Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-02-13175 ~caday - February 13, Regular ~eeti~g & Rearings The BOARD ~ APPEAL~ held their regular ~eetiag ea ~ evening, Februar~ 13, 1967 at 7=30 P.~ in the To~n Office Building. The follc~ing ~e~Bers were prezeat and voti~gs 3ohs 3. Shields, Chair~aa; 3a~es A. Deyo, Arthur Dr~, Associate ~mbere William Deyer~ond and Hc~ard Gil~aa. Each Associate ~e~her w~ll sit for two hearings. There were 20 people present for the hearings. 1. HEARING= MarJorie Hargreaves. (A.M. Deyerm~d sat on this hearing). Mr. Deyo read the legal tactics. Atty. J. Albert Bradley pleaded the application which provides for the chen~ng of two lots, cae original~ 50' street fr~tage, and the seo~d lot kaowa as ~rblehead Street containing 1001 frontage. Atty. Bradley-expire-ed the site plea and explained the various reasons and c~nplexities involved, and indicated the purpose of the applicatica wes to ~rovide two lots with equal fr~atage, ~a~ely 75' frost eachl that there exists ou the combined two lots, three two-f-w~y reaidantial structures est~mmted in age between 75 and 100 years, and exist~-~ prior to the adoption of an~ zoning regulations. Atty. Bradley explained that in cow~_~u owaership by a Mrs. Jewett, now deceased, there were no problems, that as a result of the will of ~a~s. Jewett, there ~s deeded to the applicant M~ MarJorie Hargreaves, a niece, the property located at ~ l~arhlehead Street with the greater ;?~tmt of frontage, .mw~ly 10OI frontage. A review engineering aualysis indicated that the property deeded to others as a result of ~rs. ~ewett's ~, ..w~ly the properties kno~aas 3~ a~d ~35 ia the frost of the lot, and in the interior of the lot ~8 and ~40 Marblehead Street, were-coatained ca a 50~ wide lot with no access or frc~tege. That in requesting the re-sub- divisi~, it would allow a more equitable distribution of the total area of land, resulting ia ~w~.roved land pl---~-~ and end land use. It is further explained that there is, as sho~a on the larger lot, a dotted l~-e indicating an existing drive- way with a tufa-arc, nd which allows egress to the rear two f*~]y dwelling which will remai~ as a right-of-way over the Hargreaves property for the benefit of the occupants of #38-40 Marblehead Street. Atty. Bradley further pleaded that to dezy the applicatiou would create a severe hardship upon the present new owners of the lesser lot; that it ~as not in derogatioa i~-r~m the infest of the existing zoning law or neighborhood ~-~luemces or aeighborhood values. There were no objectors to the applicatio~ Mw. Drnwmoad made a tactics to take the petition uader advize~ont. Mr. OtX~ary seconded the ~otion and the vote was ,~,,4w~us, 2. ~ING; North Andover La~d Company. (A.M. Deyermond sat on this bearing). ~. Deyo read the legal notice. Atty. 3. Albert Bradley represented the petitioner. He pleaded the applicatio~ for a variance fr~m the require~ants of Section $ and 6.41 of the 2,o,.4n_a ~'.~ so as to per~it the subdivisio~ of a lot of la~d at the cor~er of Msia Street and Waverly Road. The sub-divi~-8, if granted, would have one principal lot ~ containing 5~28 sq. ft. and a second lot with an area af BBS sq. ft. Atty. ~radley outlined the fast that the structures on each of the two proposed lots appear to · he a -~-~w,m of 75 years of age, located in a high density area with lots. of various sizes, predo~---tly under 5,00~ sq. ft., in aa area zoned ~Busines~, 13, 1967 - Cont. and with pa~ieular reference to the Maim Street neighborhood influences; structures were Built on the ewtire lot area to lot lines, and particularly to street f~ont lot l~es. Atty. Bradley further pleaded that the ~purpose of the application was to prevent a very definite hardship to the present oocupant of the buildimg to be kaowa as Lot B. This occupant is a youag business man ia the tonsorial busiaess who has for the past several years been developing his way of life, his livlng~ a~d his good ~ from a business view-poimt. And in said.developmewt he is exposed that in the evewt of the sale of the original parcel by the present owner~, he eould be evicted and suffe? ix~eparable d~w~es from the good Ell of the business which he has been building up. The present owaers have'had title to this property fo~ approx. 3-4 years and have expended considerable finencial capital outlay in re- modelling, upgrading, amd impro~-8 both structures currently existing. It was further pointed out that considerable hardship would be ex~riemced in the even% that the sale of both structures were combimed in oae pareel einoe the end use of the buildimg sow existing oa Lot B is totml~y ~m~4~e the end use of the buildiag located on proposed Lot A. It was further pleaded that mo outward pbysieal che~ges would result fram the approval of the applicatiow, and from the ca~ual passer-by, no determ~-Rtion of subdivision action would be observable. This faetor, therefore, ~ust be eonstrued as being wot detrimental to the neighborhood as both struoturec existed prior to the adoption of the current zo~-g law, and does not deviate from typical, similar eo~ditious in the high density area u~ler diseussiom, l~rther, that approval of the applicatioa would not be in deregatio~ to the intent and purpose of the By-Law, and that a definite h-~dship would be sust=~-ed in the event that the application were to be denied. Upon questioning by the members of the Board, Atty. Bradley had no objections to any restrictions which the Board would or may decide to impose with respect to the erection of an~ additional fens4-8 on m~v present or future lot lines, amd that no additions to either structure ware to be permitted. