HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 40 COACHMANS LANE 4/30/2018 (4) J 14 tC I EL A, kETTE,v,8140
_I
03"Variance ❑ Spe
acial Permit
APPLICATION HLED ON:
DECISION DUE ON*
ESSELTE
MADE IN U.S.A. NO. 752 1/3
° e e
I
{
I
t
1
J
t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE
,AORTIA
of •`je�•1� August 20,1985
Notice is h
= s •, °o ereby given that
pthe Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,
North Andover, on Monday
evening, the 10th day of
�,'-�;�r:p�;• �} September 1985, at 7:30
ass^cHusf� o'clock, to all parties in
terested in `he appeal of
Michael L. Kettenbach,40 Coachman's Lane,fefriesting a
variation of Sec. 7, Par. 7.2 and Table?of the'Zoning By
Law so as to permit variance from the street frontage re-
quirements with respect to the building moratorium under
the Water Shed District Temporary Growth Limitation,Sec-
tion 4,paragraph 4.133(4)on the premises,located at land
bordering on Lake Cochichewick by N/F Boston University,
N/F Albert F. Cullen, Jr., N/F Estate of Mary F. Charles
with access on Osgood Street.
By Order of the Board of Appeals.
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman
Publish N.A.Citizen:Aug.22 and Aug.29,1985 h17
SCHOOL ART— Scenes from Hans Chrisi
tasies will greet North Andover kindergarti
when they step inside the new Early Childl
Bradstreet School on Main St. Here artist B
Olsen told The Citizen that School
Supt. Leslie Bernal is to be credited with
initially con0eiving of the idea of the
Hans Christian Andersen murals.
"He wanted to make an old-fashioned
school very appealing,"she said. The ar-
chitecture of the school fits in perfectly
with the style and mood.of the Hans
. h
µ
>. �NoirrH' RECEi�rcOOOR4O
TOWN~. A�OL7 DANIEL LOHG
�:� NORTH AND-9V R
►►►►rrvvv� SEI GG
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
ra BOARD Of APPEALS
•,,..�, the
��'r''�o i• E NOTICE OF DECISION
date of fiiin� °f l`theTown '
in the Office of,
Clerk. - Date . .September •17., . 198S . -
Petition
1,985. . .Petition No.. . . . .#5.1-.8.5 . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. .S ep tembe r. 10 ,. 1985
Michael L. Ke ttenb ach
Petition of
Bordering on Lake Cochichewick ( in watershed area)
Refe the a titi fq a aria on from a uiremen of. Section 7 ,
Paragrap �f an al e o tie onIng Ry as an wi gi' respect to 'the
building moratorium under the Water Shed District Temporary Growth
Limitation Section 4 , paracjrapYi
4.'1'33 (4Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit . . to. b•uil,d. .one• house, •qri, ,3Q„apses,,• ,more, ,or, ,less, with, no
contamination of any sort to Lake Cochichewick .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . DENY. . . . . ; the'
Var.iarn.ce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 1W ZMKXUffi"4BW1h'iaXBQUW$ffi* Xtf KA
Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan to deny variance .
XR XAXX . . V.otting .to deny.:. . . Mr.. .Frizelle.,. .Mr. . Sullivan,. r... .SQule . .
and Mr. Nickerson. Abstained: . Mr. Serio.
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: The Bo and f i n ds th a t
the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Section 10 .4 as to
either section of the Bylaw which he requested a variance . In particular
the 30 acre parcel is a portion of a greater parcel which the owner of ,
record submitted plans to the Planning Board for a subdivision. The
landlocked parcel in question would- be part of the subdivision and the
fact that the parcel does not have frontage is not of sufficent hardship ,
(continued on Page 2) Sttgne Frank Serio, Jr . Chairman
• . . • . • • • •Al•fred -E•: • F•rizelle, • Esq-. , Vice Chr.
• . •Augustine -W: -N-ickerson.,. -Clerk
. . . . . . . . . .Wi•l1i•am• J: •Su1.1ivan. • • • • •
• . .Wa.lte.r-F:.- Soule . . • . • • . . • .
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BodM of Appeals
'Page 2
Michael L. Kettenbach Land bordering Lake
to a prospective purchaser. Bince 'ther is no hardship shown as to
Section 7. 2 , the Board finds likewise that there is no statutary,
hardship reason to allow construction of a dwelling with the Water-
shed District.
BOARD OF APPrALS
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman u
/awt
RECEIVED
DANIELLOI;G
d - p TOWN CLERK
�o ro NORTH ANDOVER
---- - ,� S. S
CNUS CHU�n SEP Z� � 06 PM 1
SA4
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
2
BOARD OF APPEALS
September 24 , 1985
Mr. Daniel Long Michael L. Kettenb ach
Town Office Building Land bordering Lake Cochichewick
North Andover , MA 01845 Petition #51-85
Dear Mr. Long:
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing -on Tuesday, September 10 ,
1985 upon the application of Michael L. Kettenbach . The hearing
was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on August 22 and August. 291
1985 and all abutters were notified by regular mail. The following
members were present and voting: Chairman Frank Serio, Jr. , Vice "
Chairman Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq. , Clerk Augustine W. Nickerson, William J
Sullivan and Walter F. Soule.
The petitioner seeks a variance ;for•', the,street"'fr.orntag'e because*--the7 .2 ,
parcel is Landlocked. Further', ze'- desires. .to -locate a dwelling within
the Watershed District and requgsts a variance to do so . This single-
family dwe-ling would be on a 30 acre parcel of land off Osgood Street
abutting Lake Cochichewick.
The Board, upon motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr , Sullivan,
voted to DENY the variance requested for Section 7 , Paragraph 7 .2 ,
Table 2 and Section 4 , Paragraph 4 . 133 (4) . Member Serio did not
vote to deny.
The Board finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements
of Section 10. 4 as to either section of the BuLaw for which he requested
a variance. In particular the 30 acre parcel is a portion of a greater
parcel which the owner of record submitted plans to the Planning Board .
for a subdivision. The landlocked parcel in question would be part of,
the subdivision and the fact that the parcel does not have frontage
is not of sufficent hardship to a prospective pruchaser. Since there is
no hardship shown as to Section 7.2 , the Board finds likewise that there
is no statutary hardship reason to allow construction of a dwelling
within the Watershed District.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
nSerio,.'
e i o �.
Frank S r , J
Chairman
/aw t
P,
a• TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER'
BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE
NONi�i
01 August 20, 1985
�r ; , ; o Notice is hereby given that
o the Board of Appeals will give
p hearing at the Town Building,,
+ North Andover,.on Monday
` `•• ,r; evening, ,the 10th' day of
^� �, "";';.••�S September. 1985, at 7:30
ss^cHusE� o'clock, to all .parties in-
terested In'the appeal of
Michael L.,Kettenbach;40 Coachman's Lane,-requesting a,
variation of Sec. 7, Par. 7.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning By
Law so as to permit variance from the street frontage re-
.-_—.__ quirements with respect to the building moratorium under
the Water Shed District Temporary Growth Limitation,Sec-
tion 4,paragraph 4.133(4).on the premises;located at land
,bordering on Lake Cochichewick by N/F Boston'University,',
N/F Albert F. Cullen,Jr., N/F Estate of MaryF. Charley
+ with access on Osgood Street.+
By Order of the Board.of,,Appeals. ;
Frank Serio;Jr.;Chairman
Publish N.A.Citizen:Aug.22 and Aug.29,1985 h 17
MEETING IS ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10 , 1985
' I
y'
� , I
ad
FROM: •• •
l
curl'. YL; ORION: /; (� :A '1 �►
I � / l• f` �
Initials of tRecei
• Lt)ij�;� 1 r �_ ')1JJ.. ClerkVing DESTIPJATION:
O
P.O.ZIP Code Date of Del.: f Time of Del.:
� � ,
7 ry
a Initials Of Del.Emp.: <
Date In Time in + Y
Customer Number,If any. M
Signature of AdQreE•� or'AgentA
r Return Receipt Service / M
+ ,TO: (Additional fee required) DELIVERY WAS ATTU.7TED r
u� ''Y'�'.� uLi r (;�1i! Z')ui,u ❑To Whom&Date Del. Date: Time: a
❑To Whom.Date
f.O^r a O- &Address of Del. Notice Left By: 7C
Town Of i .Lc,;!.3 m
o ..0:t1 Ar oVuT, ...,, U1j''J Weight w
Lbs. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE M
Postage
U.S.G.P.O.1984—440.389 Label 118(1-84)
&Fees:$, ,
1
71
1. Consult your Next Day Service Network Directory for
destination and rate information.
2. Prepare the customer portion of the Next Day Service }
mailing label (Post Office to Post Office or. Post Office
to Addressee).
3. Affix postage, using postage meter or,adhesive 4 ':
stamps.
4. Mail at an Express Mail Post Office, deposit in;a :
special Express Mail collectior .box;tor give to a�USPSa Y fi
mail carrier. F
PLACE MAILING LABEL HERE
i
F
Mpll Tl/
p R
F p
• � -i r
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
-
Date: O /9xs'
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
the Board of Appeals .
Kindly submit $_ / 'T _ 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
I
�O
w
L 1
r*W
-64
6 �
r
SECTION 7 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
y
7 .1 Lot Area
Minimum lot areas for such uses in each district shall. l +
as set forth in Table 2, Summary of Dimensional Require-
ments, which is hereby made part of this By-Law. til
1 ) In determining the fulfillment of the minimum area
and minimum street frontage of a lot required in anV
zoning district, there shall not be included any land
within the limits of a street upon which such lot abuts
even if the fee to such street is in the owner of the
lot; except that if a corner lot at its street corner ir .
bounded in part by a segment of curved line not more th, � .
seventy-five ( 75 ) feet in length connecting other lines
bounding such lot which if extended would intersect, th
C
area and frontage required in such lot shall. be compute<
and if such potentially intersecting lines were so
extended; but if a curved line more than seventy-fi.v-
( 75 ) feet in length is the whole of any one boundary lili'
of a lot, the minimum area and minimum frontage requirea
shall be determined entirely within the lines bounding
such lot, including such curved line.
2 ) No lot, upon which is then located any buildings o
with respect to which a permit has been issued incl is
then outstanding for the erection of any building, slhall
be subdivided or reduced in area in any manner unless
said lot shall thereafter fulfill the lot area, street
frontage and yard space requirements of this By=law
except as may be permitted otherwise by the provisions o`
a variance granted by the Board of Appeals . If land bf :,' .
subdivided, conveyed, devised or otherwise transferred
^'(
violation hereof, no building permit or other permit
shall be issued with reference to any of the land so
transferred or to the lot( s) retained until all of sur-Ir"' 'y
land and lots meet the requi-rements of. this Zoning By-
Law. Any land taken by eminent domain or conveyed for
public purpose for which the land could have been
�a
shall. not be deemed to be transferred in violation of tlr"' '
provisions hereof .
7 . 2 Street Frontage '.
Minimum street frontage shall be as set forth in Tattle
In no case shall. actual street frontage at the streetVA1''`
tine be less than seventy-five ( 75 ) feet . Co-ner lots
shall be required to have the required frontage only on
one street .
I
-65-
1. ) Minimum street frontage exceptions for larger lots :
notwithstanding the above provisions, a lot in any
residential. district need not have the specified amount
of street frontage, provided that :
a ) The area of the lot exceeds by three ( 3 ) tomes
the minimum lot area required for that district ;
b) The lot has a minimum continuous street frontage
of not less that fifty ( 50 ) feet and a wi.dtli of
not less than fifty ( 50) feet at any point be--
tween the street and the site of the dwelling;
c) There i.s not more than one other such lot with
frontage contiguous to it ; and
d) It is not so located as to block the possi.ble
future extension of a dead end street .
e) No such lot as described above on which a dwelling
is located, shall be hereafter reduced in area
below the minimum area required in Section 7 . 2 . 1—
( 1985/16 )
7 .3 Yards (Setbacks)
Minimum front, side and rear setbacks shall be as set
forth in Table 2. , except for eaves and uncovered steps .
Buildings on corner lots shall have the requited front
setback from both streets, except in Residence 4 (R-4 )
District, where the setback from the side street shall be
twenty (20) feet minimum.
