Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHOMPSON, JOHN FMA APPLICATION FOR EMMSRNENT OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL _� 1a , 19 To The Planning Board of the Town 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 Law is not required. The undersigned believes that such approval is not required for the following reasons: 1. The division of land shown on the accompanying plan is not a subdivision because every lot shown thereon has the amount of frontage req red by the North Andover Zoning Bye-Law and is on a public way, namely, it a private way, namely, being land bounded as follows: 1 ,b & � 1 2. Title reference: North Essex Deeds, Book , Page ; or Certificate of Title No. , RegistraMn Book , page ; or Other: Received byTown Applic 's Si ure Dates ` �1Lw7[U A licant's address "�� . An Time.*— JUL I$ 1970rA - Signature: Y ERPO e<<P Ownep i s si t o and addrAqs g nom e ,�" a xUcant: f r Notice to APPLIGAM/TOWN CLERK of Action of Planning 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, e rth over dot ed hat shows a i , d For G. c a sb t to al or vi on c law, very truly yours, NORTH ANDOM PLAMM BOARD By Dates 2"P t Notice to APPLIUNT/TONN CLERK of Action of Planning 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. The North Andover Planning Board has determined that said plan shows a subdivision, as defined by G.L. c. 419 s. $1-,, and must therefore be re-submitted to it for approval under the subdivision control law. Very truly yours, NORTH ANDOVER PLAId1f IG BOARD BY Dates FORK A APPLICATION FOR INDORSENUT OF PLAN BELIEV D NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL r 19 e- To The Planning 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 Law is not required. The undersigned believes that such approval is not required for the following reasons 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�Law and is on a public way, namely, _ - ora private wayyr namely j r being land bounded as follows: 2. Title reference: North Essex Deedar Book , Page ; or Certificate of Title No. r Registration Book , page ; or Other: Received by Ta Applicant's signature Date: Applicant's address 0 Time: I I __.�'".. Si tures� � 7yp4fi` f� • Owner's signature and address if not the R ao i� applicant. a �• M111L/A i TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS July 1, 1976 John Thompson o� �'��� Berkeley & Turnpike Sts, VOY 19 6 Petition No. 11-'76 o ���w1 YQNS j0 ,Q�1+ �'GLEEiK Cq�I Mr. John J. Lyons, Town Clerk Town Office Building o b� ez22 North Andover, Ma. Dear Mr. Lyonsd A public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on May 10, 1976 upon application of John Thompson who requested a variation of Sec. 6.8 (2) of the Zoning By—Law so as to permit a division of a parcel of land into 2 lots, one lot to contain 10, 712 s.f. with 122 feet frontage and the other to have 10,000 s.f. with 100 feet frontage as shown on a plan of land located at Berkeley and Turnpike Streets. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Louis DiFruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble] Jr.; and Assoc. Members Walter Jamitkowski and Ralph R. Joyce. The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on April 24 & May 1, 1976 and all abutters were duly notified by regular mail. The Board was presented a petition pursuant to Sec. 6.8 (2) of the North Andover Zoning By—Law, as amended. After notice to the abutters and advertising in the Lawrence Eagle—Tribune on ksTi.l 24 and May 11 the Board held a meeting on May 10, 1976. The Clerk read the notice and Mr. Thompson, the petitioner, appeared before the Board. He presented a'plan showing four lots of 51300 s.f., more or less, on the corner of Turnpike and Berkeley Streets — Berkeley St. is a paper street. He proposed, pursuant to said section 6.8(2), that the four lots be combined into two lots, A and B, of approximately 10,000 and 11,000 square feet, respectively. He testified that he entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement for the property with Mrs. Elliot, the owner, and that it was contingent upon the granting of the petition by the Board and, if granted, he intended to construct one duplex house on each of the two lots. He further testified that the adjoining property was of similar lot size and the density in the area was overshadowed by the Flatley Development, which was only one lot removed from the site. No other persons testified in favor of the petition. John Thompson Decision -2- JW-Y 1, 1976 Christine Ronan, an abutter, appeared in opposition to the petition stating that any- thing built there would be very close to her home and, her husband, also appearing in opposition, stated that there were no duplex houses in the area and that the proposal would be alien to the area. Henry Fink, a resident in the area, was conoerned with the set-back requirements from Turnpike