given that'I
A the Board of Appeals will give
{ # �� a- hearing. at 'the Town
'"' `r"# Building, North Andover, on
too Tuesday Tuesday evening the 13th day
ust`, of.September,'.1988,at 7 ;
30
.
o'clock, to all'Parties '.In.
'q in the appeal of Myron A.Eastwood#87-23,decl
A sion dated,l0/21/86 requesting-a;Variatpn of•Sec:7,Para It
t.7.2'&7.3&Table 2 irf the Zoning By law-so as to permit `
relieftrom setback on e)dsting house and on Lot
and Lot B.Public hearing.readyertised pursuant to an order
of the Superior Court In Essen•Superior Court Civil Action
No: 86-2814, remanding this matter back to the Board of
Appeals,'concerning the premises bated at 938 hiyh St.
.The Purpose of the hearing!s b:make the spedfic findings
r8quIred by.law m support of the;prior d"ion of the Board
Appeal
.y`a ars
s.'
. f .. By Order of the Bard of Appeals
Frank Serb,Jr.,Chairman '
1988 h!n Nortft Anm�ovQr Gtlzen flugu%18 and August 25,
� , ;,667878
t'
(f Lt,.I/rL.L/V
i
�� ad ��
September 13, 1988
We are owners and do reside= at 119 High.
Street, North Andover.
We oppose the petition of Plyron A. Eastwood
concerning the premises located at 138 High Street.
f NORTH 1
3? O L
p F
i
• o
;�SSACHUs�t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
r
g r � Dater
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
the Board of Appeals .
Kindly submit $ 51 for the following: �
v
Filing Fee $
Postage $ �
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and
may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main
Street , North Andover , Mass . 01845.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Audrey W. Taylor, Clerk
138 HIGH STREET
210/053.0-0020-0000.0 �` 'i7
For
Date �}
Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
rom
Phone No.
Area Code Number Extension
TELEPHONED URGENT
PLEASE CALL WANTS TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALF
Message__ 5*49;1� 4
_725 ��✓.�l Cdo-�J�C
Operator
oatacom 9161
�. A
f/
���. r• AroIt7r+ X►
koR'►ii ;�: s• pass ,�•�•
OCT L14 F1f1 �0? •►..Y•<
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS Any appeal shall- be filed
witHn (20) clays after the
BOARD O APPEALS ca of i. n cf this Notice i
in the office of the. Town
Clerk.
NOTICE OF DECISION
Myron A. Eastwood Date . . .Octoher• .22.1. .19.86. . . .
138 High St.
N. Andover , MA 01845 Petition No.. . . . .8.7.-:2.3. . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. .Pct pp.e r. .14.,. ,19 8 6
Decision : October . 21 , 1986 '
Petition of . . . . . . M.y r on • A• E•a s tw o ad . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected . . . . . .138& -Hi-gh. -St... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . .section. .7., .
Rara•graph. .7 . 2. .&• .7 .3. .and. T.abl.e . 2. .of . the . Zoning. .Byl,aw.s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit. . . relief •from• s.etb.ack, -on . exis.tin.g .house. . and. Ironta.ge. .on.
Lot- •A• and. .Lo.t .B... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . G.RAN.T. . . : the
v a r,i.a p.c.q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a
permit to . .My.r o n A:.. .E.a s two o.d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions:
1) House to be set back at least 50 ' from front lot line , on Lot B .
2) Only a single family dwelling allowed on lot B .
Signed f Fri�ze��� , Vice-chairman
• • • • • • • • •Aug tine .Nicke. an ,. .Ciari
. . . . . . . . .William. Sullivan... . . . . . . . . . ..
.Wa•lt.ex. • Soule . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .Raymond- Vvenz.i.o. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board.of Appeals
i
• I
+-' REC'C;t� Ll C� �o oTM 1
N0p� - E 40
a5 S !
