HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRODERICK, STEVE ... 7 C
R r �NOR'Tfy1�
i%•, I833 ;• '•
r;�aciiu9�',
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
��0t, 7 ,
40 ; BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
n:
o
August 4 1981
�.� Date . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . .
a
Petition No.. . . . . . . . . . 8.1 . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. . .MY . 13 1. 190.1
Petition of . . . . . . . .Stephen, and, .Margaret, .B roderi c.k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected . . . . .40. .Ph.i. l l.i.p s. .Co.0 rt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . Zo n i n.g . By. . I .aw
Sectio.n . 7., . P.ar... .7..1 ,. .7 . 2., . a.nd. .TAb.le. .2 . a.nd. .a . S.pec.i.al. .Pe.r.mi.t . u.nde.r. . Sect . 4 ,
Par. 4. 122 (14 )
so as to permit . . . . . . . . .the. .can ve.r.s.i.on. .of. .a . t.wo. .f.ami.Iy. .dw.eIIi.ng. .in.to. .a;.
thnee. .fami l y .dwe 11.i n.g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . . . DEN Y. . . . the
varian-ce and special. permit .
�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Signed
Frank, .Seri o.,. . Jr . ,. Chairman, . . . . . _
Alfred E.. . Frize,lle. , . E.sq,.., , yice. .Chairman
Wi,1.1.JA m. J, _ S.ul l.i van. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
Augusti ne.. ,W_.. .NJ.Gke.rson . . . . . . . . . . .
Raymond. .A. . .u.ivenzi.o,. .Es.q , . . . - . .
Board of Appeals
OE tT.an.�7M0
a8ACHU8
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
- o
August 4 , 1981
Stephen Broderick
"., 40 Phillips Court
Petition No . 22 - 181
Mr. Daniel Long , Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, Mass . 01845
Dear Mr. Long :
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday evening ,
July 13 , 1981 upon the application of Stephen and Margaret
Broderick , The hearing was duly advertised in the North
Andover Citizen on June 18 and 25 ; 1981 and all abutters were
notified by regular mail . The following members were present
and voting at the public hearing and again on July 21 , 1981
when the decision was rendered : Frank Serio , Jr . , Chairman ;
Alfred E . Frizelle , Esq . , Vice Chairman ; William J . Sullivan ;
Augustine W. Nickerson ; and Raymond A. Vivenzio , Esq .
The petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the provisions
of Section 4 , Par. 4. 122 ( 14) and a variance from the provisions
of Section 7 , Par . 7 . 1 , 7 .2 and Table 2 to enable the premises
located at 40 Phillips Court to be converted from a two family
dwelling to a three family dwelling.
Attorney Philip Arsenault , representing the petitioner , stated
that the lot size is insufficient per the By Law ; however, the
proposal would not encroach abutting land in light of the 20 '
easement which would allow for parking in the rear of the building.
The Board received evidence that the Phillips Count area is a
unique neighborhood , approximately 1/10 of a mile long , with
duplex units and is family orientated.
The proposal would , according to an opposer , change the character
of the neighborhood. Parking , not only for the occupants , but
for visitors , would , according to the opposer, create a further
burden on the already difficult situation .
Stephen Broderick
Petition No . 22 - ' 81
Page 2
Upon a motion made by Mr . Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Frizelle ,
the Board voted unanimously to deny the variance and special
permit .
The Board finds that the petitioner failed to satisfy the
requirements of the Special Permit under Section 10 , Par.
10 . 31 ( 1 ) . In particular , the Board finds that the .-site is
not appropriate for a three family dwelling because of the
existing make-up of the neighborhood with limited parking
and density ; further , the Board finds that the use as developed
will adversely affect the neighborhood in light of the fact that
Phillips Court is made up of a number of duplex units and the
neighborhood enjoys a sense of uniqueness .
The Board also finds that the petitioner failed to adequately
satisfy the provisions of Section 10 , Par. 10 .4 in showing
that there was a hardship to the petitioner and that the petition
could not be granted without nullifying the intent and/or
purpose of the Zoning By Law for the reasons previously stated.
The Board further finds that the petitioner did not adequately
show a hardship as defined in the statute .
Sincerely ,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Frank Serio , Jr . ,
Chairman
AEF/jw
qA ,s 16
t
�: cs
:N