Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- Application - 329 OSGOOD STREET 8/9/2018 ' Variance Request of James R^ and Lisa B, | afmDd 329 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Items A-F A. The proposed use is the construction of a one story, 16' x22' (353 square feet), single oar, frame garage. B. There are no special circumstances regarding soil conditions or topography. However, due to the lot shape and size, siting possibilities for e garage are limited. Situating the garage in the proposed location will allow easier access to public roads (Phillips Court is much less busy than Osgood Street), will provide a privacy buffer for us and for those abutters in the Phillips Court area, and will allow us the convenience of having a garage nsvve get older. C. The current zoning by-laws do not pose a financial hardship for us. However, they do present a hardship in allowing usto site our proposed garage in regard to aesthetics and maintaining the usefulness mf our property. Working with our architect and surveyor, we have determined that this location will be the most attractive option and will a||ovv for uytm retain as much open space as possible. Locating the garage inconformance with the current setbacks would result in blockage of sunlight in several of our first floor rooms, would not result inan increase iD privacy for our property, nor for our neighbors, and would result in much more impervious surface on our lot because of the extended driveway surface, resulting in more runoff from our property, which is very flat. Also investigated would be the possibility of attaching the garage to our home. This would be a much more expensive project and would require entrance into the end of the home furthest from our kitchen, and through either a bedroom or home office, resulting in less functionality of those rooms. D. VVo have consulted with en architect for this project, Uoton|yforthmdesignmfthe garage, but for the location. It was determined that if built in the proposed location, this structure would be very attractive in the neighborhood, and would enhance the view of our property from Phillips Court. For us, it would provide a sense of privacy for the interior portion of our lot, along with other landscaping plans that we have for the rear and side lot lines. For those living inor driving on Phillips Court, it would be anlorg pleasing site that looking into our current back yard where we have a clothes line and park our utility trailer. Prior to this year, our rear lot line, and part of our side lot line on Phillips Court, was lined with twelve large (50'—60') conifers that provided a 'wooded' look to our lot and the neighborhood. While we intend to recreate this natural buffer and have begun planting already, it will be years before they offer the same effect as 3 those trees that were diseased and had to be removed. It is an opportune time to incorporate this garage into our landscaping plans to give us some immediate privacy and indoor space for a vehicle and our lawn and snow removal equipment. In the past, we have shared a shed with family who lived in the abutting lot at 321Osgood Street. However, those family members are now deceased and the property is occupied by a non family member. Sharing this shed, which is also in poor condition, is no longer an option. Although we currently retain ownership of that property,the shed is really for the use of that home. E. In our mind, the intent of these ordinances is to protect neighbors and the public in general from overbuilding and congesting an area. We have spoken with many of our direct abutters and have consulted with an architect. Everyone, without exception, has been very supporting and accepting of our proposed plans. We have received many comments supporting the fact that we always try to be good neighbors and always try to maintain our property to be an asset to not only ourselves, but to our neighborhood. We would not even consider embarking on this project if we, or any of our neighbors, felt that it would be detrimental to anyone. F. The Conservation Commission has commented that no wetlands are present on our property and they have no other interest in this project.