(� e
4 �i s s
� I shall be filed
�� !�� s a
OCT �� Any a, , �a
within (c0) days after the
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER date Of fi i! Cf this Notice
MASSACHUSETTS in the Office of the Town 1
Clerk. -.-......
BOARD OF APPEALS
i
October 22 , 1986
Petition #87=23
Myron A . Eastwood
138 High Street
Mr . .Daniel Long, Town Clerk
120 Main Street
North Andover , MA 01845
Dear Mr . Long :
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on October 14 , 1986 upon
the application of Myron A. Eastwood requesting a variance from the
requirements of Section 7 , Paragraph 7 . 2 , 7 . 3 and Table 2 of the
Zoning Bylaws so as to permit relief from setback on existing house
and frontage on Lot A and Lot B . The following members were present
and voting : Alfred Frizelle , Vice-chairman , Augustine Nickerson ,
Clerk , William Sullivan , Walter Soule and Raymond Vivenzio .
The. hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on September 4
and September 11 , 1986 and all abutters were notified', by regular mail .
Upon a motion made by Walter Soule and seconded by William Sullivan ,
the Board voted , four (4) in favor and one (1) opposed to .GRANT the
variances requested subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50 ' from front lot line ,
on Lot B .
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed on Lot B .
r
The Board finds that Lot A a::d Lot B , with 75 '. frontage each satisfy
the minimum .re'quirements of Section 7 , Paragraph 7 . 2 . The Board
further finds that the size of the lots in question , each having
adequate area but lacking sufficent" frontage , is a substantial hard-
ship and that in granting the variance it is not in derogation of the
intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws nor will it adversely affect
the neighborhood .
Sincerely ,
BOARD OF- APPEALS
ANII
' Alf ed Frizel4 , Vice-chairman
/aw t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS
MOR M NOTICE
August 28,1986,
3+ .fey`�!.;• °0 Notice is hereby given that
the Board of Appeals will give
a hearing 'at the Town
+ s v Building, North Andover, on
Tuesday evening the 14 day of
��J'"TM•''�' October, 1986, at 7:30
SACH o'clock, to all
►
,parties in-
terested in the-ypeal of
Myron A.Eastwood requesting a variation of Sec. 7, Sec.-
7.2&7.3&Table 2 of the Zoning By.lj-*so as to permit
relief from setback on existing house'an*''rontage on bis A
&B on the premises, located at 138 High Street.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr., Chairman.
Publish North Andover Citizen, September 4 and. 11;
1986. 14
Legal Notice
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
r koR M 1ti August 28,1986
a ,*tK N7*.`;.°O Notice is hereby given that
f p the Board of Appeals will give
a hearing at the Town
.4 Building, ,'forth Andover, on
M°off;
. Tuesday e�ening the 14 day of
"Arab� ' October, 1986, at 7:30
S�CHUS o'clock, to all parties in-
terested in the appeal of
Myron A. Eastwood requesting a variation of Sec. 7, Sec.
7.2&7.3&Table 2 of the Zoning By Law so as to permit
relief from setback on existing house and frontage on lots A
&B on the premises,located at 138 High Street.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr., Chairman.
Publish North Andover Citizen, September 4 and 11,
1986. 14
gram and 1,300 in.continuing educa-
tion— for the 1986-1987 academic year.
From a single building, the college now
has more than a dozen covering 220
acres on the campus that spans the
North Andover-Andover town lines'
. i
N January 24, a special celebra-
tion will mark 40 years of Mer-
rimack athletics. Other activities
include the production of a videotape
about the college's 40 year history.
Other events and activities will be an-
nounced in the coming weeks. The year
will be capped off with a dinner-dance
on April 25, preceded by a special mass
�:
• �» r OQNit. 1t„� I
t " y; 1855 . •
TOWN. OF NORTH ANDOVER
f Y MASSACHUSETTS
. '.BOARD OF APPEALS
t
�$Y NOTICE
August. .2 8. . . . .19.8 6
Notice is hereby_tlkgiven that the Board of Appeals will give a
` hearing at the Town Building, North Andover,on. .T u.e.s d.a.y . .
eveni n.9 ,6' , . .the .1.4day of . .0ctobex . . . . . . . . . .