7 .4 Building Heights
Maximum heights of buildings and structures shall be as '
set forth in Table 2 . The foregoing limitations of
height in feet in the designated zoning districts shall
not apply to:
1 . Farm buildings on farms of not less than ten ( 10 )
acres .
2 . Nor shall they apply to chimneys, ventilators, sky-
lights, tanks, bulkheads, penthouses, processing
towers, and other accessory structural_ features
usually erected at a height greater than the main
roofs of any building:
3 . Nor to domes, bell towers, or spires of churches
or other buildings, provided al-1 features are in no
way used for living purposes .
-67a-
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Res. Res. Res. Res. Res. Bus. Bus. Bus. Bus. Gen. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind.
1 2 3 4 56 7 1 27 3 4 Bus. 1 2 3 S
Lot Area- 65,340 43,560 25,000 12,500 43,5605 25,000 25,000 120,000 80,000 25,000 80,000 80,000 435,600 50,000
Min. S.F.
Height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 60 45 55 55 55 55
Maximum (ft.)
Street Fron- 175 150 125 100 150 125 125 300 200 125 150 150 150 150
tage-Minimum
(ft.)
Front Set- 30 30 30 308 30 30 25 100 50 25 50 50 10010 30
back Minimum
(ft.)
Side Set- 30 30 20 15 25 202 252 503 503 252 503 503 20010 202
back Minimum
(ft.)
Rear Set- 30 30 30 30 30 302 302 503 50 352 503 503 20010 302
back Minimum
(ft.)
Floor Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75:1 0.30:1 0.75:1 0.40:1 1.50:1 N/A 0.50:1 0.50:1 0.50:1 0.50:1
Ratio-Maximum
Lot Coverage N/A N/A N/A N/A 208 308 358 30% 258 358 35% 358 35811 35%
Maximum
Dwelling Unit N/A N/A N/A N/A Multi-family12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Density-Maxi- Townhouses7
mum/acre
k
A ItI" " C
-35-
4. 133 Watershed District
(1 ) Purpose:
The Watershed District surrounding Lake Cochi.ch-
ewick, our source of water supply, is intended
to preserve and maintain the filtration and
purification function of the land, the ground
water table, the purity of the ground water and
the lake, to conserve the natural environment
and to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
(2 ) Prohibited Uses :
a) Dumping trash, rubbish, garbage, wood
stumps, peat, junk, or other waste
materials, underground steel storage tanks
for petroleum products shall be prohibited .
( 1985/13 )
(3 ) Dimensions and No Build Requirements :
a) Boundaries of the Watershed District are
designated specifically on the certified
North Andover Watershed Map, 1.978, and
are shown on the Zoning Map. These maps
are hereby made a part of this By-Law and
are on fi. le in the office of the Town Clerk .
b) When the Watershed District boundary divides
a lot of record on June 26, 1978 in one
ownership, all the zoning regulations set
forth in this Zoning By-Law applying to the
greater part by area of such lot so divided
may, by Special Permit, he deemed to apply
and govern at and beyond such Watershed
District boundary, but only to an extent not
more than one hundred ( 100 ) linear feet in
depth (at a .right angle to such boundary)
into the lesser part by area of such lot so
divided.
c) A no-cut buffer zone shall exist one hundred
fifty ( 150) feet horizontally from the
annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochich-
ewick and twenty-five (25 ) feet horizontal.l.y
from the edge of all tributaries in the
Watershed.
d) No construction shall occur two hundred
fifty (250) feet horizontally from the
annual mean high water mark of Lake
Cochichewick and one hundred ( 100) feet
-36-
horizontally from the edge of al. l tribu-
taries. The intent herein is dimensional.
and the North Andover Board of Appeals shall.
grant variances upon a showing of
substantial hardship owing to the soil. ,
shape or topography of the land, including
the right to cross such tributaries .
( 1985/14)
(4 ) Lake Cochichewick Preservation Amendment
( 1985/12 )
a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
bylaw to the contrary, no permits shall. be
issued for the construction of any new
building, structure, road, or driveway or
for earth removal. , except for the proposed
municipal water filtration plant, within the
Watershed District for a period of three ( 3 )
years from the effective date of this
amendment .
b) This amendment shall not apply to any
renovation, alteration, or addition to an
existing building, structure, road , i
driveway, or any structure in agricultural
or horticultural use .
c) A use variance may be granted by the Board 4j
of Appeals for the issuance of a bu:i. l.di.ng
permit within this three-year period but not
for a use not otherwise allowed by thA [W41
distr. ist regulations .
4 . 134 Flood Plain District WE
(1 ) Flood Plain District
The Flood Plain District is herein established
as an overlay district . The underlying per-
mitted uses are allowed provided that they
meet the Massachusetts State Building Code
dealing with construction in floodpl_ains and
the following additional. requirements . The .
Flood Plain District includes a1.1 special
flood hazard areas designated as Zone A,
Al-30 on the North Andover Flood Insurance
Rate Maps, (FIRM) , and the Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps, dated June 15 , 1983, on
file with the Town Clerk, Planning Board,
Conservation Commission, and Building
Inspector . These maps, as well as the
accompanying North Andover Flood Insurance
Study, are incorporated herein by reference.
a� Nc�*ti ,,M EI,CIVE!O
1 �! •.x1O ' '�L At�IEL
o . p TO'e'fll CL.FFtY.
ORT14 ANDOVER
Z '• 85
�ssAcMus��
o?JX TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
��\ �`l- •.•�: Q, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
September 24 , 1985
G
Mr . Daniel Long Michael L. Y.ettenbach
Town Office Building Land bordering Lake Cochichewick .
North Andover , MA 01845 Petition #51-8y
Dear Mr. Long:
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday , September 10 ,
1985 upon the application of Michael L. Kettenbach . The hearing
was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on August 22 and August 29 ,
1985 and all abutters were notified by regular mail . The following
members were present and voting: Chairman Frank Serio, Jr. , Vice
Chairman Alfred E. Frizelle , Esq. , Clerk Augustine W. Nickerson , William J
Sullivan and Walter F. Soule .
The petitioner seeks a variance ,for` the, street" frontage because-t1ne
parcel is Landlocked. Further., , e desires to locate a dwelling within
the Watershed District and requgsts a variance to do so . This single-
family dwe-ling would be on a 30 acre parcel of land off Osgood Street
abutting Lake Cochichewick.
The Board, upon motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr . Sullivan,
voted to DENY the variance requested for Section 7f Paragraph 7 . 2 ,
Table 2 and Section 4 , Paragraph 4 . 133 (4) . Member Serio did not
vote to deny.
The Board finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements
of Section 10 . 4 as to either section of the BuLaw for which }ie requested
a variance. In particular the 30 acre parcel is a portion of a greater
parcel which the owner of record submitted plans to the Planning Board
for a subdivision. The landlocked parcel in question would be part of
the subdivision and the fact that the parcel does not have frontage
is not of sufficent hardship to a prospective pruchaser. Since there is
no hardship shown as to Section 7 .2 , the Board finds likewise that there
is no statutary hardship reason to allow construction of a dwelling
within the Watershed District.
Sincerely ,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Frank Serio, J
Chairman
/aw t
o�e;O1n':! REP,EINTD
O'VQR'J'� QAWEL LONG
A"ILT" :;0 TO'�'tl CLERK
� 's'• Baas HORTN AW)OVER
^F'°:',� SEP 2Li i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
r•'^ BOARD OF APPEALS
' :;i•.�r the
NOTICE OF DECISION
etc of ii�ic1, of iiii� ivolice
the ()[liceof. the Town
lerk. Date . .September• • 17•, • 19 8S
Petition No.. . . . . #5.1-.8.5 . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. .September. 10 , 1985
Petition of
Michael L. Ke ttenb ach • • • • • . • • • • • • • . . . .
Bordering on Lake Cochichewick ( in watershed area)
Premises affected
Section 7 ,
Refeging the eye, fo�t a aria�}on from thytequirementp of.tlton. P
t� 1 aw ci . . . . .
Paragraph an a e o tie onin s an wi res ect to he
building moratorium under the Water Shed District Temporary Growth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lim�.tation Sect.ion 4•,• •paragraph 4:1'33'('4•)• :' ' • • • • • • •
F30 as to permit ono, house- -Qn• •3Q- "Pres.,. •more_ •o r, •less ,• with no.
contamination of any sort to Lake Cochichewick .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . DENY. . . . - . the
Var.iance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XYd: 1xyKi$h14tilXB�liYd �� 5�o`t�irXi§ u"ex
Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan to deny variance .
XxixY53dit X . . .otting .to deny.:. . . Mr.. .Frizelle.,. .Mx. . Sulliv.an,. .I`? .•, .SQul.e. . .
and Mr. Nickerson. Abstained: Mr. Serio.
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: The Board finds that
the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Section 10 . 4 as to
either section of the Bylaw which he requested a variance . In particular
the 30 acre parcel is a portion of a greater parcel which the owner of
record submitted plans to the Planning Boardfor a subdivision. The
landlocked parcel in question would be part of the subdivision and the
fact that the parcel does not have f ontF ank sSe not
to of r u Chairmancent hardship .
(continued on Page 2)
. . . • • • • • • •Al-fred•E : • Frizelle , . .Esq . , V_ ce Chr.
• • • • • • • • •Augustine -W: -Nickerson ,. -Clerk
• • • • • • • •Wi-lliam• J : . Sul•livan• • • • • •
• • • • • • •Walte.r •Y...- Soule • • • • • • . . . .
Board of Appeals
Page 2
, Michael L. Kettenbach Land bordering Lake
to a prospective purchaser. Since they is no hardship shown as to
Section 7. 2 , the Board finds likewise that there is no statutary
hardship reason to allow construction of a dwelling with the Water-
shed District.
BOARD OF APPEALS l
�iz �2a U
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
/awt
j
ved by Town Cler1EIYEQ
��NG
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 5HE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant Michael L, Kettenbach Address 40 Coachmans Lane, No. Andover
--------------- -- --------
Mass . 01845
1 . Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section 7 Paragraph 7 .2
and Table ���� __�__�of the Zoning By Laws �:v�tith respect to the building
oorttorir rerrtahe [�a ( ed District Temporary Growth Limitation
xs�x �kx§M]x�§t� k§� xxxx � R �x: x
c ) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the
Building Inspector or other authority.
borderin on Lake Cochichewick by N/F
2. a ) Premises affected are land x /MXdxtMNdkXq*X) N3AXjD1§x12A
Boston University, N/F. Alt-eYt F.akXaak•Cullen, Jr. and N77—Estate
of Mary F. Charles with. accessrom. Osgood Street. (See attached plan.)
b) Pxx '
c ) Premises affected are in Zoning District R2_ , and the premises
�-
affected have an area of 30 _ ac r 3nd/T°rontage N& other
fxX than access of Edgehill Road and Pond Pasture Road to
Osgood Street.
3. Ownership
- Not Applicable.
a ) �c �xxxx( fxxxicxxxc�x��x���xn���sz
Date of Purchase Previous Owner
b) If applicant is not owner , check his/her interest in the premises:
- x
Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain)
4. Size of proposed building: front; __feet deep;
Height stories ;------_feet . Not Applicable.
a ) Approximate date of erection:_`--------_--
b) Occupancy or use of each floor: ---_----
c ) Type of construction:____________________
5 . Size of existing building:----_—feet front;--`---feet deep;
Height --stories; -- feet . Not Applicable.
a ) Approximate date of erection:
b) Occupancy or use of each floor :_- — —
c ) Type of construction:
6. Has there been a previous appeal , under zoning, cn these premises?
No If so, when?
7 . Description of relief sought on this petition To grant a variance from the
street frontage requirements as provided in Secti5n-7;per` c� -` -.-Z table
2 and with respect to the building moratorium under the Water Shed District
e'�mporary MI a3rion, -Section -4-,paragrapfi- `--
8. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book ---Page
---------
Land Court Certificate No. __Book `_-Page
-Page-The principal points upon which I base my application are as follows:
(must be stated in detail )
I intend to build one house on 30 acres , more or less, of the property
what I have under agreement tou�rch_ase. The building of said one house
will not contribute to and will prevent any contamination of any sort to
LakeCochichewic` T e i ing o t e p an was su muted prior to the -
passage of the Water Shed District Temporary Growth Limitation a_n 199-
I
9-
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newsp ,per , i -ci ntal
expenses*
-- -----�- ri---- -- Mae -Zb� e en ac
di
* "grandfathered" as a sub-division , See "Att, ed Sheet" . .
