HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-08-08 The Board of Appeals held thei~ regular meeting ou ~onday evening, Aug-st
1966 at 7:30 P.~. in the Towa Office Building. The following members were present
and voting: John J. Shielda, Chairman; J_~me_s A. Deyo, Secretary; Dee~.d J. Scott,
Daniel T. 0tLeary and Arthar
There were approximately 18 people ~resent for the hearings of the
Mr. Deyo read the legal notice. Atty. Edward F. Gordon reprewented the petitioner
who explained that the ap ~p~licstion provides for the conversion of the third floor
level of a two and one-~* story, two family dwelling into a four roc~, one bath
apartment. The arehiteoturel plane showed a floor space of 748 sq. feet and also
indicated the ~nstailation of a new ~60 sq. ft. dormer window en the exterior of
the roof line. He said that there would be a substantial he. vdehip to the petitioner
and that the conversion would not be a detx~_~nt to the public good nor would it
derogate fro~ the intent and purpose of the By-Law.
Mr. ~oas~h Cushing, an abutter, was oFposed sa~ing +_.h~_ neighborhood ~ ~er
neigh~r~ ~ ~i~ t~ ~ssi~ of ~~1, ~r a~ea~
for ~ w~ch ~ ~s~ ~t ~e of t~ ~.
~ ~otion to take the petition _~_~_a_ ®r advise~ent. Nr. OtLeary
~e~o~de~
the
and the vote vas unanimoue.
2. ~RING: ~ll4am A. and Patricia A. I~-eran.
Mr. De~o read the legal notice. Atty. J. Albert Bradley represented the
~etitioner, who pointed out an ambiguity cont~4~d in the deed fro~ Sutton
Co., Inc. to the petitioaers. The deed ia recorded in Book ~3, page 318 u-.der
date of November 23, 1965, a certified eolry of which ~a~ presented to the Board.
There ia reference to a strip of land 15' in width along the southwesterly
boundary of said premises, ~-~ said strip of land ~ubJect to a dr-~v~ge easemen~
to the Town of Nc~h Andover. In locating the dralaage, which is ~peoifie-lly for
a storm dry,4,, pipe which may lay in said easement, the contractor responsible for
erecting the dwelling for the petitioner uaed a catch he*~ location a~ the eased
corner of the lot as a starting point to laying out the proJect~l aide yards. Ti~
haa proven that thio aas~a~tiea ie the key to the erroneous failure to c~ with
the Zem~,g ~y-~aw. He also presented a plot plea showing the existing foundation
wherein 2~ set-back fr~ the front street lot line exieta in error, the set-back
was actually taken to the center of the foundation which is 30~ more or leas.
Oharlea H. Foster, BX~hlding Inspector stated that he waw present at the ~ of
~taktn~ out the subject foundation and that he Joined in interpreting the deed and
was of the opinion that every effort was ~ade by the eoutracto~ to place the foumda-
tion on the lot in accordance with the requirements, that it was not until after the
co~lotiou of the dwelling that he became aware that the ~lace~ent of the foumdation
Atty. ~amee F. Valdron, representing Eichard 0athene, owner of the lot abutting and
easterly of the Finneran lot, stated that his client had no obJectionl to the granting
of a variance, that his client wanted to be presented as in favor of granting the
160
A~gust 8, 1~66 - cont.
Atty. Bradley pleaded that the circumstances of the misplacement of the foundation
resulted fr~ a~bigui~y conta4~ed in the phraseology of the w~itten deed conveying
the subject property to the petitioner; that the violations to the Zoning By-Law
were committed in good faith, without intent to violate, and that reasonable effort
was e~ployed in ~king the placement determinations. Be stated that the granting
of a variance would not be in derogation to the intent and purpose of the By-Law
er to the naighhorhoed. The structure e~ista 2.~ feet, were or less, fr~n the
~o~theasterly lot line and 4.67 feet, more or less, from the ~outheasterly lot
l~-e; and the erroneou~ placement of the front elevation of the fo~adation 24 feet.
more or less, from the street 1~--. The petitioze~ ~uld ~ffe= a_~_ ex~ hardship
3, ~t ~ay~ J. Carbene.
Mr. Deyo read the legal notice. Atty.
Atty. W~ e~ed t~ con~ti~ e~st~g ~ ~ a~tt~g lot ~ aa ~ ~a~
R~ ~d o~ed ~ Wi~ & Pat~c~ F~er~ ~ ~e~ t~ ca~e of ~ ~tit~
~ ~s e~ent v~ no obJe~i~s ~
~y, reco~ t~t a ~st~t~l ~d ~ ~1 h~sMp w~d ~ ~d
~ t~ F~e~ 1~ ~er ~ sti~d t~t t~ r~a~ for ~ s~ ~tition
~ t~t ~ ~a~n of t~ act~ ~sion of
~~ly a~t~ t~ eas~r~ bo~ of t~ Car~ lot~
~t~ of both ~titions ~g ~.
