HomeMy WebLinkAboutEASTWOOD, MYRON ,AORTN
H
O ao .yo
3qs+,... ay SOWuN sCGER�R
SACHU56 p01011 0
tl
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER �,�9
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
On June 2, 1988, a justice of the Superior Court, sitting in
Peabody, Essex County, remanded the variance which this Zoning
Board of Appeals granted to Myron A. Eastwood on October 21, 1986
back to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for this board
to "articulate the specific findings required under G. L. c. 40A,
s . 10" .
The procedure to be employed to satisfy the justice' s order
was discussed at both the June and August meetings of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. It was decided, after conferring with Town
Counsel, to hold a public hearing for the purposes set forth in
the justice's order. A legal notice was prepared and advertised,
setting down the matter for public hearing on September 13, 1988.
On September 13, 1988, a public hearing occurred. Deborah
Pitocchelli, the new owner of the property who purchased it from
the Petitioner, appeared and testified, and so did her counsel,
George A. Stella. Several other residents also testified, as
well as Attorney Ralph Joyce, who represented an abutter. As a
result of the September 13, 1988 public hearing, the North
Andover Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings .
HISTORY
On October 14, 1986, after due notice and publication, a
public hearing occurred on the application of Myron A. Eastwood
to subdivide his property situated in a RES . 4 district, having
an address of 138 High Street, into two lots pursuant to a plan
filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Each lot satisfied the
minimum lot size requirement of 12, 500 sq. ft. as set forth in
Table 2, 16 , 213 sq. ft. for Lot B and 16, 174 sq. ft. for Lot A,
However, variances were required as each lot was not in compli-
ance with the frontage requirement of 100 feet, as the frontage
on Lot B was 75 . 28 feet and on Lot A. 75 . 29 feet.
Additionally, the residence situated on lot "A" required a
variance as the front yard set back was less than the required 30
feet, provided that the present frontage was not greater that the
average of all front setbacks of dwelling units within 250 feet
on either side of the lot. If the average front set back of
these homes was equal to or greater than the set back on Lot A. a
variance would not have been required.
1
' r
ti
At the October 14 , 1986 public hearing, two abutters to whom
notices were sent spoke in opposition to the variances sought.
Mr. Spirdione, whose home is situated at 126 High Street and
abuts the lot owned by Myron A. Eastwood, spoke in opposition to
this petition stating that "he wanted to buy 25' to 30' area to
add to his lot, as they are only 6' from the lot line now. He
wants the open space left as the homes in the area are too close
already" . An examination of the plan submitted by Myron A.
Eastwood showed the Spirdione home to lack the required front
yard set back, and, the side yard set back from Myron A.
Eastwood's lot line to the Spirdione home was 3.2 feet at the
front of the home and 2 .9 feet at the rear of the home.
The other person who spoke in opposition to the petition was
an abutter to an abutter, Mr. Windle, whose residence is located
next to the Spirdione residence at 118 High Street. He stated
"that by granting this, two more non-conforming lots would be
added to the neighborhood. Several homes at the other end of the
street are multi-family, and with the Gould Company moving to
North Andover (D & F) , there will be a great increase in traffic
on High Street. He does not see any hardship if the petition is
denied. "
On October 21, 1986 , the zoning Board of Appeals on a 4 to 1
vote, granted the variances sought. The granting of the vari-
ances was subject to the following conditions :
1 . House to be set back at least 50' from front
lot line on lot B.
2 . Only a single-family dwelling may be constructed
on lot B.
ARTICULATED FINDINGS
A. DESCRIPTION OF LOCUS
Mr. Eastwood, the original petitioner who received the
variances applied for, owned the premises which were located in
an Residence 4 zoning district on the westerly side of High
Street. Across from the Petitioner' s land, the easterly side of
High Street, is Furber Avenue which forms a "T" intersection
with High Street. Furber Avenue also forms the southerly bound
of a 1906 sub-division of a vast area of land into 184 lots of
land and 5 public ways . The approximate or average width of
these lots was less than 501 , and, the approximate or average
area of these lots was less that 4 , 500 sq. ft. The Zoning Board
of Appeals acknowledges that several individuals purchased more
that one lot within this sub-division, creating lots larger in
area and larger in lot frontage than the dimensional averages set
forth above, however, even some of these larger lots within this
sub-division do not comply with the present requirements of Table
2
C .
2 , and, a large number of homes are on lots with less than 5,000
sq.ft. and with frontages less than 50 feet.