Every application for action by the Board s�all be made on a form approved
by the Board. These forms shall be furnished by the Clerk upon request .
Any 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 "Parties In Interest"
which list shall include the petitioner , abutters , owners of land directly
opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the
abutters within three hundred feet ( 300 ' ) of the property line of the
petitioner as they appear on the most recent appA cable tax list,
notwithstanding that the .land of any such owner is ocated in another city
or town, the Planning Board of the city or town, an the Planning Board of
every abutting city or town.
*Every application shall be submitted with an appli ration charge cost in
the amount of $25 . 00. In addition, the petitioner Shall be responsible
for any and all costs involved in bringing the peti� ion before the Board .
Such costs shall include mailing and publication bvt are notnecessarily
limited to these.
Every application shall be submitted with a plan of land approved by the
Board. No petition will be brought before the Board unless -,aid plan has
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
Namc Address
�\ ryry r• l� �Olh�p.S �J 6 QC0.oevn� Qop.� , i�J . JtY�.au'vt�r
aI berT F C wl�2h Jn. 6OS OSGvaj� 5 inee-- 6V . AftSrjV•e�
B.ISTo tkn \1-es iTy -765 Cori.m.,m we oA-i, A-u./aQSTd n
,/ �'� l� io.r. ►�• 1�ocir well (,I G OSClooD STnee T� N. �4vtblover
J /�USfeeS a� �e<��vd��pr�s C�"�1z%�uC GCJ
as y
(use additional sheets if necessary)
"ATTACHED SHEET"
Further answer to #8 :
and further that owing - to circumstances relating to soil
conditions, slope, or topography of the land or structures
and especially affecting such land or structures but not
affecting generally the zoning district in general, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this By Law will
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
applicant, and that the granting of this application for
relief from the requirement of the Zoning By Law will not
be detrimental to the public good and will not nullify
or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of
this By Law.
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST.1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE
ROBERT H.GOLDMAN 144 MERRIMACK STREET FRANK GOLDMAN (1890-1965)
JAMES T.CURTIS LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 0I852 TELEPHONES
CORNELIA C.ADAMS
454-8804
RONALD I. BELL BOSTON NO.
CHRIST05 M. MANIS 729-2625
ROBERTA A.SCHREIBER August 19 , 1985
KAREN R.SAVRANSKY
GREGORY T.CURTIS
OFCOUNSEL
EFTH EMIOS J. BENTAS
JAMES D. LATHAM
Board of Appeals-
120 Main Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
Dear Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find Application for Relief From
the Requirements of the Zoning By Law, in quintuplicate,
plus- five (5) copies' of the plan.
z
Also enclosed is a check in the sum of $25 .00 to =Q5,=
cover th-e filing fee. ==�
SCD "'
Will you please file in the usual manner. .b 'L"-mn un
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
as
Very truly ours ,
O MAN CUP TIS
J . , s Cu
JTC:mnm
Encl. J��,
NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT NORTN
90
120 MAIN STREET 3?•`tfi
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 � a
s i _ •
' �°�- «:?: _`tib•
$�CMusE��
INSPECTOR OF BUILDrNos TEL. 888-8102
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR
GAS INSPECTOR
Septembetc 10, 1985
Board vj Appeaz
Town 066ice Buitding
No th Anduvetc, Ma.
Re.: Petition 66 Michda Kettenbach
Gewtt.emen:
Mn. Kettenbach was tLe6used a bui ding permit
because his buitding .fat did not have the necessatcy
6tcv wtag e.
V etc y to t y youtus,
CHARLES H. FOSTE
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
AND
ZONING OFFICER
CHF:a6
EDGEWOOD FARM 547 Osgood Street
SAMUEL S. ROGERS
P.O. Box 111
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
(617) 685-1595
June 18, 1985
To: North Andover Planning Board
From: Samuel S. Rogers
Subject: Preliminary Sub-division Plan, "Edgewood Farm"
In considering the subject plan, the following information may be helpful
in coming to a decision as to its disposition.
1, 1 am currently in the final steps of negotiating a sale of the property,
subject to a number of covenants which will permit the farm to continue as at present.
Area A (lots 1-20) to a single party for a Life Care facility.
Area B (lots 21-29) to a single party for a single family residence.out-
side the watershed.
2. The purpose of registering the proposed plan is to protect the value
of the property during the term of the watershed moratorium. The layout and timing
of the submission was prompted entirely by the article in the town warrant, and I
would not have submitted it now (if ever) had it not been for that.
3. Neither I nor either of the two prospective purchasers (who were also
present at the informal meeting on June 13th) have any plans to actually subdivide
the property as shown on the premliminary plan. The Life Care people would follow
a process to obtain a Special Permit for Area A, and Mr. Kettenbach intends to con-
struct a single residence for himself in the northwest corner of Area B. Because of
the complexities involved with a life care center, the prospective buyer of Area A
could abandon the project at any time leaving me with a property I could not other-
wise use except for its current use.
It is our request to the Planning Board that the proposed plan receive
tentative approval as presented with the following. conditions:
a. If Life Care Services Corporation does not enter into a purchase and
sale agreement with me for Area A, then 1 will perfect a Definitive Plan for that area
within six months of their dropping their option.
b. That if the proposed buyer of Area B applies to build any more than
a single family residence in that area, then he will be required to submit a Defini-
tive Plan and actually construct the roadway (Edgehill Road) as proposed.
All parties concerned with this application are most sensitive to any
negative impact this plan might have on the environment in general, and the lake
in particular. 1 believe the course we are pursuing ensures the amenities provided
the Town by the continued operation of Edgewood Farm, the potential increase in
tax revenue with little or no increase in school department obligations, and the
potential substantial increase in local employment opportunities, and the increased
business for local merchants and service providers.
U
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST.1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE
ROBERT H.GOLDMAN 144 MERRIMACK STREET FRANK GOLDMAN (1890-1965)
JAMES T.CURTIS LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 0I852
TELEPHONES
CORNELIA C.ADAMS
454.8804
RONALD I. BELL BOSTON NO.
CHRISTOS M. MANIS 729-2625
ROBERTA A.SCHREIBER
KAREN R.SAVRANSKY
GREGORY T.CURTIS
OFCOUNSEL
EFTHEMIOS J. BENTAS
JAMES D. LATHAM
October 16 , 1985
Board of Appeals
Town Offices
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Michael L. Kettenbach v. Board of Appeals
of the Town of North Andover
Essex SuperiorA N 85-2517
Dear Sir/Madam:
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40A, Sec. 17 , I am
sending you this letter and a copy of the Complaint and Civil
Action Cover Sheet in the above matter, to notify you of the
above action.
Very truly yours,
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Carolyn L. Greenberg
CLG/1 am
Encl.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
.�.r,ii„ „T mL_r nr, MA►SSAC�F-►��
SUPERIOR COURT
ESSEX, ss. CIVIL _ACTION
NO. g S " ZS
c�MpLAZNT
MICHAEL L. KETTPBACHr
aintiff )
V. ) PLAINTIFF' S APPEAL
OF NORTH ) TANNUL THE DECISION
BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN
INDIVIDUALLY ) OFF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
ANDOVER; FRANK SERIO, JR. r OF THE TOWN OF NORTH
AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS ) ANDOVER, PURSUANT TO
OF THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER; ALFRED E. M.G. L. CHAPTER 40A
FRIZ ELLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS VICE ) SECTION 17
CHAIRMAN OF�HE�DD�R;OF APPEALS OAUGUST NE WF THE j
TOWN OF NOR
NICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLERK OF )
THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NORTH )
ANDOVER; WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, INDIVIDUALLY )
AND AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TER APPEALS OF
THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, AND
F.
SOULE, INDIVIDUALLY
OF THE TOWN OF NORTHD AS A MEMBER
THE j
BOARD OF AP )
ANDOVER, Defendants )
I
1 . The Plaintiff Michael L. Kettenbach resides at 40
Coachman' s Lane, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is a "party in interest" as that term is
defined in Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40A, Sec. 11 .
2 . The Defendant Board of Appeals of the Town of North
Andover (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") consists of
five members who, inter s�.1 ► hear and render decisions on
requests for variances from the requirements of the Zoning
By-Laws of the Town of North Andover.
3 . The Defendant Frank Serio, Jr. resides at 250
Hillside Road, North Andoverr Essex County, Massachusetts
01845 and is the Chairman and a member of the Defendant
1
Board.
4 . The Defendant Alfred E. Frizelle resides at 131
Appleton Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts
01845 and is the Vice Chairman and a member of the Defendant
Board.
5 . The Defendant Augustine W. Nickerson resides at 100
Moody Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts
01845 and is the Clerk and a member of the Defendant Board.
6 . The Defendant William J. Sullivan resides at 405
Salem Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts
01845 and is a member of the Defendant Board.
7 . The Defendant Walter F. Soule resides at 70 Raleigh
'.cavern Lane, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts 01845
and is a member of the Defendant Board.
EACTS
8 . On or about July 17 , 1985 , the Plaintiff entered
into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Samuel S. Rogers,
individually and George M. Naylor, Jr. , and Shelley D.
Vincent, III as Trustees under Indenture of Trust dated May
8 , 1980 , for the purchase of land in North Andover and shown
as Lots 21-29 on the plan entitled "Edgewood Farm, North
Andover, Massachusetts" and dated April 18 , 1985 and more
particularly described in a deed of First National Bank of
Boston, Trustee, to Samuel Stevens Rogers recorded at the
Essex North Registry of Deeds in Book 1948, Page 170 and a
deed of Caroline S. Rogers to George M. Naylor, Jr. and
Shelley D. Vincent, III, Trustees recorded at said Registry
of Deeds in Book 1940 , Page 81 .
2
9 . Said Lots 21-29 combined (hereinafter referred to as
the "Property") contain thirty acres, more or less, which
border Lake Cochichewick and which have no street frontage
other than access to Osgood Street via Edgehill Road and Pond
Pasture Road.
10 . Under the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of North
Andover, said property is in a zoning district (R-2) zoned,
jater alfa, for single family dwellings. See, Zoning By-Daws
or the Town of North Andover, Section 4 .121 . The pertinent
do
dimensional requirement for building on property in all R-2
zoning districts is: 150 feet, minimum street frontage.
-See. Zoning By r aws of the Town of North Andover, Section 7 ,
Paragraph 7 .2 , and Table. 2 .
11 . Under the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of North
Andover, part of said property is within the Watershed
District. See Zoni^� u� raves of Thi Town of North ovr►
Section 4 , Paragraph 4 .133 .
12. On or about August 19 , 1985 , the Plaintiff applied
to the Defendant Board for a variance to build a single
family dwelling on said property. The application requests a
variance from the minimum 150 foot frontage requirement,
Section 7 , Paragraphs 7 .2 and Table 2 , supra. and from the
requirements of Section 4 , Paragraph 4 .133 supra. Copies of
the application, and Section 7 , Paragraph 7 .2 and Table 2 ,
and Section 4 , Paragraph 4 .133 , are annexed hereto as
Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" respectively and are incorporated
herein by reference.
13 . Thereafter, the Plaintiff' s application for a
3
variance was properly advertised and notice of public hearing
was mailed by the Defendant Board, as required, to various
abutting owners.
14 . On or about September 10 , 1985 , pursuant to said
notice, the Defendant Board held a public hearing concerning
the Plaintiff' s application for a variance. Defendants
Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule were present
at said hearing.
15 . In a decision dated September 24 , 1985 and filed
with the Office of The Town Clerk of the Town of North
Andover on September 24 , 1985 , the Defendant Board voted to
deny the Plaintiff' s application for a variance. A certified
copy of said decision is annexed hereto as Exhibit "D" and
incorporated herein by reference.
16 . The findings reached by the Defendant Board in its
decision filed with the Town Clerk on September 24 , 1985 are
insufficient in law to warrant the denial of the variance
requested by the Plaintiff under the provisions of M. G. L.
Chapter 40A, Section 15 and 17 .
