HomeMy WebLinkAboutGILBERT, SHELDON 4
i F AM Lr�. �A �
i*�ACNug��`
•VVV
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Ju26, 78
Date . . . . . . . .ne. . . . . . . .19. . . . . . . . . . . .
Petition No.. . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. . .June. .1.2,. .1978. .
Petition of . . . . . . . SARA & SHELDON.GILBERT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected . . . . .98 44rion _Drive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .North Andover_ Zoning. Hy-!Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit .construction. .of. .a.two-car.garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . . IIENT. . . . . the
Variance
14 ag Signed
a
Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
N �g 19� N SU o Alfred E. Frizel —Chairman
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
` � ro R. Louis DiFruscio, Clerk
James D. Noble Jr.
zo, John J. Gaffn III
Board of Appeals
may".• Men719 •S1
3 �
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
June 23, 1978
Sheldon Gilbert
Marion Drive
Petition #8-�78
Daniel Long, Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, Ma.
Dear Sir:
A public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on June 12, 1978 upon application of
Sara and Sheldon Gilbert who requested a variation of Sec. 6.3 and Table 2 of the
Zoning By-Law so as to permit construction of a two-car garage shown on a plan dated
June, 1978 and located at 98 Marian Drive. The following members were present and
voting: Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; R. Louis
DiFruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble, Jr.; and John J. Gaffny, III.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune on May 27 and June 3, 1978
and all abutters were duly notified by regular mail.
Upon motion by Mr. Frizelle, seconded by Mr. Noble it was unanimously voted to DENY
the petition. The reason being that the petitioner failed to present evidence to meet
the requirements of Sec. 9.5 of the By-Law.
Very truly yours,
BO -OFAPPEALS
141 7®
Frank Serio, Jr,,
R pEC
Chairman JUUM 2g 1978 w
AEF:gb ^D
;r
0 +7�"
1
June 19, 1978
Board of Appeals
Town Hall
North Andover, HA 01845
SUBJECT: Appeal of Sara and Sheldon Gilbert of the June 12
Decision of the Board of Appeals Denying a Request
for a variance of the aide Setback Minimum Regatee-
went of the R-2 Residential District for the Express
Purpose of Constructing a Garage.
The purpose of this letter is to provide all of the facts
necessary for the Board of Appeals to reconsider its June
129 1976 decision and subsequntly to approve our appeal on
the basis that it is consistent with the hardship require-
ments of the North Andover By-law.
It was the Board's judgment that the placement and realign-
ment of a proposed garage along the existing driveway pavement
could be accomplished within the minimum side setback require-
ment of 30 feet .
The information provided in this letter will in fact demonstrate
that the placement of the proposed garage immediately along
the existing driveway pavement would still require the granting
of variance because the arage would exceed the minimum side
setback requirement by 6f to Sj feet depending on the location
of the; garage entrance, and would additionally impose the hard-
ship conditions which caused us to seek relief from the minimum
side setback requirement in the first Instance. These hardships,
which we believe meet the substantial hardship test imposed
by provisions of the Zoning By-law, include problems with
respect to drainage, safety, designi&the effective use of our
porch,as well as financial hardship. We also expect to demon-
strate that the Board's subsequent approval of. our request for
a variance will not be detrimental, let alone substantially
detrimental, to the public good and will in fact be consistent
with the intent of the North Andover Zoning By-law's minimum
side setback requirements in the R-2 residential district.
I. General Information
1 . The distance from the outer foundation of the porch to
property line in question is 54 feet.
2. The distance from the property line to the driveway is
474 feet.
3. The width of the driveway is 151 feet. 6* feet o`f the
driveway extends beyoudd the foundation of the porch.
JUN 20 1978
MWON
o� ms •�
dp `Z
10 b2 Et g2
Page 2
4 . We have invested about $3,500 in the improvement of our
porch, $2,000 of which was spent recently for insulation
panelling and steel doors . All three outer walls are
made up of awning windows . The porch is a heavily used
portion of our home and is also used for entertaining
friends and business associates .
The measurements identified in items 1-3 are based on actual
tape measurements using a 50 foot metal tape measuring device
II . PurPose of the Minimum Side Setback Requirement in the R-2
Residential District .