. . ,
19-86 , at.7 ; 310616ck, to all parties interested in the appeal of
Myron "A: ' .Eas•t•wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
requesting a variation of Sec..7.,. . S C 7 2. . &.of the Zoning
> .: 7 . 3 & Table 2
By Law so as to permitt ie
. . . . -f from setback' on existing house
and frontage .on lots . .A . &. .8 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ri�-r.'
on the premises,located at. . . . 1.3 8 H i g h •S t r e e.t . • • • • .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By,Order of the Board of Appear
rr
Frank Serio , r . , Chairman
Publish in N .A : Citizen on Sept . 4 & 11 , 1986 '
. f.tis f
Legal Notice
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
°As NOR N 1ti August 28,1986
�•' ��:;.°° Notice is hereby given that
A
the Board of Appeals will give
a hearing at the Town
Building, North Andover, on
•
16 ..�u :.• • Tuesday evening the 14 day of
�► ��*..%'" October, 1986, at 7:30
SSwCH o'clock, to all parties in-
tere%ed in the appeal of
Myron Ai Eastwood requesting a variation of Sec. 7, Sec.
7.2&7.3&Table 2 of the Zoning By Law so as to permit
relief from setback on existing house and frontage on lots A
&B on the premises,located at'138 High Street.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr., Chairman.
Publish North Andover Citizen, September 4 and 11,
1986. 14
FWIN
PIM
. P. L.
NORTH ANDOVER custom contemporary
9+ rooms including 4 bedrooms, 21!2 baths,
f;replaced dining room and family room,
master bedroom suite with jaccuzi, central
air. Beautifully decorated, includes custom
drapes and levelor blinds. $365,000
F
VILLAGE PROPERTIES
Kathy Hamel, broke
685-3519
A1, gal, lce
' TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
PNfv
a }Yt.Ntf BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
+ a pow N 1 August 2r8, .
! O j.e r '�' i j
t _ • Y,:�•.,.°o Notice is hereby gn that; 1
�.:
,. the Board of Appeals wil
' A a hearing at
the,.'Town r 3 +
Building, North Andover on'u '
i Tuesday evening the 14 day of
October, 1986, 'at 7-301
aa�c o'clock;. ,to .all !parties,in-'.,!'
F' `terested' in''the`'appeal' of
t Myron As Eastwood requesting a variation of,Sec 7 Sec:'
- ' 7.2&7.3&Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw so as to permit ;
relief from setback on existing house and frontage on lott As I
&B.on the premises,located.at 138 High Street ,t' I:' '
By Order of the Board of Appeals b
• Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman. "!
I'ubhsh 4North AndoverCibzen; Septemb }andtll" f
i . 1986: 14. 1
t
C • ll. f `,e# ,. .r. t
I ,
ilk,,-
t
q.
�j
I.
t
NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOR711
120 MAIN STREET ��.'"`" '•,��
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845
,SSACMu
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS TEL. 888-8102
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ,,./-
GAS INSPECTOR OliI.CJ b eA 14, 1986
Boated oA AppeaZz.
Town U 6 dice Buif-ding
NoAth Andoverc.; MA.
Gentlemen:
No comment i6 nece,&satcy 4Aom me on the �jottowing
pet bows 6ot divaion o6 .land:
1 . Myron A. Ea6twood
2. Pe teA Ku&,gan
3. Ft anc iz Gucci oAdi
4. (V 2Q iam Mai teuu on
veAy ftut y youu,
CHARLES H. FOSTER
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
AND
ZONING OFFICER
CHS':a4,
k
I
October 14 , 1986
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting 'on October 14, 1986 , Tuesday
evening at 7 : 30 p .m. in the Senior Center . Present and voting were the
-- following members : Alfred Frizelle , Vice-chairman , Augustine Nickerson ,
Clerk , William Sullivan, Walter Soule , Raymond Vivenzio and, alternate
Anna O' Connor.
