HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHIPPLE, HAROLD uaa
} 040-
6
�ORTtyq�
4.. O
3.%G0" re
o
• .
r F. MrtlL7ro
• e
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
71
`� ti�`j�� •�yO� MASSACHUSETTS
t'p9� oati BOARD OF APPEALS
so
November 25, 1974
Harold A. & Beverly S. Whipple
2237 Turnpike Street
Petition No. 16-174
Mr. John J. Lyons, Town Clerk
Town Building
North Andover, Ma.
Dear Sir:
A public hearing was held on October 21, 1974 by the Board of Appeals upon application
of Harold A. & Beverly S. Whipple who requested a Variance of Sec. 6.1 Table,,II, 6.3
Table II and 6.3 Table II Footnote 1 of the Zoning By—Law so as to permit an office
building on a plan of land located at 1740 Turnpike Street. The following members
were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice Chairman;
Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William N. Salemme and Louis DiFruscio.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune on October 5 & 12, 1974 and
all abutters were duly notified by regular mail.
The petitioners were refused a building permit because the lot does not meet the mini—
mum area requirements of the Zoning By—Law and because the proposed building could not
be placed on the lot and meet the set—back requirements of the By—Law.
The land is located in an I-1 district. Table II of Sec. 6.1 requires a minimum lot
area of 80,000 sq. ft. and Footnote 1 of Table II requires a front set back of 100 ft.
in this area. Petitioners purchased the lot containing 49,400 sq. ft. in 1970 prior to
the enactment of the present By—Law and when a dwelling was a permitted use. At the
hearing petitioners stated that they have a problem. First, the By—Law prohibits a
residence to be constructed on the site. Second, the size of the lot is only 4974OO 09-
ft. and they have approached abutters in=an effort to obtain more land without success.
Third, because of the shape of the lot, somewhat in the form of a triangle, they cannot
place a building thereon and conform to the set back requirements. Accordingly, they
have made this application for a Variance pursuant to Sec. 9.5 of the By—Law.
November 25, 2974 Harold A. & Beverly S. Whipple
y
A motion was made by member Frizelle to GRANT a Variance from Sec. 6.1 Table II and 6.3
Table II with not less than 20 feet setbacks in the rear and side of the building and
to further require the petitioner to submit a new set of plans for signatures; and to
DENY the requested Variance from Sec. 6.3 Table II Footnote 1. Member Salemme seconded
the motion and the motion was carried by a vote of 4-0, with Member DiFruscio abstaining.
Prior to the decision of the Board the petitioner, through counsel, submitted an amend-
ment to its Application amending it to read Sec. 6.3 Table II in order to allow the
Board to grant the variance as stated above.
The Board finds that the application meets the requirements for a Variance under Section
9.5 which requires that a variance may be authorized where...owing to the conditions
especially affecting a parcel of land... but not affecting generally the zoning district
...a literal enforcement...would create a hardship financial or otherwise...and where
relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nul-
lifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-Law.
The unique size and shape of this lot certainly brings this parcel within the scope of
the first requirement of Sec. 9.5. The petitioners stated that they attempted to obtain
additional land to allow them to have a larger lot but were unsuccessful. Further,
should the provisions of the By-Law be literally enforced, the petitioner could not con-
struct a building on the lot and would, in effeet, have an unuseable piece of property.
These facts, in the opinion of the Board, constitute a substantial hardship, financial
or otherwise, so that the second requirement of Sec. 9.5 has been met. Finally, the
remaining requirements have been met also. Petitioners stated that they propose to
construct a two-floor split entry office building on the site. At present there are
similar buildings in the area and, further, there are also similar existing lots
located in the area. In the opinion of the Board the granting of this Variance does not
nullify nor derogate from the provisions of the By Law, but grants adequate relief to
the petitioner who would otherwise face a substantial hardship.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Alfr d E. Frizelle, Vice Chairman
AEF:gb
CF\ 4t Y�
s
N
0
S
a tre to-"-
Q�NoRTy1�
�L ArnnTM :b z
♦ 'f 1855 ;.j
►r Arhus ,�`
rrwrwrw�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Date .110/
Petition No.. 16-t74. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. .October. 21, .1974
Harold A. & BeveS. Whi le
Petition ofr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lY . . . . . . . PB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected 1740. Turnpike_ .Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Andover Zoning By:Law Sec. 6.1. Table.II,. 6.3.Teble. .Zl.aaid. 6...3 .i'ab1e. .IT .Footnote 1
. . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit . .an. Office .building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing gwen on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to GRANGRAN .T the Vance
. . . . .
on Sec. 6.1 'able II & 6.3 Table II Rn
bnt DENY Variance .on. .S.ec. 6.3. Table �d'1te Wtfittorize the Building Inspector to issue a
permit to . Harold A. & Beverly. S,. Whipple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions:
1. there shall be not less than 20 ft. from the rear and side lines
2. new plans shall be submitted for Board signatures
3. petitioner shall adhere to Sec. 6.3 Table II Footnote 1
Signed
Frank Serio j. Jr., Chairman . , . . . . . .
Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice Chairman
Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Louis DiFrusoio
William N. Salemme
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Appeals
MUM HIH
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
y; 1665
'�••... o N►A;i 10 If 7/ f
4 JOHN J. LYONS v
iT.OWN CLERK 4i
March 9, 1971 po NORTH ANDOVER
Alz se as '
2
John J. Lyons, Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, Mass.
Dear Sir:
The fallowing petition was heard at a meeting of the Planning Board on
Monday evening, March 1, 1971 at 7:30 P.M. in the Fire Station meeting
room. Members present and voting were: William Chepulis, Jr., Chairman;
Charles W. Trombly, Jr., Vice Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Secretary;
Donald N. Keirstead and Robert J. Burke.
