Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-09-19163 ~onda~ - September Regular Meeting The Boar~ of Appeals held their regular ~eeting on M~mday evew4-g ~eptemher 19, 1966 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building. The following memhere were p~se~t and vote-g: John J. Shields, Chaired_ ~ James ~ Days, Seeretary~ Donald J. ~ott, Daniel T. 0tLe~ry and Arthur Drn~_~. Associate- M~mhers Howard G~m, and W~Am Deyermond were also present to observe. There were 14 people present for the hearings cf the eve~ ~EARINGSs Mr. Days read the legal notice. Mr. Harvey appeared before the Board and explained that the present structure is located o~e foot frc~ the present lot line, that it is in a state of physical condition necessitating its demolition since ~he reconstruction of the ease would Be economically unsound. Be f~rther stipulated thet~ he had suffered a heart attack and that the proposed location was clo~er to the: street front line but wit~-~ the required set-bask l~-~tations fr~m the street front; that being allowe~ this, it w~uld enable ~ to house his auto,shAle in a garage, especially dur~,,g the winter months which the new location would cut down to ap~m. tely one third the distance of the driveway length. The present drivo~ay could he utilized without requiring additional street ope-~-~. Mr. Ba~,,~y ~ that it would not Be in derogation to the neighborhood since many other s~m~Ar type structures are in non-conforming set-back situations in the ~inte neigh- horhood, and that he would sustain severe hardship, particularly in view of his physical condition, if the permit were denied. There was no oppe~itioa. Mr. O'Leary rode a motio~ to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Days seconded the ~otion and the vote wes 2. Walter P. & L~W~-a M. Mr. Days read the legal notice. Atty. Bonald F. Smith represented the peti- tioners, pleading the Justification of the request for a m~or. deviation fr~a the applicable zoning requirements as shown on a plan of land wherein the applicant desires to sub-divide a large ~ cf land i~to four heuse lots. Lot 3, the ~ubJeet lot, contained 'gross land area in excess of the Z~'~,~g ~y-X, aw requirements and lacked ?.3~ feet of street frontage fundamentally due to an irregularity in the lot line wherein 26 feet had been taken fro~ the street f~nt line man~ yeare ago. He further noted that Lot 1 contained more tb-- 20% of the required land area and that Lot 2 had substantially greater amount of land th~n required, that Lots 1 and 2 did possess the min/3mm street frontage, and that in total land ax~a ~ from five to six lots, had bean redu~ad by the petition_er to four lots. Be referred prineipelly to the three lots on ~n~van Road, indicating that a variance of the wd~-ute differential required on street frontage w~zld not derogate FA~a the intent and purpose of the By-Law nor would it be detr~_e~ntal to the neighhorhood; and that failure of a favorable decision would, in effect, produce a hardship, both financial and other~se, to his click%. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition ~nder advisement. Mr. S~ott se~o~led the motion and the vote was ~aa. 164 September 19, 1965 - Coot. .3. C~4rman Shields disqualified h'~,,,,,elf' to sit ca this healing a,~& Associate F~amber Howard' Gilman replaced h.t~, D-~4el T. O'Leary s~% as Chairman for this hearing. Mr. Deyo read the legal notice. There was nobody present to represent the apglieant and there were no objectors. The application contained a request for a variance of the side yard lines of existing garages presently on a lot of land located ca Pleasant Street, being part of an over-all piece of land owned by Village Land Company. Both garages are in nos- conformance with the provisions of the Zo~4~g By-Law. The Board was appraised of the conditions by John J. ~hielde. It ap~re that Village Land CmapenY, cootrolled and owned by trustees of Davis & Fvrber Co., c~wned many vnits aloog and abutting both side of subject property. There properties were constructed some 80 years ago for the purpose of housing employees of Davis & Furber Machine Co. The purpose of dividing off said lot was to convey same to an employee of man~ years~ sea--ice with said com~an~. The garages ~ question ~ve existed prior to the adoptie~ o£ the present Zoning By-Law. The app].icatioo is to coofirm the establistment of a lot of land which otherwise conforms with the Zo-4,g By-Law. It is also indicated that other incidences of secondar~ buildings in the over-all complex of the many ~areels ownedby Village Land Company are in a non-cc~forming comditica. Therefore, favorable action co this petition can be construed as a confirm~wg action on the part of She_ Board to recognize conditioos that prevailed prior to the adoption of the