Due to the large crowd, the proceeding were explained by Mr . Frizelle , in
order to save time on the Boards part as well as the petitioners .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Myron A. Eastwood - Variance - 138 High Street
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson
Lawyer for petitioner spoke regarding this petition . He said that they
needed an area and frontage variance in order to split the property on
High Street. Although 100 ' frontage is required, they would have 75 ' on
each lot. He said that the failure to grant this petition would create
a hardship on the petitioner due to the fact that the land could not be
sold for any purpose , Pptitioner propose to build a single family dwell-
ing.
Mr. Vivenzio questioned the size of lots in the neighborhood and attorney
stated that they are all approximately the same size as proposed by the
petitioner. He said that the Board has approved others on the street that
are similar to the one proposed.
- - Attorney Randazzo spoke for Debra Pitrochelli , who is interested in buying
the property and has a purchase agreement with Mr . Eastwood . She wants
to build a single family dwelling and is a first time buyer . Her plans
are not available at this time , and she does not intend to sell the land
now.
Mr . A. Spirdione an abutter at 126 High St . spoke in opposition to this
petiton , stating that he had wanted to buy 25 ' to 30 ' area to add to his
lot , as they are only 6 ' from the line now . He wants the open space left
as the homes in area are too close already .
Mr. L. Windle spoke in opposition of the petition stating that by granting
this , two more non-conforming lots would be added to the neighborhood .
Several homes at other end of street are multi-family , and with the Gould
Company moving to North Andover (D & F) there will be a great increase in
traffic on High Street . He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied.
John Simon of the Planning Board stated that the petitioner has to show a
hardship will be created if the petition is denied, and none has been shown .
Future use advantage should not be considered as a hardship .
Motion made by Mr . Sullivan and seconded by Mr . Nickerson to take this
matter under advisement . The vote was unanimous .
William & Cora McMillan - Variance - 28 Rock Road
Legal notice read by Mr . Nickerson , Clerk .
f
TELEPHONE 685-4555
�• GJ�QL 212 �. O CE __t`r
y ,3 (((III
Pcr" ' I' " ELLIS BUILDING
ATTORNEY AT LAW - �
95 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845
November 7, 1986
Town of North Andover
DANIEL LONG, TOWN CLERK
120 Dain Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: LEONARD WINDLE, ET AL VS. SERIO, ET AL
DOCKET NO. 86-2814
Dear Sir:
Enclosed, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40A, Section 17 you will find a copy of the Complaint filed in
the Essex County Superior Court appealing the granting of a
variance to Myron A. Eastwood.
V . y truly yours,
Ralph F2. Joyce
RRJ:mjj
enc.
cc: Certified Dail, Return Receipt Requested to:
Frank Serio, Jr.
Augustine Nickerson
Alfred Frizelle
William Sullivan
Walter Soule
Raymond Vivenzio
Myron A. Eastwood
I
J�
COPY
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. _2 jZ
LEONARD WINDLE, ALBERT J. SPIRDIONE,
KEVIN J. SMITH, JAY FARROW, RALPH
WILDE, JR. , MATTHEW COTE,
Plaintiffs
VS. * CO1PI. T
FRANK SERIO, .i R. , ALFRED FRI ZELLE, '
AUGUSTINE NICKERSON, WILLIAM SULLIVAN,*
WALTER SOULE, RAYMOND VIVENZIO,as they*
are members of the Board of Appeals of* -
North Andover, MA, and
*
MYRON A. EASTWOOD
Defendants
JURISDICTION
1. This is an action brought pursuant to Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter, 40A, Section 17 to appeal the granting--of
a variance by the Board of Appeals, Town of North Andover,-MA.
PARTIES
2. The Plaintiff, Leonard Windle, is an adult individual
residing at 119 High Street, North Andover, FSA.