On the south-westerly side of High Street, south of the
Eastwood locus, are 4 residential lots (Spirdione, Windle and two
others) followed by a vast IND.-S Zoning District. To the west
of the Eastwood locus and these 4 residences (the rear yards) is
a continuation of the IND.-S zoning district. Finally, north of
the Eastwood locus, on the westerly bound of High Street, are 3
residences and then a public way.
The homes that are located on either side of the Petition-
er' s locus on the westerly side of High street are situated very
close to High Street, and, all of the lots located on the
westerly side of High Street in this area drop off in elevation
as the IND.-S district is approached. With respect to lot B in
the Eastwood plan, the majority of the 75 foot frontage to a
depth of approximately 15 feet from High Street consists of an
area that is level with High Street and this area is paved. This
area is used for parking. At the end of this paved area is a 4
to 5 foot retaining wall that the paved area abuts, leaving an
approximate 4 inch high curb before the wall drops 4 to 5 feet to
an area that slopes westerly to the IND.-S district. Along the
westerly boundary of lot B are hugh and dense Pine trees that
form a natural and dense barrier that shield and insulate the
Spirdione locus from that of the Eastwood locus.
B. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR OTHER HARDSHIP
The Eastwood locus situated at 138 High Street was under
agreement to be sold at the time of the October 21 , 1986 public
hearing and the prospective buyer was present at the meeting and
was represented by counsel . Mr. Eastwood, the Petitioner, who
was retired, desired to sell the locus and move to another
section of the country that he could more easily afford. The
proposed purchase price far exceeded the true value of the locus
if the variances were not granted. The structures on Lot A were
old, and in somewhat disrepair, requiring needed maintenance. In
order to achieve the greatest value for his property, the
variances would have had to been granted.
The front portion of Lot B was an eyesore. Vehicles with
trailer hitches, automobiles and a small mobile home type trailer
are parked on this locus, daily. The particular use that the
front portion of the lot legally enjoys reduces the values of the
abutting properties that are well maintained. The elimination of
this use with the granting of the variances, as allowed, would go
a long way to enhance the values of the abutting properties in
particular, and the neighborhood properties, generally-
3
C. HARDSHIP AS TO CONDITION AFFECTING LAND
The shapes of both lots A & B are almost perfect rectangles
with each lot having approximately 215 feet in depth and more
than enough area to satisfy the present requirements of Table 2 .
The topography of lot B has been described in paragraph A. ,
supra. There is only an approximate 4 to 5 inch curb that
separates the top of the paved portion of the lot from a 4 to 5
foot drop to a yard that has a slope. During the Winter months,
this portion of lot B presents a serious hazardous condition for
vehicles travelling down-hill on Furber Avenue, towards High
Street, that could lose control due to road conditions . Additio-
nally, the existence of this parking lot in the RES . 4 district,
between homes situated close to the High Street boundary line,
detracts from the homes in this area. . The homes that abut the
Petitioner' s locus have either attached garages or detached
garages located behind the front of the home.
Because of the topography and slope of lot B, it would be
best suited for the construction of a single-family residence,
that would eliminate the unsightly parking area and the potentia-
lly dangerous and hazardous conditions associated with it.
D. DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THIS LOCUS AND STRUCTURES)
ESPECIALLY AFFECT SUCH LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT DO NOT AFFECT
GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF SO,
WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.
The granting of the variances would not only benefit the
Petitioner because his property would be worth more, but the
granting of the variances would also greatly benefit the neighbo-
rhood. As stated previously, the neighborhood properties would
be enhanced with the elimination of the parking lot and with the
construction of a new single-family home set back 50 feet from
High Street. The only abutters in opposition to the granting of
the variances were not truly aggrieved and presented no strong
arguments for denial . Mr. spirdione' s opposition was based on
the fact that the Petitioner did not sell some of his land to him
because his home sits a few feet from the common lot line. Mr.
Windle' s objection was based on his speculation as to the effect
that this new residence would have on the traffic pattern on High
Street taking into consideration the future development of the
Ind.-S district . Mr. Spirdione' s concerns were addressed by
this Board when it imposed the 50' set back requirement to the
construction of the new home, thus insuring Mr. Spirdione open
space between his home and that of the Petitioner' s and the
proposed home. Mr. Windle' s speculation concerning the overbur-
dening of traffic on High Street by one or two more cars is not
reason enough for this board to deny the variances sought.