The essential purpose or effect of the 30 foot minimum re-
quirement is to assure that buildings , particularly dwellings,
are no closer to each other in adjoining lots than 60 feet
and to assure reasonable distances between septic tanks and
leaching fields . The information which follows more accurate-
ly depicts the distance between the dwelling at 66 Marian
Drive and the proposed location of the garage as depicted
in the application for variance and the official surveylof
our property at 98 Marian Drive. The approximate distance
of the abutter's dwelling at 66 Marian Drive to the nearest
point on the proposed location of our garage is between
100 and 150 feet. {In our application we said it was at least
50 feet , if not much more. ) A visual view of the abutter's
dwelling showed that it was slightly east of our eastern
property line. We then measured the distance from the
closest point on his dwelling to the closest point on our
proposed garage and estimated that the distance was within
a 'rlange of 120 to 160 feet. A photograph taken five feet
from the northeast point of our property shows Mr. Iannazz 's
dwelling, swimming pool and storage building and was used
to establish the general location of his dwelling on his lot.
Based on the foregoing information it should be clear to the
Board of Appeals that the distance between Mr. Iannazzi 's
dwelling and the proposed location of our garage would be
such that the objective of the By=law in establishing minimum
side setback requirements which have the effect of maintain-
ing distances of at least 60 feet between dwellings and
accessory buildings would not only be met but substantially
exceeded. In addition to the foregoing, we would like to
add that we have located several evergreen trees (Scotch tines )
on our property line. These trees have reached a he1$ht of
seven or more feet and grow at a rate of one to one° and one
half feet per year. rhe location of apple trees on our
respective properties effectively screen our residences and
mould effectively scr6en our proposed garage. All of the fore-
going contentions are readily verifiable by a visual inspect-
ion and we invite the members of the moard of Appeals to visit
our property if it would aid in their deliberations.
'I
Page 3
We believe that the foregoing information clearly and unequivocally
establishes that no detrimental effect will accrue to the public
good or to the abutter if the variance is granted and that the
purpose of the zoning provision for side setback requirements
will be met.
III . Hardship
Having discussed the issue concerning the effect that a
granting of the variance would have on the abutter's property
and on the public good, we would like to direct your attention
to the question of hardship and particularly to the Board's
conclusion at the time of its denial of our request that the
garage could be built within the minimum side setback req—
uirement if it were placed and aligned so that it ran
immediately along the existing paved driveway. Recognizing
that in making its judgment, the Board did not have all of
the detailed information it needed to understand the actual
dimensions of distance including the width and location of
the driveway, the distance from joint property line to the
paved surface of the driveway and the distance from the end
of the concrete foundation of the porch to the end of the
driveway, we have provided such information. I would like
to mention in passing that I regret that I was not able to
stay for the entire meeting of the Board of Appeals . As you
may have noticed, 1 immediately left the meeting after the
Board voted to take our request under advisement. since it
was not explained tome that the Board might later vote on
our appeal later in the evening and I had to return -to my
home to return the baby sitter, I was not available to
answer additional questions which the Board may have had.
I actually learned of the decision by calling the Secretary
to the Board . Our understanding of the nature of the decision
was gained from a discussion which my wife had with the
Secretary to the Board. We were also advised verbally
after the Board's meeting that we had ten days in which to
file an appeal. Therefore, our understanding of the Board's
decision is based solely on verbal communication and not on
any formal written correspondence. 1 mention this in the event
that the Board 's decision and our understanding of it differ.
Itis our contention, based on the information which has been
provided in this letter and based on our understanding of
the Board 's decision that placement of the garage immediate—
ly adjoining the pavement of our driveway would fall within
the minimum:=side-:setback requirement, that in fact a variance
would still be required because the garage, depending on the
location of the entrance would extend beyond the minimum
30 foot side setback requirement by some 6J to 81 feet and
introduce elements of hardship referred to earlier in this
letter. It is precisely for the elements of hardship that
we are seeking a variance.
Page 4
A. Drainage
During the winter months , there is a substantial and
natural drainage which occurs with predictable frequency.
Water drains from the northeastern part of our property
immediately to the left and from the rear of our porch
and in part from a portion of the adjoining property.
Winter drainage occurs when there is moderate to heavy
rain, considerable snow melt particularly during the
late winter thaw or a combination of the above. Some
of the problems which arise from this drainage are
icing on a portion of our drive-way and water intrusion
through the foundation into our basement. A considerable
portion of the drainage moves right along from the rear
of the northern property line at an approximate 45 degree
angle into an area of some 7 or eight feet along the
foundation of the porch and then on down the immediate
side of the driveway almost to the bottom of the drive-
way where it then travels .across the bottom of the
driveway and then proceeds along the street into the
storm drain. The proposed location and positioning of
our garage, to a substantial degree is in recognition
of this drainage situation, its frequency and predictability
and our decision to accept its known consequences .