3. The Plaintiff, Albert J. Spirdione, is an adult individual
residing at 126 High Street, North Andover, MA. j
1� 4. The Plaintiff, Kevin J. Smith, is an adult individual 1
f residing at 110 High Street, North Andover, !MA.
5 . The Plaintiff, Jay Farrow, is an adult individual residing
at 108 High Street, Borth Andover, MA.
6 . The Plaintiff, Ralph Wilde, Jr. , is an adult individual
residing at 119 High Street, North Andover, PA.
RALPH R.JOYCE 7. The Plaintiff, Matthew Cote, is an adult individual
ATTpnttEY AT LAM residing at 116 High Street, worth Andover, HA. .. .
n,4.$oN STAEET ..... -r ..� -:. ._ ..
No('TH ANDOVER,MA OIS45
I
i
The Defendant, Frank - Serio, Jr. , is an adult individual
. . - - residing at 250 Hillside Road, Forth Andover, MA.
9. The Defendant, Raymond Vivenzio, is an adult individual
residing at 11 Appledore Street, North Andover, MA.
180 The Defendant, William Sullivan, is an adult individual �
residing at 485 Salem Street, North Andover, PSA. j
11. The Defendant, Augustine Nickerson, is an adult individual
residing at 100 Moody Street, North Andover, MA.
12. The Defendant, Alfred Frizelle, is an adult individual
residing at 131 Appleton Street, North Andover, N.A.
13. The Defendant, Walter Soule, is an adult individual
residing at i8 Raleigh Tavern Lane, North Andover, MA.
14. The Defendant, Myron A. Eastwood, is an adult individual
residing at 138 High Street,. North Andover, MA.
15. The Defendants, Frank Serio, Jr. , Raymond Vivenzio,
William - Sullivan, Augustine Nickerson, Alfred Frizelle,
and falter Soule are the members of the Board of Appeals
for the Town of North Andover, SSA.
ALLEGATIONS
16. The Defendant, Myron A. Eastwood, on August 28, 1986 filed �
a request for a variance from the frontage and set back f
requirements as they effect 138 High Street, North
Andover, MA. A certified copy is attached as Exhibit A.
17. - On October 22, 1986, the Defendant Board of Appeals of j
North Andover filed with the Town Clerk its Notice of
Decision granting Eastwood' s request for a variance. A
certified copy is attached as Exhibit B.
18. The Plaintiffs are all persons aggrieved by the decision
of the Board of Appeals, filed with the Town Clerk on
October 22, 1986.
19. The decision of the Board of Appeals exceeds its authority
as:
A. There are no circumstances relating to the soil
condition, shape or topography of the land or
structures Especially effecting such land or
structures, but not effecting generally the zoning
district in which the land is located;
RALPH R.JOYCE
ATTORNEY AT LAW- .. B. A literal enforcement of the By-Law would not invoke
SMAINSTREET a substantial hardship to Rast�sood;
{.ORTH ANDOVER.WA 01645 -
B1)1585 1555
-2-
1�
C The granting of . the variance causes substantial
detriment to the public good and nullifies or
substantially derogates from the intent and purpose
of the law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand:
1. That the decision of the Board of Appeals by annulled;
2. That this Honorable Court grant such other relief that it
deems just and appropriate.
DATED: LEONARD WINDLE, ET AL
by their attorney
RALPH R. JOYCE
95 Main Street
Forth Andover, MA 01845 i
(617) 685-4555
N
i
I
t
RALPH R.JOYCE
A1TUANEY AT LAW
MAIN STREET � -
' �.1TI5 A4;SOVE!T,k;AO�R<5
(.;try&^51855
-3-
MOTH
,� •'" L r - - " ' i
SSACHUS� t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER d,
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
x 6P•
1 ��5 Date: _ -uv If'
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
the Board of Appeals .