4
Additionally, Mr. Windle' s use and enjoyment of his home
will not be affected by the location of the new home on Lot B as
the Windle home is shielded from this area of the Petitioner' s
land by the Spirdione home, the fence that surrounds the spirdi-
one home, and, the hugh pine trees that are located along the
westerly bound of Lot B.
At the !, September 13 , 1988 hearing, two abutters, other than
Mr. Windle ' and Mr. Spirdione, expressed dissatisfaction with the
granting of the variances, now, because Mr. Eastwood sold the
locus and they had no objection to his petition when he owned the
locus and originally sought the variances. The zoning Board of
Appeals is still not impressed with the arguments made in
opposition to the granting of the variances.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is aware of relief that it has
granted on numerous occasions by the granting of similar varian-
ces to others within the same area of North Andover and has
strived to be fair and consistent in its deliberations.
The portion of High Street where the Petitioner's locus is
situated is in an older section of North Andover and is heavily
developed. The zoning Board of Appeals is cognizant that
numerous lots in the immediate area to the Petitioner's locus are
in violation of current zoning regulations, some of those lots
are the following:
L. Provost 157 High St. 6, 095 sq. ft.
R. Powers 153 High St. 51600 sq. ft.
T. Daly 147 High St. 91625 sq. ft.
R. Wilde 119 High St. 7 ,547 sq. ft.
57 . 85 ' front
G. Tabbi 109 High St. 6,675 sq. ft.
L. Copetta 99 High St. 41190 sq. ft.
C. Tardiff 202 High St. 5, 127 sq. ft.
A. Spirdione 126 High St. 81 .75 ' front
K. Smith 110 High St. 86 . 35 ' front
The granting of the variances requested would not create a
detriment to the public good, and the High Street neighborhood in
particular,�
ul because the two new lots would be substantially
larger in area to other lots in the immediate vicinity and the
frontages of the lots would be equal to or greater than lots that
currently exist on High street and in the subdivision called
"Highland View Park" . some of the neighboring High Street lots
that do not meet present Table 2 . requirements are set forth
above. The granting of all variances sought by the Petitioner
for the proposed lots A and B cannot be considered as being
detrimental to the public good when a comparison is made with
these lots and the lots that presently exist on High Street and
in the sub-division called "Highland View Park" . The allowance
5
of the requested relief would not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The circumstances in this case especially affect the
Petitioner' s locus that is located within the RES. 4 district and
bounded at the rear lot line by an IND. S district. The circum-
stances of this case do not affect generally the zoning districts
in which the locus is located but only the Petitioners locus .
DATED: J64_� .1e
ThZV4M
Zoning Board of App als . ��:kxt
Al ed Frizell Vice-ch irman Walter Soule
Aug ine ick son, Clerk
William S llivan
6
TOWN
Ann7"
NORl H r. eDiiV )f f•, tbbs. ,
OCT ZI 9 4u bMM � ceiu}
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS Any appeal shall be filed
within (20) days after the
data of firing of this Notice
SOABD OF APPEALS in the Office of the. Town
Clerk.
NOTICE OF DECISION
Myron A. Eastwood Date . . .ootober• •22.,. .19.86.. . .
138 High St.
N. Andover, MA 01845 Petition No . . . . .8.7.•-2.3. .. . . .. . .. .
Date of Hearing. .9.c.tOID.q r. .14., .19 86
Decision: October 21, 1986
PetiGM of . . . . . Myron, • A. • E•as Lwood . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ptsmises affected . . . . . .138 •Mi.gh. -St... . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . .seotion. .7., .
Para•gr aph. .7 .2. .&. .7 ..3 •and. T.able . 2. .of .the. Zonin g. .Byhaw.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80aet0PerD3it re7.aef from• setback •on .exis.ting .house .and. .frontage. .on.
Lot. :A A. and. -Lo-t .B.; . . . . . .._ . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date,the Board of Appeals voted to . G.RAN.T . . . : the
v a rl.an.c e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspeetor to issas a
permitto . .M.y.ron .A... .Eas:txoo.d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions:
1) House to be set back at least 50 ' from front lot line , on Lot B .
2) Only a single family dwelling allowed on lot B .
Signed Fr ' ze*je , Vice-ch irman
•Aug •tine. •Nicke on,. .Clark
. . . . . . . . .Wi1liam• Sul-livan... . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . .Wa•lte•r• •Soule . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • .