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Drum~nd made a ~o+~ton to take the petition uader advisement. Mr. O~Leary seoonded the motion. The vote was 3. ~I~ARI~tG: ~obu H. McLanghlin~ (A.M. G~ sat ~ t~s ~g). ~. D~ ~ t~ le~ ao~ce. T~ ~~ ln~etor ~, p~nt. ~. M~~ of ~, ~.~, ~er of P.F. B~~rs, ~o~ ~ ~s ~ ~. ~ sta~ t~t t~ ~ad~ for an of~ ~s n~d ~ o~er ~ ~re ef~eiently ~ ~s ~ess. T~ ~ ~tt~ ~ de~ci~t ~ not ~ ~ficien~ det~ as to t~ ~ ad~on it~. T~ ~ ~cted ~es ~s~t ~ ~ obJeo~s ~ r~s~.. Mr. Drummond made a motiom .to table the petition subject to the m~misaion of proper detailed arehiteotural plans. Further consideration w~U be n~de at the next regular meetiag. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was ,~-n~w~us. HEARING: ;ohs L. Chapman. (A.M. Gilman sat on this bearing). Mr. Deyo re~d the legal notioe. Mr. Trenhol~, am agent for the applicant, outlined the history of Lot 27 which possesses street frontage. He indicated that the present o~er was interested in selling February 13, 1967- Cont. 17'7' to John L. Chapman, that it was purchased in 1949 from the Teem of North Andove~ Board of Selectnen, but that the title was not recorded until January of 19~7; that ~n requesting a variance whieh indicated a desire to build wit~4n side-yards less than the mininmn side-yards permitted under the 2~n~ng By-Law in view of tho 45' ~ntnge. The following abutters were recorded as opposed: 'Emil Boulangar, 31 Upland 3t., Rt. 8pedding, Upland Stroet~ Armed Giarusso, 27 Furber Ave.; ~oseph Greico, Highland View Ave. ~ Genevieve Dow, an immediate abutter. Host of the obJeotions predicated upon aesthetic values and re=ny other noB-pertinent causes. Tho Board, iR its inquiry to ~r. Tre~ho~n, could not supply the subject lot by Mr. John L. Chapman, u4~Mw either by a deed or soles agreement. (Mr. Chapman was on a business trip +~o the West Coast and could not be present). A letter ~as received fr~a Mrs. Ryrtle F~yer as opposed. Mr. Drumaoad ~ede a ~oti~n to take the petition u~der adviseBant. Mr. Deyo seconded the motion and the vote ~as Tho Board then went into Executive Ssesion: 1. ~ohn L. ChnpuRa? A length~ diseussioa was held by the Board .and the plans were reviewed. ~r. Drummond made a motion to ~HY the application; seeonded by ~r. Deyo; and the vote was unani- The reasons for denying the petition are: 1. That no substantial hardship, finaneial or otherwise, was indieated to the Board since the petitioner at this time is not legal owner of the property. 2. That to grant the variance as applied for, would be dotrinmtal and adversely affect the neighborhood influence and derogate from neighborhood values. 3. That any approval of said application would .derogate fr~ the intent and purpose of the existing Zo-~ng By-Law. 2. MARJORIE HARGREAVES. The Board disonssed all the pertinent fasters and reviewed the plans. M~. 0'Lsery Bade a motion~ te GRA~T the variance, seconded by Mr. Deyo and voted ~na,~wA,,_,~y and approved the re-designation of the lot ]~es as indicated on the plan. The reasons for granting are: a. That to den3~ the application would create a severe hardship, both Financial or otherwise, ~pon the present owners. b. That approval of said variance would not derogate from the intent a,~ purpose of the existing Zoning By-Law. e. That the granting of said variance would not be detrimental nor adversely affect the neighborhood ~luences or derogate frcu neighborhood values since all existing structures and land use shall remain i~mdamentally the sams. 178 February 13, 1967 - Cont. d. That to the passer-by no evidence of street frontage variance would be noticeably observable. This variance he~ been granted with the restriction that the preseat driveway would remain ~acheaged and be used as a right-~f-wa~ for the egress of d~ellers occupying #38-40 Marblehead Street. 3. NO~rH ANDOVER LA~D COMPANY. The Board reviewe~ the pla~s and discussed the pleadings of Atty. Bradley. The Board considered the feasibility of favorable action a~d the ~ecessity of re- te4,~,~ the buildings in their present condition with a restriction ag~_~nst a~ future exterior additions to. the present sizes of each M,4~, and a restrictioa to the erection of a~ fences beyond those currently existing. The pr~-~ipal purpose of ~ these restrictions is the Board's cognizance of the high density of buildings, several with business offices on the street floor and residential ·aits on the' second and third floors of adjoining buildings, with the further consideration to prohibit any exclusion of fire preventica or fire apparatus frc~ entering the existing open land area of the property i~ question. Mr. O~Leary made a mctio~ to approve the application subject to the followiag restrictions and reasons; The motion was seconded by Mr. D~,-~nd, the vote was carried four to one with ~r. Deyo dissenting. The restrictions contained in the motion were that no additions to the ex+~rior of any part of either butl~wg be made in the future, without +~tme ~4w~tation, amd that no fence of =~7 description shall be erected on or near any lot ltaes of either Lot A .or Lot B, now or in the indef4~te future. The reasoas for granting a. That to deny the application would create a severe hardship hoth financially a~d otherwise upon the present o~ner. b. That approving of said variance would not derogate from the intent and purp~ze of the existing Zoning By-Law. c. That the granting of said variance would not be detr~w~_ tel, nor adversely affect the neighborhood influences or derogate from neighborhood values. d. That to. the passer-by ac evidence of street frontage variance would be noticeably observable. The Boar~ e~ the necessary plans for the petitions that were approve~. The Board signed the aecessary vouchers. The meting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.