Kindly submit $ .a o�� for the following:
Filing Fee $
Postage $
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and
may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main
Street , North Andover , Mass . 01845.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
�\
Audrey W. Taylor, Clerk
3 /
l��
rr
ok
s•;:eeived by Town Clerk:
' � 32 s��� U� `y'' �• .II
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS ''
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant�,�y 2y tiGASl.Jp 0� Address ��/�/,f/• ; ''
1. Application is .hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section Paragraph v
and Table 1-r of -tyhe Zoning By Laws .
b) For a Special Permit under Section Paragraph of the Zoning
BY Laws .
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the
Building Inspector or other authority.
2. a) Premises affected are land. and building(s ) numbered
h�&# Street .
b) Premises affected are .property with frontage on the North ( )
South ( ) East (X) West ( ) side of IVI&W si
Street , and known as No. / 3 `�/G�/,I :S Street .
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District S/ , and the premises
affected have an area of /C�� �"c�C� square feet and frontage of
Z9 feet .
3. Ownership
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all names ) : a,
^a
Date of Purchase_� �revious Owner
b) If applicant is not owner , check his/her interest in the premises: .'
Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain)
_ r
front feet deep;
a Size of proposed building:
P Height stories; -p� feet . as
y
a) Approximate date of erection:
b) Occupancy or use of each floor :
) YP
c Type of construction:
I �__ .'
S. Size of existing buildingfeet front 5i 3, 7 feet deep;
% feet .
Height ht stories; t
a Approximate date of erection: ,
:,•.
b) Occupancy or use of 'each floor: I� :zl� t!vCA
c) Type of construction: WO
6. Has there been a previous appeal , under zoning, on these premises? ;.'
/� If so, when?
r
t r
,
7. Description of relief ' sought on this petition f-�'�j',�L,�
F:
Cki s hti� /Xa,h,A � a,, Z IS / Z ff, 25-, -21 75 ,
8. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book �/'S/ Page
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page 'Fla
} r- The principal points upon which I base my application are as ,followsz Yti
": .. (must be stated in detail )
0 7S ,.� 1— o e o /S oop a� o0o s 1 . ,
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and incidental
expegses* ;•,.1�,
Signature-o Petitioner (s )
Every application for action by the Board shall, be made on a form approved
by the Board. These forms -shall be furnished by the Clerk upon request.
�rAny communication purporting to be an application shall be treated as mere, ,
notice of intention to seek relief until such time as it is made on the
official application form. All information called for by the form shall
" ) be furnished by the applicant in the manner therein prescribed .
Every application shall be submitted with a list of "Panties In Interest
which list shall .include the petitioner, abutters owners of land directly:-'.,
opposite on any public or private street or ways and abutters to the
abutters within three' hundred feet ( 300 ) of the property line of the rrl
petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list,
notwithstanding that the land of any such owner is located in another city, „: '�;
or town, the Planning Board of the city or town, and the Planning Board of " I
}< ; every abutting city or town.
r jr�.n1
*Every application shall be submitted with an application charge cost in • ,
� •' the amount of $25. 00. In addition, the petitioner shall be responsible
: for any and all costs involved. in bringing the petition before' .the, Board. , • :
Such costs shall include mailing and publication, but are not necessarily
limited to these.
Every application shall be submitted with a plan of land approved by the
i Board. No petition will be brought before the Board unless said plan has ..: :.-
been
as <been submitted. Copies of the Board' s requirements regarding plans are
attached hereto or -are available from the Board of Appeals upon request.
,'. LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST
Name Address
• \: AFI:{�
b
-4 y
y 1 t tt l
F
j'4..'0
' I
(use additional sheets if necessary) fi
AllMJ
i la;r� rti �
J. : ;,�
c
; ��i M1 t tat 4 r •� " .