17 . Many of the lots in the neighborhood of the property
contain the required amount of street frontage. The
Plaintiff requested a variance for the property so that he
could construct one single-family home thereon and occupy the
same. Without the relief requested, the Plaintiff will be
denied the use of the property for residential purposes and
will be forced to suffer a severe and substantial hardship.
The shape, location and other conditions of the property
which especially affect the property only, are such that the
4
Plaintiff will never be able to construct a residence thereon
without a variance from Section 7 , Paragraph 7 .2 and Table 2
of the Zoning By-Laws.
18. The desired relief can be granted to the Plaintiff
without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-Laws.
19. The purported decision of the Defendant Board is
based on legally untenable grounds and is unreasonable,
whimsical, capricious and arbitrary.
20 . By reason of the foregoing, the purported decision
of the Defendant Board exceeds the powers and authority of
said Defendant Board, constitutes an abuse of its discretion
and must be annulled.
TIT PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS :
(a) That the findings and decision of the
Defendant Board of Appeals of the Town of North
Andover filed on September 24 , 1985 denying the
Plaintiff' s Application for a Variance as
heretofore described, be annulled, and that an
order issue to this effect;
(b) That a decision enter ordering the Defendant
Board to grant the Plaintiff the Variance
requested;
(c) That, pursuant to the provisions of M. G. L.
Chapter 231A, this Honorable Court determine that
an actual controversy cognizant under Chapter 231A
5
exists and that an order enter declaring the rights
of the parties under M. G. L. Chapter 40A, Sections
6 , 15 and 17 ; and
(d) That this Honorable Court award such other
relief as justice and equity may require.
MICHAEL L. KETTENBACH,
By his Attorneys,
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
By:
am s T Curtis
Carolyn L. Greenberg
DATED: OCTOBER,IA/ 1985
6
J� y
-' GOLDMAN & CURTIS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST,1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE FRANK GOLDMAN (1890-1965)
144 MERRIMACK STREET
ROBERT H.GOLDMAN TELEPHONES
JAMES T.CURTIS LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01852
454-6804
CORNELIA C.ADAMS BOSTON NO.
RONALD I. BELL 729-2625
CHRISTOS M. MANIS
ROBERTA A. SCHREIBER y
KAREN R.SAVRANSKY
GREGORY T.CURTIS
OF COUNSEL -
EFTHEMIOSJ. BENTAS
JAMES D. LATHAM
October 22 , 1985
Civ it C1 er k
Essex Superior Court
34 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Kett.enbach v. Board of Appeals of CERTIFIED MAIL
the Town of North Andover et al. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
_ip31 ActiM. No. _85--2517L
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Service of Notice
Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17 ,
relative to the above referenced case. Kindly file and
docket the same.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Carolyn L. Greenberg
CLG/1 am
Encl .
cc:r-toard _o,f -Appeals for _the Town -=of- North. Andover (W/encl. )
Wal ter F. Soule (,W/encl. )
William J. Sullivan (W/encl. )
Auoustine W. Nickerson (W/encl. )
Alfred E. Frizelle (W/encl. )
Frank Serio, Jr. (W/encl. )
Michael L. Kettenbach (W/encl. )
MASCQM SACHUS =
SUPERIOR COURT
ESSEX, ss. CIVIL ACTION
NO. 85-2517
MICHAEL L. KETTENBACH, )
P1 aintif f )
V. )
BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NORTH ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
ANDOVER; FRANK SERIO, JR. , INDIVIDUALLY ) OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO
AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS ) MASS. GEN. LAWS
OF THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER; ALFRED E. )
FRIZ ELLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS VICE )
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE j
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER; AUGUSTINE W.
NICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLERK OF )
THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NORTH )
ANDOVER; WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, INDIVIDUALLY )
AND AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF j
THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, AND WALTER F.
BOARD' OFDIVIDUALLY AND AS A APPEALSOF THE TOWN OFMNORTHER F THE j
BO )
ANDOVER, )
Defendants
I, Carolyn L. Greenberg, on oath depose and say :
1. I am one of the attorneys of record for the Plaintiff
in the above-captioned action.
2 . On October 161, 1985 , I sent by certified mail to all
Defendants in the above-captioned action written notice of
the filing of the Complaint in this action on October 11 ,
1985 , with a copy of said Complaint attached to the notice.
3 . This Affidavit is being filed pursuant to Mass. Gen.
Laws Chapter 40A, Section 17 to certify that the required
notice under said Chapter 40A has been given.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 22nd
day of October, 1985 .
Carolyn L. Greenberg
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST.1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE
ROBERT H.GOLDMAN 144 MERRIMACK STREET FRANK GOLDMAN (1890-1965)
JAMES T.CURTIS LOWELL. MASSACHUSETTS 01852
TELEPHONES
CORNELIA C.ADAMS
454-8804
RONALD I. BELL BOSTON NO.
CHRISTOS M. MANIS 729-2625
ROBERTA A.SCHREIBER
KAREN R.SAVRANSKY
GREGORY T.CURTIS
OF COUNSEL
EFTH EM IOS J. BENTAS
JAMES D. LATHAM
October 11 , 1985
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town offices
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Reconsideration of Application for Variance HAND DELIVERED
Applicant : Michael L. Kettenbach
Premises: 30 acres bordering Lake Cochichewick
Dear Mr. Serio:
As you know, this office represents Michael L.
Kettenbach with respect to his application for a variance.
This letter is a supplement to my letter of September 18,
1985 .
The Board' s decision denying Mr. Kettenbach' s
application states that there is no hardship requiring a
variance as the thirty (30) acre lot will be part of a
subdivision. As stated in my earlier letter, however, and to
clarify the matter, the thirty acre lot is not part of a
subdivision and the subdivision plan is not at issue. As
such, there will be no road built to provide the lot with
street frontage and the lot continues to lack the frontage
required by Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 and Table 2 of the
Zoning By-laws.
Without a variance of Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 and
Table 2 , Mr. Kettenbach will be unable to obtain a permit to
build a residence on the property and will be unable to use
the lot for any building purposes. In Chater v. Board of
Appeals of Milton, 348 Mass. 237 , 202 N. E. 2d 805 (1964) , the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the
inability to use a lot for any building purpose could
reasonably constitute a substantial hardship for purposes of
a variance. The Appeals Court reaffirmed this position in
Paulding v. Bruins, 18 Mass. App. 707 , 470 N. E. 2d 398
(1984) . I have enclosed copies of both cases for your
reference.
.M
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Page Two
October 11 , 1985
In the instant case, the substantial hardship presented
by being unable to build on the lot at all especially affects
the thirty acre lot but does not generally affect surrounding
lots. In addition to having no street frontage, the lot also
varies significantly from neighboring lots in that over
seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot falls within the
watershed District. In order to build a residence on the
lot, therefore, a variance of both Section 7 , Paragraph 7 .2
and Section 41 Paragraph 4 .133 is necessary. Granting these
variances will neither cause substantial detriment to the
public good nor nullify or substantially derogate from the
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws.
In light of the above facts and cases, it is clear a
substantial hardship exists and that the same can be
alleviated by a variance without harming the public good.
Your attention to the above when reconsidering Mr.
Kettenbach' s application is therefore requested.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very t yours, /
LDMA CURTIS
r
JTC/lam
Encl.
G O L D M A N & CURTIS COPY FOR REFERENCE
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST.1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE
144 MERRIMACK STREET FRANK GOLDMAN tIR SOI
RORF_RT H !40LDMAN
.LAMES T.CURTIS
LOWELL. MASSACHUSETTS 01852 TELFr'11oNF5
nr,n n(104CORNELIA C.ADAMS
DOSTON Nt)
RONALD I. BELL 72D r'IP",
CHRISTOS M. MANIS
POBERTA A.SCHREIBER
KAREN R. SAVRANSKY _
,REGORY T.CURTIS
OF COUNSEL
FF'THEMI05 J. BENTAS
.TAMES D. LATHAM September 18 , 1985
Mr . Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town Offices
North Andover , MA 01845
Re: Reconsideration of Application for variance
Applicants Michael L. Kettenbach
Q�ss�� 4ss3�x�n�_L�k� s�bi�b��r irk
Dear Mr. Serio:
Please be advised that this office represents Michael L.
Kettenbach of 40 Coachman' s Lane , North Andover ,
Massachusetts with respect to his application for a variance
for property bordering on Lake Cochichewick. Mr . Kettenbach
has a binding Purchase and Sale Agreement with Mr . Rogers to
purchase this property. On behalf of Mr. Kettenbach, request
is hereby trade for reconsideration of your decision on the
above application which was presented to your Board on
September 10 , 1985 .
Mr. Kettenbach intends to build a single-family
residence on the property. Enclosed are copies of a plan
which sets forth two proposed sites for this residence. An
earlier sub-division plan originally filed by Mr . Rogers with
the Planning Board unfortunately created some confusion at
your Board' s September 10 , 1985 hearing, but is not at issue
here.
As stated above, Mr . Kettenbach has selected two
proposed sites for the residence. Number 2 is the preferred
site and Number 1 represents his second choice. The
preferred site, Number 2 , is just within the Watershed
District and requires a variance from two sections of the
Zoning By-Laws, Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 which involves
street frontage, and Section 4 , Paragraph 4 .133 ( 4) , which
involves the Watershed District. The second site, Number 1 ,
requires only a variance from Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 .
K
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Mr . Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Page Two
September 18, 1985
As you know, the property in question contains
approximately thirty (30) acres and has access to Osgood
Street by a private way. The property is, however , unique in
that it has no street frontage and is land-locked. A
variance of Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 is necessary to build
one residence anywhere on the thirty acres.
The granting of this variance is warranted in that the
lack of street frontage creates a substantial hardship.
Without the variance, Mr . Kettenbach would be unable to
obtain a permit to build the residence thereon. In short, he
would be deprived of all practical use of the property. As
Mr . Kettenbach intends only to build one single-family
residence, the granting of the variance will neither nullify
nor substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-Laws. It also will not cause substantial detriment
to the public good. It will simply permit Mr. Kettenbach to
construct one residence on approximately thirty acres of land
which is zoned for residential purposes.
As aforestated, however , the preferred site for the
residence falls just inside the Watershed District and
requires a variance of Section 4 Paragraph 4 .133 ( 4) . The
site is, however , still approximately 1150 feet from the
shoreline of Lake Cochichewick. Building the residence at
this site will , therefore, neither substantially affect the
contour of the Watershed District nor the filtration and
purification functions of the land. As such, it will neither
substantially derogate from the purpose of the By-Laws nor
adversely affect the public good.
As site Number 2 is the preferred site, Mr. Kettenbach
respectfully requests reconsideration of the Board' s decision
on a variance from the requirements both of Section 7,
Paragraph 7 .2 involving street frontage _an_d Section 4 ,
Paragraph 4 .133 (4) which involves the Watershed District .
If in its judgment, however, the Board does not wish to
grant the variance of the Watershed District provisions
necessary for site Number 2 , Mr. Kettenbach respectfully
requests reconsideration so that he still may be granted a
variance of Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 , which is necessary to
construct his residence at site Number 1 .
GoLt) MAN & CURTIS
Mr . Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Page Three
September 18, 1985
Thank you kindly for your courtesy in this matter .
Very tr ly yours,
OLDMA CURT
y ,
J r
JTC/lam
Encl .
J
3�nnppJO Mass. 470 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 211 SERli:5
.t e)
457 F.2d 1155, 1160 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 1. Zoning and Planning X742 shill if
409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 There was rebuttable presumption that reoluirei
(1972); United States v. Gorman, 637 F.2d abutting property owners entitled to re c. 40A.
352, 353-354 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam); ceive notice of public hearing before town
Vii. 7,rrn i
United States v. Marbury, 732 F.2d 390, zoning board of appeals were persons 9- 11
r.
r 399 n. 12 (5th Cir.1984). grieved by board's decision to grant vari-
11:0 inn,
Judgment affirmed. ante from frontage and width require- Lllcd t
ments in town's zoning by-law to owners of vont h.
adjoining "pork chop" lot. M.G.L.A. c.
IN
17.
p EY M40AlllR hu
2. Zoning and Planning c�,74 trrnitae
Trial judge's findings concerning I,.A. c.
whether a person is aggrieved by a decision
of town's zoning board should not be re
18 Mass.App. 707 versed unless they are clearly erroneous. Ed w:
Peter R. PAULDING et al.' Rules of Civ.t'roc., Rule 52(a), 43A M.G. ti1,rs.