. . .Raymond Vvenze. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Appeals
RECEI'M a wooer��
TWk , F='%rN
WORTH ;41*1;D ER'
QCT 23 944 AN 186 Any appeal shall be filed
within (20) days after the
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER date of firing of this Notice
MASSACHUSETTS in the Office of the Town
Clerk.
BOARD OF APPEALS
October 22 , 1906
Petition #87-23
Myron A. Eastwood
138 High Street
Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Long;
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on October 14, 1986 upon
the application of Myron A. Eastwood requesting a variance from the
requirements of Section 7 , Paragraph 7. 2 , 7. 3 and Table 2 of the
Zoning ByLaws so as to permit relief from setback on existing house
and frontage on Lot A and Lot B. The following members were present
and voting: Alfred Frizelle,, Vice chairman, Augustine Nickerson,
Clerk, William Sullivan , Walter Soule and Raymond Vivenzio .
The, hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citixea on zelptombar- 4
and September ll, 1996 and all abutters were notified, ,by regular mail .
Upon a .motion made by Walter "ule and seconded by William Sullivan ,
the Board voted, four (4) in favor and one (1) opposed to GRANT the
variances requested subject to the following conditions :
1. House to be set back at least 50 ' from front lot line ,
on Lot B.
2 . Only a single-family swilling may be constructed on Lot B .
The Board finds that Lot A and, Lot' Br with 75 ' frontage each satisfy
the minimum requirements of Section 7 , 'Paragraph 7. 2. The Board
further finds that the size of the lots in question, each having
adequate area but lacking suffieent frontage, is a substantial hard-
ship and that in granting the variance it is not in derogation of the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaws nor will it adversely affect
the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF- APPEALS
/awt Alf ed Frizel , Vice chairman
REi EiM TELEPHONE 685-4555
DAH�a�,i�Z cn �oyee TOWN C L i; ip
TOWN Ci_riK
ATTORNEY AT LAW NUR's t,�k''OVER ELLIS BUILDING
Nov ju 8 41 AM `86 NORTHSANDOVER, MA 01845
November 7, 1986
Town of North Andover
DANIEL LONGr TOWN CLERK
129 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: LEONARD KINDLE, ET AL VS. SERIO, ET AL
DOCKET NO. 86-2814
Dear Sir:
Enclosed, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40AF Section 17 you will find a copy of the Complaint filed in
the Essex County Superior Court appealing the granting of a
variance to Myron A. Eastwood.
V truly yo sr
Ralph oy
RRJ:m]]
enc.
cc: Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to:
Frank Serior Jr.
Augustine Nickerson
Alfred Frizelle
William Sullivan
Walter Soule
Raymond Vivenzio
Myron A. Eastwood
COPY
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
go-
LEONARD WINDLE, ALBERT J. SPIRDIONE,
KEVIN J. SMITH, JAY FARROW, RALPH
WILDE, JR. , MATTHEW COTE,
Plaintiffs
*
VS. * SA1SPlS�
FRANK SERIO, JR., ALFRED FRIZELLE,
AUGUSTINE NICKERSON, WILLIAM SULLIVAN,*
WALTER SOULS, RAYMOND VIVENZIO,as they*
are members of the Board of Appeals -of* - -
North Andover, MA, and
4
I4YRON A. EASTWOOD +�
Defendants
Ar W
JURISDICTION
1. 'This is an action brought -pursuant . to -Massachusetts
General Lawe Chapter, 48A, Section 17 to appeal- the-grant4ng
a variance by the Board of Appeals, Town` of North-AndovereNMA
PARTIES
2, The Plaintiff, Leonard Windle. 1s an adult individual
residing at 119 High Street, North Andover, MA.
3. The Plaintiff, Albert J. Spirdione, is an adult individual `
residing at 1�6 High Street, North Andover, MA.
4. The Plaintiff, Kevin J. Smith, is an adult individual
residing at 118 High Street. North Andover, MA. `
5. The Plaintiff, Jay Farrow, is an adult Individual residing '
at 188 High Street, North Andover, KA.
6. The Plaintiff, Ralph Wilde, Jr., 3s an adult Individual
residing at 119 High Street, 'forth Andover,
RALPHR.JOYCE 7. The Plaintiff, Matthew Cote, _Is an adult individual
.ATTORNEY AT UW residing. at 116 High Street, Abrth Andover, *A. ,.--
---l6 MUM STREET Yr =?'4s,. '°# _•w.-' .'c.,�- <r+w a..x - ,a
M)M ANDOVER.MA 04" -
w+n�esases -
!i
1
Tisa- Defendants Frank Serio, Jr., is an adult individual
- -fdaidfnq at. 25# Hillside Road, North"Andover, MA*
4 9. The Defendants Raymond Vivenzio, is an adult individual
residing at 11 Appledore Street, North Andover, MA.
lf: ' The Defendantp William Sullivan, is an adult individual
residing at 405 Salem Street, North Andover, MA.