:,PLAN OF LAND TO ACCOMPANY PETITION
� +tet �,.r.� - . f � ;, }, •
r` Each' a lication� and' petition to the Board shall be accompanied b
five. ( 5) copies of the following described plan: -
'�,.The size 'of the ;plan,`' shall be 11 x 17, drawn to scale, l ' inch
"equals- 40 feet- .,. it��shall have a north point , names of streets ,
.-�11-;zoning districts`, names . and addresses of owners of properties
wN*}.within a minimum" ot1! 200 feet of the subject property, property
lines and locati6n4%f buildings on surrounding properties . The
.,;'•, location of buildings or use of. the property where a variance is
*� `i-L':-requested . and distances from adjacent buildings and property lines
shall be verified' Un the field and shown on the plan . The
iJt ....
• ,- �-. .: dimensions of the l,ot and the percentage of the Lot covered by the
^ '.f,;';'.principal and accessory buildings and the required parking spaces
shalI be shown. Entrances , exits , driveways , etc. that are
A41'
pertinent to the
s p granting of the variance shall be shown. All
A41'.
X proposed data shall "be shown in red .
Any 'topog.raphical feature of the parcel of land relied upon for a
,.q,�,, variance, such as ledge , rock peat , or natural condition of water ,
i._� ;.1.
+#
;�.:, : brook, or river , sYi$11 be shown on the engineering plan . When a
c"�� ``'variance is re uested to subdivide a parcel of land, the dimen-
sions and area'.of .;the surrounding lots may be taken from the deed
or lotting plan for;:'% comarison of the size of the lots in the
neighborhood, notedg-on the plan as such, and marked approximate .
The plan shall besigned and bear the seal of a registered
surveyor or engine8r'. Any, plans presented with the petition shall
remain apart of 'the,' records , of the Board of Appeals .
If living quarters -,are to be remodeled, or' areas are to be
' . .::-.converted into living quart-ers,,.• in addition to the plot plan, five
'.
�•• (5) copies of the following described plans shall be furnished:
y r'; .. 1. A floor plan of Teach floor on which remodeling is to be done
or areas converted into living quarters;
2. A floor plan showing the stairways , halls, doors opening into
�r.: .. the halls, and7exit doors of each floor or floors where no re-
modeling or converting is to be done;
3. The. plans and elevations shall show all existing work. All
proposed work shall be shown in red. The size of each plan
shall be 11 x 17 or 17 x 22; it shall be drawn to scale, 1/4 0
inch equals one foot.
All plans and elevations presented with the petition shall remain
1: a part of the records of the Board of Appeals .
r
For petitions requesting variation(s ) from the provisions of
Section 7, Paragrpahs 7. 1, 7. 2, 7. 3, and 7. 4 and Table 2 of the
+ '
syr } Zoning By Law for conveyance purposes only, a plot plan, certified
by a registered engineer or land surveyor , of ' the parcel of land
with a structure thereon being conveyed, will be acceptable to the
Board of Appeals provided:
1. The dwelling(s )' structure(s ) , or building(s ) were constructed
y prior .to March 14, 1977 .
2. The petition iw. not to allow construction or alteration to
the dwelling(s)' structure 's ) , or building 's ) =,��hich will re-
, ?;� suit in the, need for the issuance of a building permit .
• fes t5', — •
3.
The size -.of th4iTplan shall be no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11
inches and must show the existing area of the parcel , the
existing frontage, and the existing setbacks of the
. �', dwelling(s ) , structure(s ) , or building(s ) being conveyed.
4. Proper space .iso' rovided on the plot plan for the Board' s
signatures , •aswell as adequate space for the following
information: date of filing , date of public hearing , and
` , r: date of approval .
4P
(5A2c e,L / �• %1A2L�(yJ �i' �A 2Z CJ
qe
✓tc- e✓J
--. _ . .� /VG,eI� ✓✓w,oa vim-
/l A7 a ss .
�/,O,4,O0 v
y,33 /U, . &m iD (i DZ Svc , 960
(r'
Az c.e- Z�),Vcrcrz
7 A;
koo AAI )VOUP-
3 7
A, 0 ab5z- YA SS-
/&-ce--� AV ' CJ
CI6 �N��� -,-X� / A .