L.A. I); vi
v.
Charlotte Heavens BRUINS et al.
z 3. Zoning and Planning 0-747 II<,,Ivc'1
Evidence that abul.tirlg landowners
Appeals Court of Massachusetts, feared erosion, flooding, and damage' to e 1 1 c'
Plymouth. trees on their lot should a ch iveway be built
on "pork chop" lot was sufficient to '"P-
Argued Sept. 18, 1984. port finding that abuttiug landowners were
Decided Oct. 29, 1984. aggrieved persons enl.ided to appeal from The
decision of town zoning board of appeals' the le'
decision to grant, variance from frontage frons :
and width requirements to owners of the lmhlil„
Abutting landowners appealed from of
bow-
decision of the Superior Court, Plymouth, lot. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, §§ 11, l7; Rule', bow-41
upholding grant by town zoning board of
Civ.Proc., Rule 52(a), 43A M.G.L.A.
requil
appeals to owners of "pork chop" lot of 4. Zoning and Planning af,4fi The 1,1
variance from frontage and width require- Evidence that lot, had a "pork chole"
is ;I ,
ments in town's zoning by-law. The Ap- shape, that the size of the lot exceeded that 111;111
peals Court, Fine,J.,held that: (1)evidence of most surrounding lots by significant 1 Its t
was sufficient to support finding that abut- amount, that existing topography would ac feat
ting landowners were aggrieved persons commodate driveway from public way to four I
entitled to appeal, and (2) evidence was suf- main portion of the lot, that lot, could he t11c '41
ficient to support findings that lot had sig- sold only if variance were granted and that 'thee I,
nificant special characteristics beyond lack lot would be unbuildaltl,, without variance st reel
of conformity with zoning requirements was sufficient to support findings by lawn the to
and that owners would suffer substantial zoning board of appeals that lot had signifi
hardshipif variance from frontage and feet,
cant special characteristics beyond lack o[ v i lr
width requirements were not granted. conformity with zoning requirements `1111 dred
Affirmed. that owners would suffer substantial h;u•d- tikcl,•�
has a constitutionally permissible basis other 2. Bruins is acting on behalf of her falhcr, Ilo1c
form
than search incident to arrest,it falls outside the and J. Heavens, who is the owner of rc<'c'rd "f to t Ir
provisions of G.L. c. 276, § I. ConnnmIwealth the property and is also a defcnclanl. Thr other 11, 1.1
v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159, 162, 448 N.E.2d 1264 defendant is the Plymouth zoning board of ap-
(1983). Commonwealth v. king, 389 Mass. 233, peals. 3. 'l l
246 n. 16, 449 N.E.2d 1217 (1983). c11
1. His wife, Ruth O. Paulding.
ROME,,
�--. i 4'p�';' Mr�• p}�i t w�W�, xa Y" y 'tr�# �.� ..,.1�l�� +�1'..r � ..
• `' J`,N 7M�� f t�5"4 `�,. � ¢.� r tt. a}^fl..rm�Y.k t. �
>'r
I
[
I
PAULDING v. BRUINS Mass. 399 f
Cnc as 470 N.G2d 398 (Mass.App. 1984) t
ship if variance from frontage and width Bruins contends on cross-appeal that the
:1t requirements were not granted. M.G.L.A. Superior Court was incorrect in ruling that
c. 40A, § 10. the Pauldings, the only individuals object- i
n ing to the variance, have standing to appeal
5. Zoning and Planning C-535 from the board's decision. Because, in our
„ f
ri Health of lot's owner, his financial sit- view, the findings of the board and the trial t
t
u uation, and any other considerations unre- judge are adequate to justify the grant of
I' ]ated to underlying real estate, were irrele- the variance, we deal only briefly with the
r. vant to town zoning board of appeals' in- standing issue. j
quiry into question of substantial hardship 11-31 General Laws c. 40A, § 17, as
for purposes of granting a variance from < .• [
amended through St.IJBl, c. .r>33, § 1, pro-
frontage and width requirements. M.G. vides that "[any person aggrieved by a
'1 L.A. c. 40A, § 10.
,tr decision of the board of appeals . .. wheth-
er or not previously a party to the proceed- !
ing ... may appeal to the superior court
Edward T. Angley, Plymouth, for plain- department...." There is a rebuttable
tiffs. presumption that the Pauldings, as abut-
David Hern, Jr., Boston, for Charlotte ting property owners entitled to receive
Heavens Bruins et al. notice of the public hearing (G.L. c. 40A,
§ 1.1), were persons aggrieved. Marotta v. j
Before PERREWA, CU'1"lEIt and Board of Appeals of Revere, 3311 Mass. ((
FINE, JJ. 199, 204, 143 N.E.2d 270 (1957). The judge t
�,.. decided that the plaintiffs' fears of erosion,
0 FIND, Justice. flooding, and damage to trees on their lot, t
„tshould a driveway be built as planned,
The Pauldings, whose lot is adjacent to
were not unreasonable. "[W]hether a par-
the locus on the northwest side, appeal
` from a decision of the Superior Court up- ty is 'aggrieved' is a matter of degree ... }
i,eand the variety of circumstances which
holding the grant by the Plymouth zonint,
may arise seems to call for the exercise of
board of appeals to Howard J. Heavens of
a variance from the frontage and width discretion rattler than the imposition of an {
requirements in the town's zoning by-law.:t inflexible rule." Rafferty v. Sancta Maria
Phe lot for which the variance was granted Hospital, 5 Mass.App. 624, 629, 367 N.E.2d
is a "pork chop" lot. Somewhat larger
-�t 856 (1977). Atrial judge's findings con- '
pl
than most of the surrounding developed Cermng whether a person is aggrieved
lots to the east of the locus but only ninety should not be reversed unless they are
clearly erroneous. Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365
t„ feet wide, it has a fifteen-foot wide strip,
four hundred feet in length, running from Mass. 81(i (1979). 6I'altlrana Motor Inn,'"' Inc. v. LaCana, 3 Mass.App. 210, 217, 326
.t1. the street to the main portion of the lot.
The bulk of the lot is well back from any N.E.2d `398 (1975). Here, there was ample
t, evidence in the record to support the
street nearby. rhe frontage required by
the town by-law on a public way is thirty Judge's finding that the Pauldings, as abut-
feet, fifteen feet more than the lot pro-
v
concerned about harm to their proper-
feet,
1 t were aggrieved grieved persons entitled to ap-
vides. The width requirement is one hun- Y. bb l
peal. Compare Circ(c Lounge & Grille,
Bred fifty feet. See the accompanying :
sketch. The lot was creates] in its present htc. v. Board q/ Appeal of Boslo�t, 324
form in the 1920's, as far as appears prior Mass. 427, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949).
I
to the adoption by the town of any zoning The Pauldings contend that the board
i,. by-law. exceeded its authority in granting the vari-
3. The locus appears as lot 13 on the sketch dix.]
which accompanies this opinion. [Sec appen-
7.7
• tr� � � . 9,, '. ,t'-*°wr � .lel r ,� ..�.yr �y, v b-�4
Fit
w `k
9M
L •
400 Mass. 470 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
Y:
1.
ante. The first paragraph of G.L. C. 40A, as to the shape, when considered with thy'
>i § 10, as appearing in SL.1975, c. 808, § 3, other characteristics of the lotwhich hast
states in part that a board may grant a been referred to, are snffic•ienl in our Vi('"
variance with respect to particular land to support. Ole bo:ud's required finding of
only where it "specifically finds that owing special circumstances relating to the land I'
to circumstances relating to the soil condi- but not. affecting gr nerally the zoning dis- 1'
tions, shape, or topography of such land trict in which ill is located. Broderick r.
. .. and especially affecting such land ... Board ofi1p1)ra1 01,Ilo.sthrn, :161 Ahss. 472.
but not affectinggenerally the zoning ll, g dis g y 477, 280 N.I';.2d 670 (1972). 1('alf111a71 r•.
trict in which it is located, a literal enforce- Board of Appeals of Brookline, 1C, Mw`!;,
ment of the provisions of the ordinance or App. 112, 115, 444 N.E.2d 94:1 (198:1). 'I'll,'
by-law would involve substantial hardship, findings of the Superior Conrt judge, aft"r
financial or otherwise, to the petitioner" a de novo trial in the coarse of Whisk `11` 1
(emphasis added). The i'auldings rely ex- took a view, :u•c more ample 01:1111 those (J „
clusively on Warren, v. Zoning Board of the board. Among Oiler things, Llre jndgc 1
Appeals of Ainherst, 383 Mass. 1, 416 found the "shape, location and confignra
N.E.2d 1382 (1981), in maintaining that the tion of [the Int, to hej unique when con,
first part of this required finding, made by pared to ,he surrounding parcels in (11:11
the board in conclusory terms, was not neighborhood and within that, zoning dis
adequately supported by the facts. In trio." She concluded that the heard did
Warren, the court noted that the only sir not exceed its authority in gran(irrg lln' I
cumstance especially affecting the lot in variance. Thus, hec•aw'o both the bo:uJ
question was its lack of adequate frontage. and the judge found unusual ch:u•acteris
It stated, "If the Legislature intended the tics of the lot apart. from the absence of 111(
mere fact of a deficiency in the required
frontage of a lot to be sufficient, without required frontage and Width, the ll'nrrwithoutcase is not controlling.
more, to satisfy this particular prerequisite
for a variance, it is difficult to believe that
they would not have said so in this statute. The hoard's finding, in which till' jndt i
They did not do so, and we believe that concurred, that the defendants world sill,
t they did not intend that result." (Empha- fer substantial hardship if the V:u 1:1111 c>
sis added.) Id. at 11, 416 N.E.2d 1382. were not granted, is also adequately srip
ported. The Parddings, contending n(111T
[41 The lot involved in the instant case wise, rely on Br•rrzzc.se r. lioa.rd of i1lrlrcol!,
has significant special characteristics be- of Ninpham, 34:1 Njass. 421, 1751 N.h,."d
yond the lack of conformity with zoning 269 (1962). In that. case, the 1:u1doNVm r
requirements. The board noted in its find- had a single collfornring house lot whir h
ings that it has a "pork chop" shape. The had on it, a single f:uoily dwelling. Tlw
assessor's map of the area, which was he- zoning board of appeals denied his reynos t
fore the board, reveals that no other lot in for a variance to divide the single conforiu
the immediate neighborhood has a similar ing lotinto t:wo house lots, ncithcr of w11it 11
shape. In fact, that map reveals a shape world comply with the zoning 1) law. In
that is so unusual that one would have to upholding t.lre denial of the variance, Ih'�
conclude that it also differed from most court stated, "We may infer that. it would
lots in the zoning district. In addition, the be of greater adVant.age Lo him if he wort
board stated that the size of the lot "ex- permitted to erect. a second house on 111i<
ceeds that of most surrounding lots by a lot. idowever, we do not, construe tht
significant amount," and that the existing words 'financial or otherwise' in the statnt"
topography would accomnhodaLe a drive- to mean that a deprivation of potential :cl
way from the public way to the main por- vantage constitutes a 'snhstantial 11:111
tion of the lot. The special circumstances ship.' Id. at, 424, 179 N.E.2d 269.
