HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950-12-18December 18, 1950 CONT,
This a petition presented to the Board of Appeals of North Andover
for variance from the requirements of Section 3 of Article IV of the
Zoning By~ La~s of the Town of North Andover, which expressly states that
#no principal building in any Residential, Educational or Agricultural
District, and no building used for dwelling purposes in ar~ other District
shall be constructed, altered or added to in such a manner as to provide a
side yard of less than 15 feet in clear width between the sides of the structures
and the side lot l~nes; excepting in specific cases where existi~ lots of record
are less that the minina~m width prescribed in this by-law. In such cases a side
yard not less than 10 feet in width __m~_y be permitted by the Board of Appeals".
In connection with this petition it becomes important to quote the secon~
paragraph of section V of this article which reads "Accessory structures which
are.connected to the dwelling shall be considered a part of the dwelling#.
The petitioners, Mary Burris a~d ~l~ed Stot% have presented a joint '
petition to permit them to construct a garage as an accessory.building to the
_~_~n building at 49 Beverly Street and which when constructed.would approximately
be three feet distant from the nort side line of the lot at the above premises.
The petitioners duly c~mp~ied with the requirements cf this Board by
filing a written application requesting the variance in a form prescribed in
such cases abd filing therewith plot plans for the proposed construction show-
ing the size of the lot, location cf present main building and garage proposed
to be built, and ~easurements and side line distances. The date for the Public
Hearing was set for Mond~ evening, December 11, 1950 at §~00 P.M. and sue notice
was given as required by the regulations established by the Board by advertising
notice of the hearing in the Lawrence Evening Tribune at least one week before
the date of said meeting and by mailing notices cf the meeting to all abutters
of SAid property.
The Board held a public hearing on the day and at the hour scheduled. The
following members were present and took part in the proceedings, '.
Chairman, Gregory Mooradkanian, Secretary, Richard G. Whipple, member Amdrew
Alvino and Associate members Sam DiMauro who at the request of the chairman
was substituting for member Irving C. Howes and James J. Regan who substituted
for member Henry E. Lurid in the absence of these members.
At the hearing the petitioners were represented by Counsel who premented the
case for them; none spoke in opposition to tht petition. At its cloSe, the Board
votd to_ taEe the matter under advisement and then mn an executive session, which
followed imediately afterwards, voted to view the premises prior to giving L~y
decision. On Saturday, December 16, 1950, the Board viewed the premises ar~
thereafter held a meeting on Nonday evening, December 18, 1950 at which time the
Board unanimously VOTe] to deny the application of the petitioners for a variance
in order .to enable them to erect a garage in accordance with the plans sub-
mitted and submits the following reason~ for their refusal to grant said variance.
1. The Board does not find any peculiar or insurmountable hardship to which the
petitioners would be subjected if the variance were not g ranted. Although the lot
i~ relatively narrow in width in contrast with its depth which extends ~ore tha~
SO0 feet to the Shawsheen Ri~er, nevertheless the Board finds that the petitioners
have a~ple side yard space to erect this garage on the other side of the house now
located on the lot, or ~mmediately to its rear, without experiencing too ranch
difficulty in access to or exit from the garage. ~
2. Although the Zoning By-Laws provides the power to the Board of Appeals to
December 18, 1950 OONT:
grant variances from the requirements set forth therein in order "to adapt
the requirements of this by-law to irregular, narrow or shallow lots"
(see article VI, section 1 (a) nevertheless the B,ard deems that a vari-
ance in this imtance would be in violation of the spirit and intent of the
~-Lae which the above cited provision expresslyprohibits and would in
effect amount to an amendment of the By-[aw.
Inthe determination of this case, the Board is necessarily guided
by the tenets set down by the Supreme Court in the case of Norcross vs..
Board of Appeals of the Building Department of the City of Boston (255
Mass. 177) where the court on page 185 says:
"It is manifest from the tenor of the zoning act as a whole as well
as from Section 1 g, that the power of authorizim~variations from the
general provisions of the statute is designed to be sparingly exercised.
It is only in rare instances and under exception! circumstances that re-
laxation of the general restrictions established by the statute ought to
be permitted,...The Chief purpose of a zoning statute has relation to the
_~ublic welfare....They (Board of Appeals) are bound to take broader view
than the apparent monetary distress of the owner. Otherwise there would
be no occasion for any zoning law...."
For the reasons cited above therefore, all members of the Board of
Appeals have voted to der~ the application of the petitioners for a
variance and all do hereby assignas grounds for such refusal the reasons
above set forth.
This report was signed byal! members of the Board taking park in the
proceedings of the application and the hearing.
A request was received from the clerk for the Board that a change in the
meShod of re~Aneration be made. The clerk had been paid at the rate of
$3.~0 per me~tlng and at the rate of $1.00 per hour for all work done over
and above the three hour~s allowed as a basic figure. The proposed cha~e
was suggested that the clerk now be paid a flat rate of $10.00 permonth and
this would include al~l work done for th~ hosed during an~ one month regard-
less of the number qf meetings or of the rmuaber of notices etc. to be sent
OUt.
Motion was made and ~econded and it was unanimously VOT~ to change the rate
of pay for the clerk for the Board to a flat ~10.00 per month.
Motion was made and seconded and it was u~animously voted that several
engineers scales be purchased for the use of the Boards
Motion was made and seconded and it was VOT~ to adJourn at 10~55