Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-11-09Monday - November 9, 1964 Regular Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, November 9, 1964 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Building. The following members were present and voting: Daniel T. O:Leary, Chairman; William Morton, Secretary; Arthur Dr~.~.Ond, Henry E. Lurid and John J. Shields. 1. HEARING: Joseph Filetti, 7:30 P.M. ~ F Mr. Morton read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Filetti who.requested a variation of Sec. ?, Para. 7.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the addition of a one story building to the existing building to be used for mercantile and office space on the premises, located at the south side of First Street, running from the corner of Main & First Streets, 195 feet along First Street and known as #91 M~in Street, N~rth A nd over. Mr. Filetti appeared on his own behalf. He said the plans explained what he wanted ~o do. He Wants to add four stores facing First Street and added that this addition would. greatly improve the area. Mr. WentWOrth, 25 Saunders Street, was recorded in favor of the petition. There was no opposition and no abutters present. Mr. Lurid made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton seconded the motion audthe Vote wasunanimous. 2. Continued hearing from '~ct. 13 meeting. J~seph D. McDonald. There were 12 abutters present. Mr. McDonald presented the corrected plans as re- . quested by the Board at the previous meeting, also a copy of the deed for the property. Mr. Morton read the minutes of the previous meeting pertaining to this particular hearing in order to refresh everybody's memory. Upon checkiug the plans and the deed, Mr. Shields felt there w~s still not enough evidence. Mr. He~-vey Bilodeau, 71 Adams Ave. again objected strenuously and read a prepared statement in oppositien to the petition. Mr. Lund asked how many people in that area have a lot that qualifies under the present zoning? Mr. Bil~deauansweredthat they all do. Mr. Lurid said thatthey don't. He said Mr. McDonald could still build a small house on that lot. Mr. &Mrs. Dubois objected, saying the street-is narrow as it is and this lot wouldntt allow room for a driveway er garage, making it necessary: to park cars on the street. Mr. Bilodeau said the petitioner himself said he had an option to bu~the land, that he wasn't the actual owner. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. M~. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. Cont~uued hearing from Oct. 13 meeting. Dr. John A. Hawes. Dr. Hawks presented the corrected plans. Mr. Morton read the minutes of the previous hearing pertaining to this particular hearing. Dr. Hawes said the plans speak for themselve and that the house will be set in back. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Drammond seconded the motion and the v~te was unanimous. November 9, 1964 - Cont. 4. North Andover Land Company: This petition had been taken under advisement at the October 13 meeting. Mr. Shields explained that no action was taken on this petition we wanted more in- formation, particularly from the Fire Dept. However, he said he would have no objection to re-opening the hearing so that the attorney present could speak on it. Mr. 0~Leary said we wenlt re-open the hearing, but will listen to whatever Atty. Morley has to say. Mr. Wentworth and Mr. Moriarty~were also present. Atty. Morley stated he was representing Andrew F. Coffin who owns the abutting property on the south side of the building in question. He said that under Sec. 6.41, the petitioner does not hame the area or the frontage. He has well over the 35% of the totsl area built now and wants to add to it. As regards to open yard space,, this would leave no side yard space. It doesn't conform to anything in the By-Daws. The side lines are basically for fire protection. Mr. Shields asked how much space there was on the opposite side of his client's building. Atty. Morley said he doesn't think there is any space, but it was put up before any By-laws came into existence. Mr. Wentwarth said that Mr. Coffin was aware that this building was going up and did not oppose it at the time of the hearing. When he found out what they were going to handle, then he was opposed. Hehad an opportunity to state his case and didnlt show up. Mr. Shields said you are prospective tenants but not representing the petitioner and Mr. Wentworth answered that was right. Mr. Shields Just wanted to clarify that point. Mr. Morton read the letter from the Fire Chief in which he said he was opposed to the addition but that it would be no more of a fire hazard than any other building. Mr. Shields asked to see the correspondence of the Kea~age petition to see what type of letterhead or address was used by the Fire De~t. at that time. We addressed our letters to the Board of Fire Engineers and receive answers on N.A. Fire Dept. stationery. There is no evidence that the Board of Engineer's acted upon our request in the letter. Mr. OtLeary asked Mr. Shields if he cared to call them up to clarify the point. Mr. Lund said he thinks the Chief is it - that he