Atty. Waldre~ pointed out, fre~ the attached plans, %hat ~he land now or formerly
owned by D~d ran very deept& M~lk St. but did no~ border on He~th Road; tha~ a ~tcne
bound indicated the boundary of the lot 5.16~ northerly l~m the Carbine easterly
ho~aded lot line off Heath Road; that Lot 13, by reason of topograph~ and anb~diviaion
layout, is currently owned by one Rosenberg; and that, in essence, the land n/f
owned by Do~d is e~mese land which in all projections of ~-d use indicates non-
developable land by reason of no access to Heath Road. He advised the Beard of
Appeals that efforts were w~d~ to procure additional land frc~ the abutters without
success. It was further pleaded that if the petition were granted to allow a
structure to be built within 5~ of the easterly lot line that the nearest dwelling
would be in excess of 150' from said dwelling; that his client was petitio-4-8 to
alleviate hardships, not only to his client, but to the westorly abutter. Be pleade~
that the grant~E of the petition wo~ld not in a~y ~ay derogate ~ the intent or
lntrpose of the By-Law, that no ~ubs%antial detriment to the ~ub~tc good wc~tld develop
that special conditions affectS-8 this parcel of land does not generally affect the
zoning district in which it is located - in view of the excess land without street
frontage on the easterly bound.
Atty. Bradley, re~resent~-8 the abutter ~l"~11'~am A. Finneran, spoke in favor of
granting the variance.
~r. O~Leary made a ~otion to take the petition under advisement.
~eeonded the motion and the vote was
The Board then ~ent *~ into E~eeutive Session~
August 8, 1~6- Cont.
1. ~ren Xelloy~
The Board discussed the petition and reviewed the plane. It was vieued that a pro-
~osed six foot ceiling height was indicated on the plans; that a new dormer, whie~
would materially affect the exterior a~pearanee of the present property, was
posed; and that no ~ or ex~_-ation as to two indicated stairwells lea~-~
the attio area, nov existing, to the second floor level, as to where they would
enter the second floor level with respect to the ~resent second floor livable ~mit.
The Board further questioned the ar~hitactural layout with respect to cc~e
with the State Sanitary Cede affeotiag livable ,m~ts fr~a tha standpoint of habita-
tion · tandards.
Mr. ~ mdc a rustics to ~ the a~mlicatica, which wa, seeonded by ~r. 0'Leafy
a~d the vote wal ,m~4e~aao
Tha reason, for denying are as
1. That no substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, can be construed ,ince
the applicant in recent years purchased the property with full knowledge that it
v~s zoned as a two fm.~ y dwell~-~.
2. That the granting of this permit could advo~sely affect the neighborhood
influences and vuluoe.
2. ~illiam A. and Patricia A.
The Board discussed the petition and reviewed the pla,,m ~ also discussed the
additional petitio~ for a variance on the abutting lot of Raymond J. Carbons,
consideration was granted to the over-all effeet of the placement o£ the subject
property.
~r. O'Lea~ nedea notion to GRA3T the petition, which was eee~aded by ~. Drmeeond
and voted unanimously iu aoeordanee with the engineerdn8 plane subeitted.
The reasons for granting this potition are~
1. That to deny the applioation would create a severe hardship, both ~---~,ial and
otherwise, upon the present o~ner.
2. That approving of said variance would not derogate ffrc~ the ~-tent and purpose
of the emist4-8 Zc~wg ~y...Law;
3. That the granting of said varianee would not be d~tal or adversely affect
the neighborhood influences or derogate fr~a the neighborhood values;
That to a casual passer-by there would be no observable evidence of the place-
mant of the ~?rovement8 on the subject lot.
3. Raynond ~. Carbine:
The Board discussed the petitioa and reviewe~ the p~_a~ and considered the
s~m~r petition of 88 Heath Road. Consideration was granted to the effectiveness
of both petitions and the over-a]_l effect of the placement o£ a structure on the
~ub~eet property.
162
Aught 8, 19~6- Cont.
Mr. Deyo ~ade a motion to GRA~T the petition and Mr. OtLeary seeo~ded the motica.
The vote was ~u~ and granted for the following reasc~ss
1. That to dan~ the a~lieation would create a severe hardship u~on the present
owne~, espeei~_~]y in light of a similar petition of the ~roperty at ~ Heath Road.
2.. That granting of said variauce would not derogate from the intent and purpose
of the existing Zoning By-Law.
3. That the granting of said variance~ would not Be detr~w~ntal or adversely affeet
the neighborhood influences ro derogate from the neighborhood ~alues.
4. That to a casual passer-by there would be no observable evide~ee of the placement
of the improvements on subject lot.
C?.~X'S ~AGE~ ~
C~ Shields pointed out to the Board that the Clerk~ s wages had been decreased
when she wa~ classified under Personnel Board Jurisdiction. ~e intends to appear
before the Personnel Beard to ask for an inorea~e in ~ages.
The necessax~ l~/_ills were signed By th~ ~oa~do
The ~eetizg adjourned at 9~30 P.M.
Chaireaa