�' 1Vi of A
-, r' `Lx 4 •, +at.,y,,F .rZ Fred ,y !'4, ' o
..Etyt'c«
� y
..aN.i•y ,a. [�,r ,.:r., � m.,s!•.Yr.,.alh.ae F Y yet• A7Xtt-Jdrt.-.rt3X A „`2l
..)� i3.�
PLO?",
P,� i� s Y17 f
• ,c�, ��'� Y ,a y''�'�� °� �, A� i r �,S v��. j.1 314k rtre��r�1� ':.. 4 r ,u j
11AULDING v. I11U1NS Mass. 401
Cnc as 470 N.E.2d 398 (Mass.App. 1984)
lei► In the instant, case, the dcfem►a"ts The Pauhlings do not raise any other
:u'c not. attempting to subdivide their lot to issues. They do not. argue that the grant �
aclti �'c greater fin:urcial gain. tl. is cur- of the variance would cause "substantial
reg 1, its the Parnldings point. out., that the detriment to the public good" or that it
health of Bruins' father, his financial situa_ would "nulli4y] or subst,antially derogate]
lion, and any other considerations unrelat- from the intent or purpose" of the by-law f
cd to l,he underlying real estate, arc irrele- (G.L,. c. 40A, § 10). Consequently, we do
v;utl to the board's inquiry into file clues- not consider that issue. We note, however, I
Lion of substantial hardship. lltultinglon' that both the board and the judge made �
v. /,orriug Board o Ali/peals o. /lit(ttcg, 12 additional findings relating to the public
710, 715-716, .128 N.E.2(l 826 good, including findings that the placement j
The board of appeals referred to of a single-family residence oil the lot
such considerations in it's decision. It also would comport wiLh the intent of the zon-
I'onud, however, that the land can he sold
ing by-law and that it would not have a
only if the variance is granted. The judge significant impact on neighborhood traffic.
found (hat the lot is all unbuildahle one 6 i
without the variance and, 1'urLhcr, that it, We note further that the board had grant r
appe;u•s to have no other use but that of it ed identical variances Icor the locus on two
residential home site. See 01100' v. prior occasions but, that they had expired
linord of Appeals Of M11011, 348 Mass. because there was no timely use made of
237, 2,15, 202 N.E.2d 805 (1964). Since the them.
h:u"dship relates to the land itself', the
inti, of substantial hardship was not improp- Judgment affir-med.
C I%
r
V�v 777
t
I
i
t
f�
E
{
�• , M- ,
Li e
ay�lW�
�I^„ 1 t •r
CRATER v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF MILTON Mass. 805 �
Cite as 202 N.E.2d 305
turc Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALD-
it a Augusta T. CHATER, Trustee, ING, WIIITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK,
lncc
V. SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
be- BOARD OF APPEALS OF MILTON.
is iu-
uuls Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, WIIITTEMORE, Justice.
Norfolk. l '
These appeals by the plaintiff and the
l the Argued Oct. 6, 1961. defendant from the final decree of the
ist 3 Superior Court in a suit under G.L. c. 40A,
Decided Dee. 9, 106'1. § 21, present issues as to the use of land in f:f
Milton that was not shown as divided into
the building lots on any plan recorded at the
As ii Suit in equity brought by plaintiff who time of the adoption of the town's zoning
at:ill, f had been denied variance by board of ap- by-law in 1933. The by-law placed the f
,11 for Peals. The Superior Court, Brogna, J•, area in a Residence B district with the
oints rendered the decree challenged on appeal' requirement of 20,000 square feet for each j
13,
The Supreme Judicial Court, Whittemore, lot.
retiolt ; J., held that inability to Ilse lot for any i•
i; not building purpose was relevant to deter- The land was shown as divided into four
rc arc
urination as to whether discretion should lots on a plan filed with the planning board Z
be exercised in favor of granting of vari- in 1962 under the Subdivision Control Law.
"The
•I'hance•
The planning board voted not to approve ,
the plan as the lots were undersized. There-
Reversedwith directions. after, the plaintiff sought a variance from is
"'- the board of appeals to permit the use of
SS the i each lot for a single family dwelling. Tile
ion of
1 I. Zoning 0a254 variance having been denied, the plaintiff
r and
Reasonable implication of bylaw per- in due course sought review in the Superior
r l)c ft_ mitting dwelling to be erected on lot con- Court.
ustee's taining less than 20,000 square feet if it The final decree ruled that there was no
coIcl_ (lid not adjoin outer land of same owner
available for use in connection with lot error in so much of the decision of the •
incl of board of appeals as denied a variance as to
,lc jus_ was that in event there was other adjacent
land available for use in connection with lots 2 incl 3, but annulled that decision so
1 by or far as it refused a variance for lots 1 and 4.
illi any lot it must be added thereto so far as needed
to bring lot up to zoning bylaw size and that The record includes designated portions
Cot"'- of the testimony, some of the exhibits and,
The lot as so enlarged conid be used for dwelling.
as the statutory report of material facts,
;Cl fees the judge's findings, rulings and order for
2. Zonhig 0-488 decree and his supplemental rulings.
ocidin}; Inability to use lot for any building ;
,c Supe- purpose was relevant to detcrntmation as to The four lots lie on the sonthcastcrly
trustee whether discretion should be exercised in side of a private way called harbor View
„ utodi- favor of granting of variance. M.G.L.A. Park. Two public ways cross the private
way at right*ht :Ili Tics. Lot 1 13,090 square
c. 40A ;S 13, 15, 21. Y b b I
feet) lies to the southwest of Sassamon ! j
Avenue. Between that street and Nall,
Avenue arc lot 2 (15,100 square feet) and
Robert D. O'Leary, Boston, for plaintiff. lot 3 (]5,100 square feet). Lot 4 (16,216
John J. Murray, Town Counsel, for square feet) lies across the latter street to I 4-
defendant. the northeast. Each lot on the southeast
Wit�0
r ^` '`„ -ii X.d^fin 4:r�., ':1» „ a. r :+bM1Y'L,... ..r,+. l,r ' •'� r .
•�Tf'4•� r,.,4W+r.� -r.ss,-..+h7^ L�rr-Tri-?n'r.",�" .r ,x'� ...h}4iCn.-
y��� A � � ���, � ..'l,. � 1 i �;.( �F iii)' v., �i� o-•r�t(�1� �t Suha yq{4 4 i �
'F
._�.�;stw }�v� �- 3:'•r��1wF3iS�� ���Y*{ .,1,
>t ... dd. x ;.
BOG Mass. 202 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
abuts land of other owners, as docs lot 1 1901. The plan was of a large development 1'
't on the southwest and lot 4 oil the northeast. called IIarbor Vic\v 1'arlc tlrit was conveyed
The land now divided into lots was shown to the trustees of Mile Ilills ".frust Co. in "
�
1899. Tlic acconi i ui in 1,r skcich is lalccli 1 as open park space (parks and private ways) l� 3'
ii on a plan of January, 1897, recorded in from that plan. 1,110 broken lines have
f
' o I I
TP..
CD ,
i p a fn
SASSAMON AVENUE
A n
3 0 �7
W 0 3 W
m a
o O t1
G � l
13 O
O O
0 rn 1,
O
w
CL.
to
cr '4
v � .
NAHANTON AVENUE
71'
1 }
11M lu
CIS
been added to superimpose the present four northwest of lot I. Broken letters and
E lots and to show a new boundary of the lot figures show legends taken froin the 1962
s
Q
*{y. eft
F
CRATER v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF MILTON Mass. 807
t
Cite Its 202 N.T.2d
1ent plan. Thus it will be seen that each fires- by-law and did not at the time of such ]
yell Cntly proposed lot includes part of the land adoption adjoin other land of the sante
in originally proposed as parks, as well as owner available for use in connection with
•ken, part of.what was originally indicated as a said lot." IIe noted that there had been
,;tt.e way to the southeast of the parks. Alost no application to the building inspector for
of the land originally indicated as a way a building permit for lots 1 and 4, but
parks has appar- found that a pr
cutit would have been refused
to the northwest of the i
ently become the present private way, until a determination was made as to the f
Harbor View Park. The 1897 plan showed applicability of § VI, A, 2 (c), and, obscrv-
no division of the center part: into two lots. ing that the advertisement had "requested a
variance from the terms of" § VI, A, 2 (c)
I'hc judge found that most of the houses and 5, construed the proceedings as appro-
in the vicinity are built on lots containin ) 1
t; p riatc for making the determination whether t
]css than 20,000 square feet, having been lots 1 and 4 were within the exemption set C
built prior to 1938 or on lots then recorded. out above.
Lots 2, 3, and 4 are larger than other lots
in the vicinity. The judge also found that The final decree directed the issuance of
the plaintiff's land originally shown as a "a variance * * * in order that a single
Park arca was apparently forgotten by the family dwelling may be erected and main-
trustee owners. It is now overgrown with
trees and stains(] on both Lot p and Lot 4." \ �:
hrnhhery and has been used for `C
clumping ])edge, tree and grass clippings 1'he discretionary power of the board
and by children as a play space. In 1958 under G.L. c. 40A, § 15, to grant variances
the town sought to register the land as from the terns of the by-law is, of course,
belonging to it by adverse possession. The very diffcrel:t from the power to determine
Plaintiff was appointed successor trustee in the appropriate case that an applicant is
on August 22, 1961. The Land Court in entitled to a permit under the precise terms
1962 ruled that the town had not sustained of the by-law. The findings below suggest
its burden of proof. recognition of this and an intention to rc-
solve the issues as though there had been
The ruling of the judge in the Superior an appeal to the board tinder c. 40A, § 13
Court decreeing a "variance" as to lots ("appeal * * * by reason of * * * t
1 and 4 was based on his conclusion that inability to obtain a permit"). The pro-
§ VI, A, 2 (c), of the zoning by-law is ceedings before the board, however, (lid not
applicable. That provides that notwith- justify this. The board expressly noted `
standing the arca requirement"one dwelling that the appeal to it was not from the denial
may be erected oil a lot containing less than of a permit. It sloes not appear that the
20,000 square feet * * * if such lot was plaintiff at the hearing asked that the
recorded at the time of the adoption of this board so regard it., Nevertheless, the E
1. The decision sbows that the nl)l)lie:ult land but only roads null open spaces.
did list: Lho hoard to exerciao its express Section V.r, A, 5, would in any case hnve
power under § V1, A, 5, of file by-lrrty been applicable only to lots 2 null 3 ns
I:o alakc :t special exception for "adjacent lots 1 fill(] 4 :uc not adjacent to any other
lots :required which bas less arca * » » h)is in the sante ownership. We assume
eda illlhe Ibis sectionxvle shp record- that the appeal to the Superior Court
al as all in the samc ownership at Lhe
time Ibis by-law i:; adopted" provided cer- raised tile issue of the plaintiff's right
Iain colldlliolls exist: in adjoining ureas, to a permit from the board of appeals
The decision also shotes that l.1 e bo:uvl under § VI, A, 5, us to lots 2 and 3, but
1 assumed ghat the applivaliou could be t:he plaintiff concedes that the section is
construed :ta nn application for sur.lt a ivappliltnble became lots 2 and 3 could .
permit but found That the 1897 plan not be, found to have been sepnnlie lots
showed no lots at all ill the plainlill"s recok-ded prior to 1933.
i .
i
ifrn
F'�i;+tf�;, �».
• ,tk+. k`'�r'rix �``"'i r f F Y, �y�,t+ x*t;.
1
• 1
808 Mass. 202 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
plaintiff's right to a permit under § VI, A, variance solely upon a legally nnlcnable at
2(c), as will hereafter appear, does have a ground anti [;ut indication I } rite board] 2(
t.' Dearing on the contention of the plaintiff that except for that ground lite variance
c:P
555
that the board erred in denying her a vari- would have hccn gr;u led " 331 Mass.
559, 120 N.E.2d 916, 91(
ancc. tit
The plaintiff recognizes that there is no
The board, as is shown below, did, }tow-
j legal right to a variance (Pendergast V. ever, in effect rule Ilial the in:tbilil} to use ti•
Board of Appeals of Bantstahle, 331 Mass. lots 1 and d for :uty building perposc
not relevant ill dclerntining wltel.ber 10
555, 559-560, 120 N.E.2d 916; herranic v. crcisc its discretion to grant :1 t v;u'i;nnc.
Board of Appeals of Northampton, 345
t ! Mass. 158, 161-162, 186 N.E.2d 471) but "Thea
to the Snpc rx,r (',nn I. presents tt�,
contends that she is within the c ceptions that ruling for rcvtew. s..
stated in those cases as possibly justifying The board concluded that lots 1 and •1
a decree for a variance. She asserts that 3
apparently constitute non-buildable lol.s"
the application of the by-law deprives her 1i1
and lots which are not within the cxcntptiott
! of an use o£lief ro crt and that "all the l'..
y P P Y of § VI, A, 2(c), of the h}' law since they
facts presented compelled a finding that were not recorded in 1938. it decnu•d these
each requirement * * * [for a vari- lots no "different front other lots creMc(l
ancc] had hccn satisfied, and the board fail- subsequent to 1935 which happen to have �t
cd to make any findings to support its oxer- an area of less than 20,000 sgn:uc feet." �c
cise of discretion in denying the variance." The board held that being "Hort-buildable" f`
Ferrante case 162 186 N.I:.2d p. 474.