Street and the sewerage plans for the duplexes. The Board discussed among themselves the requirements of said Section 6.8 (2) and, in particular, the construction of the last clause thereof. A further issue was that notice of the petition used the word "variance" when, in fact, a special permit was being requested of the Board. The hearing was continued to the June 14, 1976 meeting. At the June 14 meeting, Judge Thomson appeared for the petitioner and for Mrs. Elliott the owner of the property. As required by the said Section 6.8 (2), he presented the Board with a plan recorded at the North Essex Registry of Deeds, showing the four lots lawfully laid out by the then applicable zoning provision. He further testified that many of the homes in the area had two families living in them and that since duplexes are allowed in R-4 District, the zoning of the area in question, that the proposal would not deter from the intent of the By-Law. Addressing himself to the last clause of said Sec. 6.8 (2), hh maintained that this was not a prohibition of duplex homes on smaller lots allowed by Special Permit but was rather a mandate to the Building Inspector to allow construction on the otherwise undersized lots. He further suggested that even if the Board adopts the former construction of the By-Law, it is still within their discretionary authority to allow the duplexes. The Building Inspector cited examples of where duplex homes were allowed on smaller lots under the provisions of said Sec. 6.8 (2). No persons appeared in opposition and the matter was taken under advisement. The Board considered the following evidence as it relates to Sec. 9.31 of the North Andover Zoning By-Law: a. that the specific site allows 10,000 square feet of area, or more, and the dimen- sions of the lots are such so as to meet all the front, side, and rear set backs and still allow the construction of a house as large as 40 feet by 65 feet; b. the immediate area contains many multi-family homes and the proposed duplexes would not, therefore, conflict with the neighborhood. Further, a duplex develop- ment of 130 units in the neighborhood is being processed before the Planning Board and an R-4 District, as is the zone of the site in question, allows for duplex homes; c. there was no evidence entered as to the vehicle and pedestrian traffic; however, it was the consensus of opinion that four added units in the area would not pose any danger to the vehicle or pedestrian traffic; d. it was round that both mmioipal sewer and water were available in the area and could be made use of so as to provide adequate and appropriate facilities. On the basis of the evidence considered above, the Board found as a matter of fact that the requirements of said Sec. 9.31 were fulfilled and a Special Permit could be issued. There were two remaining questions the Board had to deal with. First, the construction of the last clause of said Sec. 6.8 (2) and the question of notice in that the word "variance" rather than "special permit" was used in the notices and advertisement. As to the former, the Board considered precedence set by this Board in prior decisions allowing duplexes on 10,000 square foot lots under said Seo. 6.8 (2), to wit, Francis St. The Board adopted the construction of the said clause that it was a mandate to the John Thompson Decision -3- July 1, 1976 Building Inspector to allow construction and not a restriction on the type of building allowed. As to the latter, the Board acknowledged that the use of the word "variance" rather than "Special Pdrmit" was improper. However, the Board felt that substantial notice to all parties was effected and that no prejudice resulted. Further, an opportunity to be heard was available to all parties of interest. Considering the findings on evidence as it relates to said Sec. 9.31, described above, and the two related issues, the Board voted to grant the Special Permit prayed for with the following conditions attached to and made a part of the Board's decision: a. that the four lots be divided into Lots A and B, all as shown by the plan presented to this Board and dated April 1976, which plan is incorporated by reference and compliance with is made a part of and a condition to the Board's decision; b. not more than one duplex unit shall be allowed on each lot; c. that the owner of either or both duplexes, as opposed to the petitioner in this instance, shall forfeit any rights he may have under Sec. 4.122 (14) of the North Andover Zoning By-Law, which section provides for expanding existing dwellings in R-4 District to not more than five family units. This condition is intended to bind the petitioner as well as all future owners; d. that both duplexes tie into municipal sewer and water. Very truly yours, BOARD OF APPEALS Adit le,4.,L o, )t, Frank Serio, dr., Chairman RRJ:gb v„u+ rr O4•NoRrM?