BEVERLY WHIPPLE petitioned to amend the North Andover Zoning By-Law by
changing from Rural Residential to General Business a one acre parcel of
land at 1710 Turnpike Street.
Mrs. Whipple explained that the land was not good for residential purposes.
It is diagonally across the street from a gasoline station and abuts the
riding academy. She said she had nothing specific in mind but that whoever
developed it would build something of colonial design. She added that she
had been approached by Shell Oil Company. No one else spoke.
The Planning Board met again on Monday evening, March 8, 1971 with the same
members present.
Mr. Keirstead made a motion to recommend UNFAVORABLE ACTION; Mr. Chepulis
seconded the motion and the vote was 4 - 1; Mr. Monteiro was the dissenting
vote. ,The following reasons are given:
1. This would be "spot" zoning; it is surrounded by residential land.
2. This is not in keeping with the guidelines for proper planning for the
town.
3. This would not be an appropriate zoning action; the town would not benefit
by re-zoning this isolated piece of land.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING BOARD
Charles W. Trombly, Jr.,
AD Chairman
FORK A
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEKLPMT OF PLAN
BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL
Jam 20. r 19 7B
To The Planning Board of the Town of North Andover:
The undersigned wishes to record the accompanying plan and requests a determine-
tion by said Board that approval by it under the Subdivision Control Law is not
required. The undersigned believes that such approval is not required for the
following reasonst
1. The division of land shown on the accompanying plan is not a subdivision
because every lot shown thereon has the amount of frontage required by the
North Andover Zoning By-14w and is on a public way, namelyt
Route 1 .4 (Turnpike Stnat or a private ways namely)
9 being land bounded as follows:
NORTHERLY BY LAND NOW OR FORMERLY . Farnham 212.08 fat,
E";MnY by land now or formerly of � Family Turmt SN. 310.00 feet
SOUTHERLY BY land am or formerly of IM Family Truett 70.00 fat
WESTERLY by Route 114 341.80 foot.
2. Title reference: North Essex Deedsp Book LIJL.t PageMA or
Certificate of Title No. , Registration Book page
or Other:
S, �1
Received by Town Clerks Appli
Dater Applicant's address
Time: i C/O J. FhU4 Aroe"ult
SUM
t .item. e
Si
h
O Owner's signature ture and address if not the
JAN 1 applicants
JOHN J. LYONS
r,
s 60WN CLERK
o Num 6_IVD4V�9
�0 bZ z2 2�
Notice to APPLICANT/TOWN CLERK of Action of Planning Board on
Acconparging Plan.
1. The North Andover Planting Board has determined that said plan does
not require approval under the subdivision control law, and the
appropriate endorsement has been made upon the same.
2. The North Andover Planning Board has determined that said plan show
a subdivision, as defined by G.L. c. 41, a. 61-L, and must therefore
be re-submitted to it for approval under the subdivision control lax.
Very truly Yours+
NORTH ANDOVER PI NNINI BOARD
BY
Date:
` FORM A
APPLICATION FOR SNDORSEKSIT OF PLAN
`fiie-e,4(0 rX BELIEM NOT TO REQUIRE,APPROVAL
January 20, 19 75
To The. Planaing Board of the Torn of North Andover:
The undersigned wishes to record the accompanying plan and requests a determina-
tion by said Board that approval by it under the Subdivision Control Lax is not
required. The undersigned believes that such approval is not required for the
following reasons:
1. The division of land shorn on the accompanying plan is not a subdivision
because every lot shown thereon has the amount of frontage required by the
North Andover Zoning By-Law and is on a public way, namely,
Route 1,x,4 (Turnpike Street or a private way, namely,
t being land bounded as follows:
NORTHERLY BY LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF H. Farnham 212.06 feet,
Piere
EASTERLY by land now or formerly of &xmu Family Turst 0. 310.00 feet
SOUTHERLY BY land now or formerly of ore Family Trust 70.00 feet
WESTERLY by Route 114 341.60 feet.
2. Title reference: North Essex Deeds# Book 1148 9 Page 568 ; or
Certificate of Title No. 9 Registration Book.9 Page.;
or Other:
Received by Town Clerks Appli 41
Date: Applicant's address
C/O J. Philip Arsenault
Tom' Essex Street
T
Signature: ►w=��e Mccc t
ro Al 12o Owner's signature and address if not the applicant:
o
0
a apt.,, 20
�0 J001: L 'OHS
a �'
\P 'TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOVER
oq,
Notice to APPLICANTfTOWN CLERK of Action of Plawning Board on
Accompanying Plan,
1. The North Andover Planning Board has determined that said plan does
not require approval under the subdivision control law# and the
appropriate endorsement has been made upon the same.
2. Thi North Planning has ermined t plan shears
a bdi ion, as efined G.L. c. , a. 81— and therefo
be bmitted to t f approval and division law.
Very truly Yours,
NORTH ANDOVER PL4WWNBOARD
BY
ZA
Date:
N1fi- 07-26 W
is'a. o o'
HAROLD? A p BEVERLY S
VY.�f/PPL E.
QQ
4
W + o d
IND
Q
0
-97- 07- 28,6"
STREET
�i
/996 Sr.A TE 111al-IWA Y L A YO Z1 7r
h
AloRTH A NOOVER IVA ss
This pl�.i d-c^� nat require the 1 TURNt'/.YE as T.
of the Plana .u- B-,a d of the v ass9 PL i4 N a Z ANO
iforth Ar, a `y '
G
PZ,ki°it11,T E� J G i I v I3 �' H � F Q YYNEO 19Y
1033 //AROLv A. �6EreAu- Y S