Removal of the 45 degree angle of the garage or locating
the garage so that it immediately adjoins the driveway
or -the -porch would cause the drainage to move in part
or altogether to another location such as into our
foundation, over our leaching field, onto our neighbor's
property on the south or over. a larger portion of surface
and area of our driveway. In some cases substantial
regrading of the Jand and subsequent reseeding might
! be required with unpredictable results . While the current
winter drainage profile is understood and predictable
and we are able to deal with it and accept it, tampering
with the current, drainage pattern including the diversion
of considerable amounts of water could be damaging. We
have had some water intrusion through ourfoundation during
heavy winter rains or thaws . We do not wish to anticipate
what might happen with a considerable increase in water
flow toward our foundation and into our leaching field.
The solution proposed by the Hoard still requires a var-
iance and would add the increased hazard of drainage
diversions . The proposed alignment represents a compromise
in that we might normally extend the garage further toward
the property line so that it began 10 or 12 feet from the
corner of our foundation instead of the eight feet we have
proposed. It bas.,always been a principle of good design
to take into account natural drainage in laying out the
site for a building. .our proposed garage is therefore
intended to recognize this principle and to avoid the
problems which can be expected to result if we interfere
with the drainage, flow: '
Page 5
B. Use of Our For ch
A considerable amount of money has been invested . in our
porch. We deliberately chose to have a porch with three
sides consisting of awning windows so that we could enjoy
the views , the cooling breezes in summer and its use for
entertainment as well as for dining. We did not nor do not
wish to convert the porch particularly after our substantial
investment in it into a. breezeway nor do we feel that the
provisions of the Zoning By-law intend that we limit its use
r considerably inteffere with its intended functions .
While the location of any building including the proposed
location of our garage does remove a part of our view, it
helps keep the northern face of the porch open for the free
movement of air. Particularly in the summer months, the
portion of the porch which faces the property line in quest-
ion receives no sunlight and therefore no heatup from the
sun 's rays . The proposed location of our garage provides
the best overall solution to the objective of our full
utilization of our porch.
C. Safety and Mobility
In order to locate the garage within the 30 foot minimum
side requirement, it would be necessary to consume 62
feet of the 15� foot width of our driveway, Icing due toithe
freezing of winter drainage would be the inevitable result
of forcing the drainage to move over a wider surface of the
driveway. Since our driveway is on a relatively stewp slope,
we must be concerned about the predictable consequence of
icing due to winter drainage being forced because of the
location of our garage to occur over wider areas of the
top and mid-parts of our driveway, ,
D. Appearance and Design;-
The problems assocoated with the location of a building
Tike a garage after the main dwelling has been built is
one which creates important design considerations. It is
not and cannot be the purpose of the Zoning By-law to
demand technical compliance with the law no matter how
Improper the solution. There are design limitations which
are real and go beyond the boundaries of personal taste
and differences in ,people's attitudes . Appearance and design
involve- an entire range of relationships between such elements
as slope, drainage, wind direction, landscaping, climate,
kind exposure, existing buildings, materials and the
relationship of the proposed building to other buildings.
The 30 foot side setback imposes a cdnsiderable hardship
with respect ,to our ability to design and locate our garage.
It is not inappropriate to raise this'. fssue as an element
of hardship as it a rule of reason to expect that it is to
the benefit of the -town to have people improve their properties
with some respect to design principles. For instance, a
garage which requires the use _of extra paving or the removal
of trees and other 'iandscaping 'could not generally be consid—
ered arc appropriate solution in most cases where there Is a
+Choice. °
Page 6
E. Financial hardship
lements of financial Hardship which we face flue the
minimum side setback requirement includes
1. Costs for regrading areas of our lot .
2. Costs for reseeding replacement lacement of trees and shrubs.
p
.3. Costs for damages due to the effects of drainage.
4 , Reconstruction costs for part of our porch and additional
costs for firewall if garage must be attached to the
porch.
'5. Lass of the value of our porch because of limitations
of view and air movement ::directly attributable to the
location of the garage; or because its use is changed
or limited to a functional breezeway.
IV. Potential 'Cara a Locations
A. 'outhwestern Part of Property
or all practical purposes all such locations are impract-
ical and involve hardships which are substantial. These
include expenditures for new driveway over steep slopes
involving considerable removal of natural landscaping
and grading. All such locations are away from the main
entrances to our dwelling. These locations are completely
unsatisfactory from the point of view of proper site
design and appearance and are not consistent with the
principles of locating a garage generally near or adjoining
the principle building - or dwelling.