makes the decisions. Mr. Shields asked why we direct correspondence to the Dept. of Fire ~gineers. Mr. Lund said maybe we should direct it to the Fire Chief. Mr. Shields said that maybe the Boerd of Fire Engineers doesn't have any stationery. Mr. Drummond and Mr. O~eary said that probably the Board of Fire Engineers doesn't even know about whatts going on unless they're told about it. Mr. Shields said he doesn't think we are going to accomplish anything by pursuing it. Atty. Morley said the application states there was no previous appeal on this before. In 1958 there was, Joseph Byron applied for a lO-foot store on the same spot. November 9, 1964 - Cont. Mr. Moriarty said when he talked to Mr. $offin he was not opposed at the first meeting, what reason does he have to oppose now. Atty. Morley said he thinks he is doing the Board a favor. If they listen to him now, they won tt have to listen to him in court. Mr. ~ields made a motion to go into executive session over this. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 1. JOSEPH FILETTI: The Board checked the Zoning By-Laws ~d maps to make sure the land involved was in the Business area - which it was. Mr. Drummond made a motion to grant the petition, Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Morton then suggested if it wouldn't be a good idea to ask Mr. Filetti to beautify the area a little more. A didcussion was held regardt~E provisions for parking, hot- topping, shrubbery, etc. Mr. Shields then made a motion to reconsider the petition. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The clerk contacted Mr. Filetti at his home and asked him to return to the meeting in order to discuss the Boardts suggestions. 2. JOSEPH D. McD~ALD: After a short discussion of the petition, Mr. Shields made a motion to D~Y the variance. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The reasons for denial are as follows: 1. No serious hardship will .result from the denial of this petition. 2. Ail avenues available to the petitioner to secure such land as to place this land into conformity with the Zoning By-laws, have not been exhausted. 3. DR. JOHN A. HAWES: Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board finds that the request for the variance was not for commercial or promotional reasons, but purely to provide a site and home for his son. The total parcel of land presently owned by.the petitioner is far 'in excess of the re- ~,~ements of ~he Zoning By-law. In the Rural Residential zone, there are many non-confo~ lots with less than the zoning requirements and with less area than lot 5A possesses, mainly 94.0 street frontage and a total of 1.8 acres, and mbile the street frontage is less than is re- q,,~wed, the total area is almost twice the minimum requirements. Were the requested variance to be granted and a dwelling to be constru~b~d upon the parcel as the applicant intends, no observable zoning non-conformity would appear to any passer-by nor to any adjacent land owner. November 9, 1964- Cont. To deny this petition, this additional lot cannot be used for any purpose under the Zoning By-law and the to~n as well as the applicant would suffer hardship. JOSEPH FILETTI: ~. Filetti returned and discussed with the Board the improvements to the surrounding area. Mr. Filetti was agreeable to whatever the Board desired.' _After Mr. Filetti left, Mr. DrumMond made. a motion to GRANT the variance subject to off-street parking, beautification, etc. Mr. Lurid seconded the motiou aud the vote ~S ~ani~O~. ~e BOard fotmd that if the variance is not granted, that the best end-use of subject land would be denied and the town as well as the applicant w~,l~ suffer hardship. ~e Board sees no derogation to abutting properties er to existim~ neighborhood in- fluences, but to the contrary, would be a definite up-grading in the appearance of the downtown business sections. The petitioner agrees in the acceptance of this decision, to hot-top that area between the two buildings now existing and fronting on Main Street and the buildio~ to be altered to provide four stores, for the purpose of off-street parking, and that this hot-top shall extend from First Street to the property now o~ned by Norwood. The= petitioner further agrees to instell living shrubs on each end of the proposed store section for screening and beautification purposes. ~ The Board recognises that in the granting of this variance, that a general up-grading of the property ~ill enhance the appearance of the existing structures and is a definite asset in the improve~ent of the area. NORTH ANDOMER L~D COMPANy: ~ter a lengthy discussion, Mr. Shields made a motion to D~NY the variance. seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The reasons for denial are as follows: 1. No hardship would be suffered by the denial of this petition, 2. If the building were constructed as sho~nu, it would create a hazardous fire safety co~tion as indicated by the Chief of the North Andover ~ire Department, the agency directly responsible for fire safety. The Board signed the following bills: John R. Hosking 19.50 Daniel Cshill 5.00 Anna Donahue 40.85 The meeting adjourned at 10:00 D.M. ~D