preset% Zoning By-Law. ~r. ~d made a tactics to take the petition under advisement. Hr. Deyo eceo~d~l the motion and the vote was ~. ~. Angelo Cataldo~ The regular members eat on this ~etitioa. ~r. Deyo reed the legal notice. Atty. Alfred L. Daniel~ represented the petitioner, who was also present. He is requesting a Special Permit to erect 20 rental units, of three structures, on a plot of land containing 11.07 acres, more or less, and that the ~ts wo-~__d be bu'-It in accor~amce with architectural plane s~hm4tted. They were to be of delu~e ~t~-~ with an est4~ted rental of $~OO per unit per mooth, and th-t it was the intent of the applicant to maintain all roads for se~,lce and maintenance ~ses, as we~ as all of the grounds which were to be completely landscaped for scenic beautificatica. He displayed a rendering of the projected site when completed which indicated a taste- fn~y designed entrance f~om the Salem Turnpike. He gave an extensive description of the quality and general aeeo~odaticas of the proposed buildings and their beautification settings and indicated that the issuance of such a permit would not derogate, from the intent and ~urpose of the exist4-~ By-Law, tha~ the granting of such a permit would not be detrimental nor adversely affect the neighborhood influences or derogate from the. neighborhood valves, ~d that to de~y the application would create a severe hardship, beth financial and otherwise, u~on the present o~ner since the applicant was ready, able, and w4~.~ to comply with a~l ~eptember 19, 1966 - con%. limitations and conditions that are req-4-ed under the Ze-4n~ By-Way off North Andove~ or which may be imposed upon an~ granted permit by the Board. Mr. ~ohn F. Coady, 8~ Turnpike St., an immediate abutter, a~oke ~eth for ~n-elf and his father-in-law, Mr. Daniel J. Connol:ly, also an abutter, and stated that the pro- ~o~ed rental ,~t almrtment complex, in thei~ opiulon~ would ewh~-ee the neighborhood. ~tr. Joseph F~lole, a resident of North.Andover, spoke in o~ositien, stati~ t~t i~ his opinio~ there were enough apartment ~-~ ts already erected in the Town. Several other citizens ~resented questiona which were answered to their a~tafaction. ~everal members of the Board aaked various pertinent questicas with reelect to the applAeation and its 14-~tations and conditions. ~r. O'Leary made a motie~ to t-~ the ~etition under advisemea%. Mr. Drmamcnd aeeemded the motion and the vote was unan~. The Board then went into Executive Seasion~ T~e Boax~ discussed the peri%ica and reviewed the ~-~a. There w~s eufficie~t knowledge among members of the Board that the ~leading 'of ~r. Harvey ~ cc~firmed by ~ersonal knowledge. ~r. O'Leary made a motion to ~ the variance. Mr. Deyo seconded the motion amd the ·ote was unanimous. The reasons for approval are as followa~ 1. Approval shall in no way be detrimental to the ~w~-diate neighborhood tm~luences. 2. That a~proval ia not in derogation to the intent and purpose of the By-Law. 3. That to den~ this application we-Id cause substantial hardship, both fi~meiaX and otherwise, to the a~l~icant. 2. Walter P. Hoyt: Th~ Board diecu~sed the applicatien and the ~lana were revie~d. Mr. 0~Leary w~de a motion to GRANT ~he variance, secce~ded by Mr. Dr-mwww~ and voted ~ to approve the ~.~.61~ frontage for Lot 3. The reasons for granting are~ ~. That to de~y the application would create a severe ha~ds~ip, both f~ancial and otherwise, upon the present o~ner. 2. That approving of said variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the existing Zc~ By-Law. 3. That the granting of said variance would not be detrimental nor adversely affect the neighborhood influeaces or derogate from neighborheod ~l~ea. 4. That to the passer-by, no evidence of street froatage variance would be notiee- ahl~ observable. 166 SeFte~ber 19, 1966 - Cont. 3. Village Land The Board discu~eed the ~etition and reviewed the_ ~, during which ti~ aa e~n~-~tion and confirmation of the general conditions surrounding the applicati~ vas,. ec~sidered. Mr. Seo%% ~ade a motion to GRA~T the variance. ~r. Gil~n seeoaded the moti~ and the rose was unanimous. The reasons are as follow8~ 1. Ap~val ~ in no way be detrimental to the character or adversely ~,~lueace the neighl~rhood. 2. A~roval of the application does not derogate frc~ the intent and FoA~oae of the ~y-Law. 3. Denial of said ap~ica%ion would result in ~dahi~, both binancial and otherwise~ to the applicant. ~. Angelo Cataldo~ The Board thoroughly discussed the petition and reviewed the pleas. It ms moved by Mr. Deyo, and seeonded by Mr. 0'Leafy, to table the appltcatioa mt~il t~e next regular meeting of the Board for addi%ional conaideratioa and evaluatioa of the merits. The Vo~oe was ~A~4w~so The neeeasary b~s were signed. The meeting adJourneda% 10t30 P.M. Chairma