B. Immediate Rear of ])welling
This is the only essentially fiat area of our property
,contains several Apple trees and is the location of our
rSeptic Tank and leaching field. our children use it for
a play area. Use of the area immediately adjacent to the
Teaching field would involve regrading and seeding of a
substantial nature and additional expenditures for paving.
C. Immediately Adjoining the Porch
This proposal would cause serious loss in the use and value
of our porch which would become a breez"ay and would require
considerable -additional expenditures for a firewall between
the porch wall and the garage and insulation and panelling.
This proposed location would also cause serious drainage
- problems and significant grading and seeding. It would also
cause a substantial portion of the investment we have made
in the porch to be diminished with an unknown loss in
value because of the change in the character of the porch
D. Irom what it is now .
mmediately Adjoining the Driveway
Depending on the location of the entrance of the garage,
this proposal by the Board of Appeals would exceed- the
minimum setback by 62 to 82 feet and introduce "drainage
and other hardships identified earlier.
E. Immediately On the Same Line But To The Front of the
Porch but 2 vet into the Existing Driveway
:
Page 7
If the garage door- or entrance faced onto the driveway
there would be an improper area for gaining access into
the garage. This would also cause safety problems . The
location of a garage in this area no matter where the
entrance would cause drainage shifts and most likely
cause more extensive icing over larger surfaces of our
driveway. In order to place some distance between the
existing porch and the garage it would be necessary to
move the garage about ten feet to the front of the porch.
,]'he garage would extend about 20 feet beyond the front
line of our dwelling, would cause drainage problems ,
diminish the fine appearance of our home because of
the improper location of the building and diminish the
view of the porch to a considerable degree., Our proposed
garage would only extend a few- feet beyond the front
line of our dwelling.
V. Conclusion
Aly wife and I are fully cognizant of the objectives and the
intent of the provisions particularly the minimum requirements
of the side setback and the purposes for which they were
enacted, namely to protect and serve the general health and
welfare of the Town of North Andover. In so doing, the
provisions of the .Zoning By-law seek also to permit people
to enjoy the reasonable use of their property and in so doing
not to infringe on the rights of others . It id - ironic that
my neighbor on the opposite property line has a garage which
is located about ten feet from my property line in full view
from my home at an approximate distance of 60 feet . With all
of its limits of proximity and limited lanscaping, I still
cannot imagine that his garage has or will detract from my
property values . You might be able to imagine how disappointed
I was to witness the attendance of my neighbors at the public
hearing and to hear Mr. Iannazzi speak in opposition to my
request for a variance on the grounds that his attorney
advised him that the proposed location of my garage would
or might reduce his property values : And when Mr. Foster, the
Building Inspector raised the question as to whether the parties
had discussed a passible sale of land, hear Mr. Iannazzi state
that he was willing to sell a width of land _that,in effect,
would eliminate the need for my wife and I to request a variance.
I wondered how Mr. Iannazzi could have been so concerned about
his possible loss in property values at one moment and then,
just minutes later suggest that he was willing to sell a portion
of his land to me, the net effect being that I could construct
the garage in the very same location that might have diminished
his property values . '
In the almost eight years of our residence here in North Andover,
we have improved our property and been good neighbors. The
action we propose to take and for which we. have asked for a
variance is not a frivolous act but one which respects the
intent and requirements of the Zoning By-law and the rights
i
Page 8
of our neighbors . It is designed in the first instance to provide
us with a garage and storage area to meet our family'-s needs.
It is designed to enhance the appearance and value of our property
and in, 'so doingto enhance the value of properties in the immediate
area. For this reason my neighbors want me to improve my property .
Having presented additional information to the Board of Appeals
through the medium of this letter, information which we have
attempted to direct to the very conditions under which the Board
of Appeals may now consider and reach a new conclusion with respect
to this request , we 'hereby ask the Board of Appeals to reverse
its decision of June 12, 1978 and that a variance be granted to
Sara and Sheldon Gilbert so that the Building Inspector may be
permitted to issue a Building Permit providing for the construct-
ion of a 24' X 26' garage whose foundation shall begin at a point
about+or - 8 feet from the left front of the corner foundation
of the porch (as viewed from Marian Drive) a distance of 24' at
a 45 degree angle which shall serve as the front of the garage,
continuing for a distance of 26' to the rear at a 90 degree
angle, thence 24 ' at a 90 degree angle, thence 26' at a 90 degree
angle to the beginning point of the foundation. The variance may
stipulate that the closest point of the foundation to the nearest
property line may not be less than 13 feet from said property
line .
Res e� ctfull submitted,
r` Sara Gil rt
Sheldon Gilbert
C9RtiGIn��L ��6�t�'rue� s
Oversized Maps on file with the Town