� i o:`a ; ► 6., APnI4 M ,tb r►'.rrrr TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date . . .July. 2.,. .1976. . . . . . . . . . . . Petition No.. l ln'.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing. MAY. .10a. 1.976 . Petition of . . . JOHN TIiMSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected Berkeley. &; .Turnpike. $ts, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North ov Ander Zoning Law By— Seo. 6.8 (2) so as to permit a.division ofa parcel. of .land. into .2 lots,• -one-lot. to -contain •101712 s.f. with.122, feet .frontage .and. the .other. to .have. .10,.000.s,f.. with. 100 -feet• frontage. After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . . GRANT . . . . the . . . . SPECIAL PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a permit to . JOHN TM"S.ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: a) that the 4 lots be divided into Lots A. & B., as shown by the plan presented to this Board and dated April 19761 which plan im incorporated by reference and compliance with is made part of and a condition to the Board's decision; b) not more than one duplex unit shall be allowed on each lot; c) that the owner of either or both duplexes, as opposed to the petitioner in this instance, shall forfeit any rights he may have under Seo. 4.122 (14) of the North Andover Zoning By—Law, which section provides for expanding existing (cont'd on attached sheet) Signed Frank Serio, .Jr..,. Chairman. . . . . . . . . . . Louis. DiFrusetp.,. Clerk;. . . . . . . . . . . . . James D. Noble,. Jr.. . . . . . . . . Walter. Jamitkowski.,. Assoo., Mea�l�er Ralph. R.. Joyce,-Assoc. .Member . . . . Board of Appeals CONDITICKS ON John Thompson Decision dated July 2, 1976 cant Id. dwellings in R-4 District to not more than five family units. This condition is intended to bind the petitioner as well as all future owners; d) that both duplexes tie into municipal sewer and water, i AnOafl+ i r 10 1f 7P >>> TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS T OCT 2: 1977 4 JOHN!I LYON, BOARD OF APPEALS a TOWNcpm Naim MDUVE a o` October 27, 1977 John P. Thompson 1725 Great Pond Rd. Petition No. 10'77 John J. Lyons, Town Clerk Town Office Building North Andover, Ma. Dear Sir: A public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on August 8, 1977 upon application of John P. Thompson requesting a a variation of Sec. 6.3 and Table 2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the existence of a garage which was constructed on the premises as shown on a plan of land dated July 1977 located on Great Pond Rd. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice- Chairman; R. Louis DiFrusoio, Clerk; James D. Noble, Jr.; and Ralph R. Joyce. The petitioner argued to the Board that the particular shape of the land in question and the geological make-up, i.e. ledge, made placing the structure elsewhere on the property impossible and, therefore, constituted a substantial hardship to h . The Board, upon viewing the premises, determined that the petitioner's argument was valid and found that the petitioner had moved a portion of the structure so as not to be too close to the lot line. III Upon motion by Mr. Joyce, seconded by Mr. Noble it was voted to GRANT the variance requested by the petitioner. In so granting the variance, the Board found a substantial hardship as noted above and further found that the required elements set forth in Section 9.5 of the By-Law had been met. For example, the intent and purpose of the By-Law would not be nullified by granting the variance and the variance would not create a substantial detriment to the public good. Very truly yours, BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman AEP:gb '`oE.NORTl11� ' 1855 A VV VV TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date . . , October. 27.,. .1977. . . . . . . Petition No-10-'77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing. . .August .8,. .1977 Petition of . . . . . . . .JO$ P, .` $0 8QN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected . . . . . . 17?S. .Great. Fond ,Rd,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , . North Andover_Zoning .By—Law. . .Sec. ,6.3, and.Table .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so as to permit the existence .of, a ,garage. which,was. constructed .cn,the, Rremises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . .GItW. . . . . the Variance and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a permit to John .P.,Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: Signed Frank Serio, .Jr. , Chairman. . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfred_ E. Frizelle.,_ .Esq.,. Vice-Chairman R. .Louis .MFruscio,. .Clerk. . . . . . . . . . . . James.D.. Noble,. Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph R.. Joyce,. Esq+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Board of Appeals Oversized Maps on file with the Town