P vas not a condition "especially affecting
She refers to the cases that bar the un- * * * [Streit pat-cels] but not ❑fleeting tl'
reasonable application of zoning by-laws generally the zoning district in which [they
to particular properties. Barney & Carey arc] located" (G.L. c. 40A, § IS). "I'hns the
Co. v. Milton, 324 Mass. 440, 87 N.E.2d 9; hoard although it ntacle no 1 1 io I of l
Gem Properties, Inc. v. Board of Appeals hardship in this connection, appears to have
of Milton, 341 Mass. 99, 167 N.E.2d 315; acted on the premise, in effect a rulint* that l
jenckes v. Building Com'r of Brookline, inability to use the land for any building 1 i
341 Mass. 162, 167 N.E.2d 757. These are purpose was irrelevant in the dctcrntinaliorr 1
not variance cases and they may he relied ��>hcthcr to grant a variance.
upon only in an appropriate proceeding.
ori
See, e. g., G.L. c. 185, § 1 (j 1/2), and c• [1] At the threshold,Nvc nnrst dcfcrntine G .
y240, § 14A. The Gem case involved a per- vvhcthcr the board's prcnrisc of "non-build- tl.•
mit and the opinion reserved the issue able" lots was right. 'v\'c hold, for reasons t i
(PP• 102-103) wltetlter the judge could sus- next stated, that § VI, A, 2(c), is applicable
tain the denial of a variance not%vithstartd- to lot 4, so that nothing in the zoning hy- di
ing the hardship seemingly involved in pre- lave bars its use for a house lot.
venting the use of land for any building
purpose. See Sorenti v. Board of Appeals The deftnilion of "lot" in § I includes "a
of Wellesley,345 Mass. 348,354, 187 N.E.2d single arca of l;md in one ownership dc-
ni
r 499, 96 A.L.R.2d 1361. Sec also County of fined by ntcte., bounds or boundary lines in
i
Du Page v. IIalkier, 1 I11.2d 491, <195-196, a recorc]ed decd or on :L recorded l,l:u,." ?•
115 N.E.2d 635. Lot 4 as now proposed Was not sho•,,'n on
e the 1897 plan as dcfntcd by bunnd;u v lines.
is
and t
The facts found by the board he But lot 4 is made up of a parcel licit.
R judge do not bring the case Nvilhin the shown as a park on rite 1597 pl:m together
exceptions suggested as possible in the with parts of the adjacent private w;tys.
f Ferrante case (see supra) and the fender- That park parcel wars a sinl;lc arca of
gist case ("an owner * * * denied a land * * * defined by * * * bonncl-
d
+)
,.i
11777,71
1
i •
CIIATER v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF MILTON plass.
809
c;ce as 202 tv.t:.2d sc>v
:fable ary lines" on the 1897 plan. Section VI, A, nutting it to find that there were conditions `
2(c), permits one dwelling to be built on especially affecting lot 1 but not generally
'•"IC" each such arca as a lot if that arca "did not affecting the zoning district in which lot 1
StiS at the time of * * * [tile] adoption [of is located. We think that the board could '
the zoning Uy-law] adjoin other land of the reasonably have found that the inability to '
,t• same owner available for use in connection make any use of this lot while in separate
use
with said lot." 1'hc reasonable implica- ownership constituted a hardship for pur-
tion is that in the event that there is other poses of a variance. Contrary to the view
adjacent land "available for use in con- expressed by the board, there is a hasis for
11c". rection with said lot," it must be added fiuding that the lot is differentiated front
tits thereto, so far as needed to bring the lot "other lots created subsequent to 19.35
up to zoning by-]nty sire, and that the lot which happen to have an arca of less than
so crnlrg(A may he used for a dwelling. 20,000 square feet." Except for the effect
:d 1 Sorenli v. ]bard of Appeals of Wellesley, of the widening of "llarbor View Part:, a
•.ls" 315 Alass. 3-18, 353, 187 N.L.2d 499. The private way," lot 1 would have beet like lot
iirua plaintiff by filing the 1962 plan has, in ef- 4, and § V.1, A, 2(c), would have permitted
li(y feet, asserted that parts of the areas ad- its use as a building lot without variance
:rsc jaa,nt to the park pa ccl are no longer com- from the by-laws' express terms. Indeed,
lc,l milted to the original purpose of private the exemption, as noted in respect of lot
f')
:ive way use incl hence arc available for use 4, tvotd(1 have pertuilted the use as a build-
t." with that parcel as a lot. We rule, there- ing lot of the originally defined, unangntellt- ("
Jc" fore, that lot 4, inclusive of such areas, is ed park parcel, an arca smaller than the
within the excntltt.iou of § Vl, A, 2(c), of presently proposed lot 1. The original
in;( the zoning by-law. setting aside of the arca for a park, its
11cy eventual availability for building use not-
Hie Lot 1, however, is in different aspect. withstanding that action, if it is so avail-
of That lot incorporates only a part of the able apart from the zoning by-law,` and
t.e pari: parcel shown in the 1897 plan, since
sonic of the parcel las been included in the rile widening of the adjacent private way so
l; I`
presently existing private way adjacent to that § V1, A,2(c), is inapplicable, are "con-
:,ay
ki
]ot 1 oil n
e orthwest. See sketch above. dations * * * especially affecting
n
Lot 1, unlike lot 4., is therefore not an arca [such parcel] but not affecting generally
1
"defined by * * * houndary lines * * the zoning district in which it is located."
file. on a recorded plan" (tine 1597 plan) modi- See Burke v. Spring Latae Doi. of Adjust- �
Ill_ fied only by the addition of "other land of mcnt, 52 N.J.Super. 495, 145 A.2d 790;
ins the same owner available for use in connec- Johnson v. IVloore, 28 I\lisc.2d 7, 219 N.Y.S.
le tion with said lot." The board therefore 2d 114; Wciblc v. Zoning 11d. of Adjust-
was right in deeming this lot in a residential ntent, 25 Pa.Dist. & Co.R.2d 74.
district a "non-buildable" lot.
That most of the houses in the vicinity
[2] The board, however, was in error are built on lots smaller than 20,000 square
in the ruling that there was no basis per- feet suggests the possibility at least that
in
' 2. There is no basis in this record for de- Carroll v. Ilinohlpy, 316 Alnss. 721, 513
• n tornnining wholher ally adjoining or rnear- N.103d 608. Compare llobnrt V. '('owls,
S. by owners or their predpcossors ill title 220 1linsx. 2'.)a, ]f)7 N.E. t)6 t. As to
i
act)uire(1 their lots in reliance on the possible dedication of the land to public l s showing of Harbor Vioav 1'nrlc on the use, flip Lille renutining ill the trustcUs,
a 1897 plan as :ua open :u pa so ns to havo sec Attorney Gen. v. .\bhott, .151
s, prosect rights in rp:+pccl. of Uae plaintiff's 323 Q8 N.E. 2M, 13 L.R.A. 251; Attor-
t laud. Sco Macon v. Onset Bay Grove npy Gen. V. Onset Itny, (;rove Assn, 221.
Assn, 2-11 Mass. 917, 136 N.E. 813; Dias. 392, l01) N.1'1. :11;(.
202 N.E.2d--51Vi
)
t
'l
�(irp
3.7,
t�y� �4yy�erf�+l,� t
,'k7R p4 r
'�krhtG�ki�yl(��
t f
I 8.10 Mass. 202 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
relief could be granted "without subst. I
tial detriment to the public good and with- ORIENT REALTY INC.
' out * * * substantially derogating V.
{ ,l from the intent or purpose of the by-law."
Anthony DE MAURO.
l We hold that the mere possibility, sug-
Sol,
Snprcnte Juclicinl Court of 1\iassacbnsells. c
gested by the judge, of a purchase of lot 1
by the owner of an adjoining lot for the Worcester.
I purpose of enlarging such lot would not Il"
nt'„ur,l Not'. i, 1Wyl, of
be a relevant ciretmistance. Nor cines the
original intention that the land be a park Decided Dec. 1, 111rt,
answer the hardship contention, for the i'c'll
plaintiff may not use the land for anything crl'
other than a park unless the land is now Suit was brought primarily for reslora- 1
free of legal convnitmcnt to park purposes' tion of removed sail. 'I`he Superior Con rt,
{ See note 2, supra. Vallely, J., entered a final decree dismiss-
It follows, because of the erroneous rill- ing the hill, and the I,IainlifT appc;dcd. The
It
related to hardship and special condi- Supretthe Judicial Court held that hill suss
tions, that underlay the hoard's exercise of properly dismissed, where master was jns-
its discretion, the proceedings nnrst be rc-
tified by his subsidiary finditq;s in conclud-
manded to the board for reconsideration of Ing in effect that dcfcnd;nrl, with pl;tintif 's
i the application for a variance for lot 1. consent, reasonably improved w;13' without
excess excavation, damage to plaintiff, or
i There is no basis for a claim that tlhe material interference wills road level near
board erred in denying a variance for lots
• { y g . plaintiffs buildings.
2 and 3. Nothing in the zoning by-law
bars the use of the arca of those lots as Decree affirmed.
one lot for residential building. That the
area may not be divided into two lots of
i course does not require, even if it permits, Easements C-53
a finding of hardship under G.L. c. 4011,
§ 15. Where master was justified by his sub-
sidiary findings in concluding in effect that
7
3 The decree in the Superior Court is re- defendant, with plaintiff's consent, reason-
' j versed. A decree is to enter to the effect ably improved way without excess excava-
that the board was in error in its determina- tion, damage to plaintiff, or nhaterial inter-
tion that lot 4 was not within § VT, A, 2(c), ference with road level near plaintiff's of ,.
of the zoning by-law and lienee not useable buildings, bill seeking princil,:dly reslorrt-
for residential building purposes, but that tion of removed soilwas properly dismi=scd.
the decision of the board of appeals denying (Icf,
the plaintiffs application for a variance for -- to t-•
T lot 4, as well as for lots 2 and 3, did not f,rnl
} exceed its authority and no modification of Edward A. Prodeur, \Vorccstcr, for
t its decision to deny a variance as to those plaintiff. broil
lots is required; also that the decision of Coni
the board is annulled as to lot 1 and the pro- Robert V. ATulkcrn, Leicester, for de- I ico
+ ceedings are remanded to the hoard for I,
consideration of the application for a vari- of. ;,•
ance for lot 1. Pcforc 1VJI.KINS, C. J., and SP1T,1)- disci
t TNG, WIT IT-1-F TORF, CU'17I;R and
,l slum
So ordered. SPIEGT3L, JJ.
;j
777 7Z. 77,7Z-77-
s
EDGEWOOD FARM 547 Osgood Street
SAMUEL S. ROGERS
P.O. Box 111
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
(617) 685-1595
September 13, 1985
Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town Offices
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Serio:
I am writing in support of Mr. Kettenbach' s petition to
reconsider his application presented last Monday night. I and my
mother own the two parcels of land in question besides being
abutters.
I attended the hearing you held on his appeal, and was
greatly surprised at how the discussion strayed so far from the
issue under consideration. As I uderstand it, Mr. Kettenbach
is applying for a building permit for a single family residence
well outside the Watershed District and on a lot that far exceeds
the minimum lot size. His hardship is that he will not have
frontage directly on a public way ( Osgood Street) but has access
via a deeded Right of Way. Thus he needs a variance.
I believe there is a precedent for such a variance in that
when Mr. Cullen ( who also was present at the hearing) bought his
property from Mrs. Charles, he needed the same sort of variance
to get a building permit for remodeling his house. Also, at the
time, I granted him permission to use the road over my property
known as Edgewood Farm so that he would not have to actually
build a driveway over his easement across the land of Molly Charles.
At the hearing, a whole slew of issues were raised con-
cerning my application for a preliminary sub-division plan which,
if it were to be perfected, would have to come before your board
anyway. The discussion contained many inaccuracies of fact put
forth by Mr. Cullen. But the point is, none of it has anything
to do with Mr. Kettenbach' s request for a variance.
