HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ.Desmond Letter to ZBA in Opposition - Correspondence - 34 Wentworth Avenue 11/9/2021
11/9/2021 &
12/14/2021
Dear Zoning Board of Appeal committee,
We are writing as an abutter to property 34 Wentworth Ave. We want to note that we are officially
objecting to the granting of the special variances needed to build a single family home in this lot.
To my understanding the zoning regulations have been adopted with the goal of serving the best
interest of the town residents. To protect our town from over development and keep our community a
lovely place to live. Therefore variances should be granted sparingly .The scope of this project is asking
to have 5 variances (63% variance) in order to build a single family home this does not seem to meet our
community planning goals. Our current zoning laws say 12,500 square feet are needed to build and this
lot is 4,547 square feet. That is 7,953 square feet too small for building a home. These zoning laws are in
place for a reason.
I do not believe that it is not in the best interest of our neighborhood and is harmful to the neighboring
abutting properties. It will impact our privacy, the look and feel of our neighborhood and also most likely
have an impact our existing home/property values. It is important to look at the condition of the lot
itself and not the wishes and goals of the landowner/developer since the lot is simply too small for a
single family home.
The landowner and/or the developer to my knowledge are not planning on living on this property so
they do not have a vested interest in our neighborhood. Once the property is built and the profit has
been taken they will no longer care about this neighborhood, leaving us with the harmful impacts. In my
the zoning
laws clearly state that a financial gain is not a reason to grant a variances.
A landowner has the right to ask for the town to reassess the property for taxation purposes. After each
attempt to build (that were denied by zoning) or ğƓǤ ƷźƒĻ during owning this land they could have
requested the lot to be evaluated for tax purposes. They chose not to act which is a self-created
situation and not a financial hardship. They paid the taxes as a buildable lot even knowing it did not
t challenge it.
In addition, the property was purchased in the 1900s and inherited by family members. A lot has
changed in the last 100 years, including building laws. The family has had many opportunities to sell or
develop the land over the last 100 years but did not. It should be noted that people make bad
investment choices all the time. It is unfortunate, but it is the case when dealing with money and
investments. Again this should not be a reason to grant this lot variances.
It should also be noted that every abutter has at one point asked to purchase this land from the
landowner. I have been told that each of the offers have been denied since the landowner felt the offer
was too low. My husband and I have offered twice to purchase this land. The last time we reached out
to them in 2020 about purchasing this property through a realtor. The first time in 2014, we had their
family realtor at our home to give a written offer that she refused to bring to the land owner. Our
intentions were not to develop it but to keep it as green space for the neighborhood. We would still
consider this option to purchase this property as a non-buildable lot of land in the future.
Also most homes on Wentworth and Highland View Ave are made up of two or more lots in order to
meet the building standards of today. Either side by side or front to back lots. The rear lot was available
for purchase until 2012 when our home was built so again this is a self-created situation since the
landowner could have purchased our lot prior to it being developed.
The home that is built next to the lot on a similar size plot of land was built in 1973 which was before the
change in the North Andover zoning/ building laws. This home would not have passed if this building
plans came across the zoning board in 2021. Our understanding is when the building laws changed, a
buildable lot was only grandfathered in if it was 5000 square feet. This property does not meet the
guideline for a grandfathered situation since it is 4547 square feet. It also has not had any existing
structures on the land. Therefore should be classified as non-buildable lot (as many of the other lots
that are in the neighborhood are). Even back in 1956 based on those zoning laws, the lot would have
had to have variances since it was too small for those standards also.
We are asking that you consider all of the above when making your decision. Please see it from the
abutters/ neighbors prospective, and interpret the zoning laws as they
were meant to be to protect our current residence.
Thank you
Sincerely Julie and John Desmond