I urge you to reconsider your decision and grant the
petitioner his request. Such a use of the property would be
in the best interests of the Town by increasing its taxable
value without requiring any additional Town services.
Yours truly,
GOLDMAN & CU RTIS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
EST.1913
FOURTH FLOOR, LOWELL PLACE
ROBERT H.GOLDMAN 144 MERRIMACK STREET FRANK GOLDMAN (1890-1965)
JAMES T.CURTIS LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01852
TELEPHONES
CORNELIA C.ADAMS
454-8804
RONALD I. BELL BOSTON NO.
CHRISTOS M. MANIS 729-2625
ROBERTA A.SCHREIBER
KAREN R.SAVRANSKY
GREGORY T.CURTIS '
OF COUNSEL
EFTHEMIOSJ. BENTAS
JAMES D. LATHAM
September 18, 1985
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town Offices
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Reconsideration of Application for Variance
Applicant: Michael L. Kettenbach
Dear Mr. Serio:
Please be advised that this office represents Michael L.
Kettenbach of 40 Coachman' s Lane, North Andover,
Massachusetts with respect to his application for a variance
for property bordering on Lake Cochichewick. Mr. Kettenbach
has a binding Purchase and Sale Agreement with Mr. Rogers to
purchase this property. On behalf of Mr. Kettenbach, request
is hereby made for reconsideration of your decision on the
above application which was presented to your Board on
September 10 , 1985 .
Mr. Kettenbach intends to build a single-family
residence on the property. Enclosed are copies of a plan
which sets forth two proposed sites for this residence. An
earlier sub-division plan originally filed by Mr. Rogers with
the Planning Board unfortunately created some confusion at
your Board' s September 10 , 1985 hearing, but is not at issue
here.
As stated above, Mr. Kettenbach has selected two
ro osed sites for the residence. Number 2 is the referred
P P
P
site and Number 1 represents his second choice. The
preferred site, Number 2, is just within the Watershed
District and requires a variance from two sections of the
Zoning By-Laws, Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 which involves
street frontage, and Section 4 , Paragraph 4 .133 (4) , which
involves the Watershed District. The second site, Number 1 ,
requires only a variance from Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 .
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Page Two
September 18 , 1985
As you know, the property in question contains
approximately thirty (30) acres and has access to Osgood
Street by a private way. The property is, however, unique in
that it has no street frontage and is land-locked. A
variance of Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2 is necessary to build
one residence anywhere on the thirty acres.
The granting of this variance is warranted in that the
lack of street frontage creates a substantial hardship.
Without the variance, Mr. Kettenbach would be unable to
obtain a permit to build the residence thereon. In short, he
would be deprived of all practical use of the property. As
Mr. Kettenbach intends only to build one single-family
residence, the granting of the variance will neither nullify
nor substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-Laws. It also will not cause substantial detriment
to the public good. It will simply permit Mr. Kettenbach to
construct one residence on approximately thirty acres of land
which is zoned for residential purposes.
As aforestated, however, the preferred site for the
residence falls just inside the Watershed District and
requires a variance of Section 4 Paragraph 4 .133 (4) . The
site is, however, still approximately 1150 feet from the
shoreline of Lake Cochichewick. Building the residence at
this site will , therefore, neither substantially affect the
contour of the Watershed District nor the filtration and
purification functions of the land. As such, it will neither
substantially derogate from the purpose of the By-Laws nor
adversely affect the public good.
As site Number 2 is the preferred site, Mr. Kettenbach
respectfully requests reconsideration of the Board's decision
on a variance from the requirements both of Section 7,
Paragraph 7.2 involving street frontage And Section 4 ,
Paragraph 4 .133 (4) which involves the Watershed District.
If in its judgment, however, the Board does not wish to
grant the variance of the Watershed District provisions
necessary for site Number 2, Mr. Kettenbach respectfully
requests reconsideration so that he still may be granted a
variance of Section 7, Paragraph 7 .2, which is necessary to
construct his residence at site Number 1 .
GOLDMAN & CURTIS
Mr. Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Page Three
September 18, 1985
Thank you kindly for your courtesy in this matter .
Very truly yours,
4
FI CURTIS
t
. rtis
JTC/lam
Encl .
t
�uaaa ,
yd NORTy�
J 3?`CPO
AFRILM
'kill
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS "
NOTICE
Augus t. .2 0. . . . .1985.
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,on. .T ue s day. e ve n i n g
. . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . the .1.0 . . day of September. . . . . . . . . .
19.8 5 , at.7 : Aclock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
Michae 1 .L... .Ke.ttenbach,,. ,40, .Coaehman.'.s , Lane.". .
requesting a variation of See.7.,. .Par.. .7.2. . . .of the Zoning
B Law so a to e t. . . . & Table 2
variance sfro-WrT96 street -frontage requirements
with . respect to. -the. -building. -moratorium- under the
Water Shed District Temporary Growth Limitation ,
Section' '4',' paragraph 4'. 133 (4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
on the premises, located at. . 1-and -bordering -on -Lake
Cochichewick by N/F Boston UniversitX,. .N./. .F
Albert F. Cullen, Jr. N%F Estate of Mary F. Charles
with access PY&dQ949WJd09j4:WeAVpeals
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
Publish N. A. Citizen, Aug. 221 1985 & Aug. 29 , 198`
Sent bill to: Goldman & Curtis
Fourth F. , Lowell Place
144 Merrimac] St. f Lowell, MA 01852
Date., . . G
i
T= 4091 j
NORTq
'" �;. •��o TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
10 . 14
PERMIT FOR PLUMBING
,SSACMUS�
This certifies that
has permission to perform
plumbing inthe buildings of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . North Andover, Mass.
f r PLUMBING INSPIECTIA
C/
08/04/99 11:26 15.00 PAID
WHITE:Applicant CANARY: Building Dept. PINK:Treasurer
V/
MAP D 3 7
M SS CH TS UNIFORM N FOR PE IT TO DO PLUMBING
PARCEL_ O O / 9
(Type rmt)
NORTH A ,
'1 Date 7 li
- Z _99
Building Location -/"Q �OgGl�/YIQ'/1 Owners Name /� d 6t Permit#— yU /
Amount
Type of Occupancy
New Renovation E� Replacement Plans Submitted Yes No
FIXTURES
z
C dw w
z C z a
c rA
a rd
Z F. Z C C Z -
SLI3-BZ4V)):
HA�IVIHT(t
1S1:FLDQ2 w A bV' ',,Q / `-7 t
2M RIM I
3M FLOOR „
5M lLmt
6M FlJ)OR
7MFUXR
MFLOOR
(Print or type) Check one: Certificate
Installing Company NameS,,n� e• [a Corp.
Address /C F �v(�"t Partner.
"7P�Jks 5v�-y dN�l o e 7 6 --
Business Telephone 976 ifs/ 9'1?6-7 � Firm/Co.
Name of Licensed Plumber: /`"IS ),� �LoF
Insurance Coverage: Indicate the type of ins rance coverage by checking the appropriate box:
Liability insurance policy Other type of indemnity Bond ❑
Insurance Waiver: I,the undersigned,have been made aware that the licensee of this application does not have any one of the above
three insurance
Signature Owner Agent
I hereby certify that all of the details and information I have submitted(or entered)in above application are true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and that all plumbing work and installations performed under Permit Issued for this application will be in
compliance with all pertinent provisions of the Massus s Stat PI binge an Ch er 142 of the General Laws.
By: 77ignature of I nse um er
Type of Plumbing License
Title /Z 7 (
City/Town cense i umoer Master L_I Journeyman ❑
APPROVED(OFFICE USE ONLY
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX SS Superior Court Department
Statement of Damages Pursuant to
Superior Court Rule 29
To Prevent Transfer to District or Municipal Court Departments
(Applicable to Civil Actions)
1. This action is not subject to Rule 29 Remand for the following reason(s): (concise statement
as to why this action is not remandable, e.g., party seeking equitable relief, declaratory
judgment, action against commonwealth or municipality, etc.)
This action is not subject to Rule 29 Remand in that it is
a zoning appeal against the Board of Appeals of the 'Town of
North Andover for equitable and declaratory relief and not
for money damages .
2. This action is subject to Superior Court Rule 29 and the following detailed statement pursu-
ant to Rule 29 sets forth the facts in full and itemized detail upon which the plaintiff relies as
constituting the damages in this action:
(if tort action, for example, specify doctors' bills, hospital bills, out of pocket expenses,
etc. that would warrant a reasonable likelihood that recovery will exceed $7,500.)
(if contract action, state with particularity damages which would warrant a reasonable
likelihood that recovery will exceed $7,500.)
1 I t te,`� Si 0 Yo record or pro
TYPE OR USE BALL POINT PEN—BEAR DOWN FIRMLY
MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
Essex CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET Z�
SS. (To be filed with each Complaint) NO.
.AINTIFF(S) DEFfONa,AA'd I`%f Appeals of the Town
1ichael L. Kettenbach of North Andover , et al .
[TORNEY(S) (Firm Name, Address,Tel.) James T. Curtis ATTORNEY(S) (if known)
:�OT_DMAN & CURTIS , 144 Merrimack St . ,
Cowell , MA (617) 454-8804
BO ##
Place an 6]C in one box only ORIGIN
�] 1. F01 Complaint ❑ 4. F04 Dist. Ct.Appeal c.231,s.97
(] 2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c.2.31, s.104 ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescript; Relief
from judgment/order (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60)
(-] 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Ct. 0.231, s.102C
Place an (` in one box only NATURE OF ACTION
CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
( AOI Services, labor and materials ❑ C01 Land taking (eminent domain) ❑ E02 Appeal from administrative agency,
G.L. c.30A
A02 Goods sold and delivered ?] CO2 Zoning appeal, G.L. c.40A ❑ E03 Action against Commonwealth or
A03 Commercial paper E] CO3 Dispute concerning title Municipality, G.L. x258
A08 Sale or lease of real estate ❑ C04 Foreclosure of mortgage [] E04 Taxpayer suit, G.L. c.40 s.53
I A99 Other(specify)_ ❑ C99 Other (specify) ❑ E05 Confirmation of arbitration awards,
G.L. c.251
TORT EQUITABLE REMEDIES ❑ E06 Massachusetts Antitrust Act,
1 1303 Motor vehicle negligence-personalG.L. c.93
injury/property damage E] D01 Specific performance of contract n E08 Appointment of receiver
I B04 Other negligence-personal Injury ❑ D02 Reach and apply, G.L. c.214, I] E09 General contractor's surety bond,
property damage s.3(6)-(9) G.L. c.149, ss.29, 29a
I B05 Products liability ❑ D06 Contribution or indemnification ❑ E10 Summary process appeal
I BOG Malpractice-medical ❑ D07 Imposition of trust n Ell Workman's Compensation
I B07 Malpractice-other ❑ D08 Minority stockholder's suit [] E12 Small Claims Appeal
(specify) ❑ D10 Accounting ❑ E13 Labor Dispute
1 [308 Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, s.2A ❑ D12 Dissolution of partnership F] E14 Chapter 123A Petition —SDP
I B15 Defamation (libel-slander) ❑ D13 Declaratory judgment, G.L. c.231A [] E15 Abuse Petition, G.L. c.209A
B99 Other (specify) ❑ D99 Other(specify) — ❑ E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal
❑ E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12, ss.11 H-1
S THIS A JURY CASE? ❑ YES /NO ❑ E99 Other (specify)
SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29. Requirement of statement as to money damages to prevent the transfer
of civil actions to District or Municipal Court Departments.
I. Superior Court Rule 29, as amended requires the statement of money damages on the reverse
side be completed.
2. Failure to complete t e statement, where appropriate, will result in transfer of this action (Superior
Court Rule 29(2).
;IGNA1 URE O T - RINEY OF O f DATE:
10/11/85
orr1CF USE NL E B IS RECEIVED
SPOSITION BY:
ent Ent red B. No Judgment Entered DATE:
❑ 1. B e jury trial or non-jury hearing ❑ 6. Transferred to District Court DISP ENTERED
. uring jury trial or non-jury hearing under G.L. c.231,s102C
❑ 3. After jury verdict BY:
❑ 4. After court finding DATE:
❑ 5. After post trial motion Disposition date
CLERK'S OFFICE COPY
mtc003-07/84