110 The Defendant, Augustine Nickerson, is an adult individual
residing at 100 Moody Street. North Andover, MA.
120- The Defendant, Alfred Frizelle, is an adult individual
residing at 131 Appleton Street, North Andover, MA.
13. The Defendant, Walter Soule, is in. adult individual
residing at 70 Raleigh Tavern Lane, North Andover, MA,
14, The Defendant, Myron A, Eastwood, is an adult individual
residing at 138 High Street,. North Andover, MA.
15: The Defendants, Frank Serio, Jr.; Raymond Vivensio,
William Sullivan, Augustine Nickerson, Alfred Frizelle,
and Walter--- Soule are the members of;-the Board of Appeals
for the Town of North Andover, MA.
_ ALLEGATIONS
16. The Defendant, Myron A. Eastwood, on August 28, 1986 filed
a request= for a variance from the frontage and set back
requirements as they effect 138 High Street, North
Andover, MA. A certified copy is attached as Exhibit A,
17. On October 22, 1986, the Defendant Board of Appeals of
North Andover, filed with the Town Clerk ,its Notice of
Decision granting Eastwood's request for a variance. A
certified copy is attached as Exhibit B.
18, The Plaintiffs are all persons aggrieved by the decision
of the Board of Appeals, filed with the Town Clerk on
October 22, 1986.
19. The decision of the Board of Appeals exceeds its authority
as:
A. There` are no circumstances relating to the soil
condition, shape or topography of the land or
structures especially effecting such land or,
structures, but not effecting generally the coning
district in which the land is located:
•TT004�Atuw 8. A literal enforcement of the By-Lar would not invoker
. Odom mI a substantial hardship to. SastMoodt
No�n+uw�ve«r.ows
11Tib•�E6 - -
.2-
.i
I
I
. - C. The granting of the variance causes substantial
detriment to the public good and nullifies or
substantially derogates from the intent and purpose
of the law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demands
1. That the decision of the Board of Appeals by annulled;
2. That this Honorable Court grant such other relief that it
deems just and appropriate.
DATED; LEONARD WINDLE, ET AL
by their attorney,
RALPH R. JOYCE
95 Main Street
North Andover. MA 61845
(617) 685-4555
I
r -
i
PALPH R JOYCE'
ATTORM"At LA11r
i1011TM AUOOMFil MAOtM6 - - - -.
MT71Qb/r16 3-
1 � m
eceved by Town Clerk: '''14d
fin
.y Auc
,+
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS s
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE „t
d xD
$ .r
r /
Applicant y�d�1 �� GASTI'yooy Addresses �40wi 1.
—r
1. Application is hereby made: 3;
a) For a variance from, the requirements of Section `7 Paragraph
and Table �of the Zoning By Laws . S'
�I 7. 3 01J EkisnAJC JWJZe-1AJ6:0 a�
b) For a Special Permit under Section Paragraph of the Zoning - 7,
By Laws .
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the > .m
Building Inspector or other authority. ,
2. a) Premises affected are land and building(s ) numbered
�3$ N S. Street . 1
b) Premises affected are property with fro tage o the North ( )
South ( ) East (X•) west ( ) side of
Street, and known as No. 139" ItI&M Street.
d
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District,-j/ , and the premisesa
affected have an area of /(v,, POb square feet and frontage of
feet . 41
.#
3. Ownership
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all names) : 1k ?
,
.
Date of Purchaser _,Previous Owner
b) If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in the premisess• � ••
Y.
Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain) . .
Size of proposed building: front; feet deep;
P Height_ stories; -deet.
a) Approximate date of erection:
b) Occupancy or use of each floor:
c) Type of construction:
S. Size of ex sting building: feet front; (13. 7 feet deep; +kj<u�
�7
Height }/2 stories; –feet
a) Approximate date of erection:
y b) Occupancy or use of each floor: bweJ lIJCl
2 c) Type of construction;. WOp t�
6. Hast mere been a previous appeal , under zoning, on these premises'
If so, when?
V r
Y n
7. Description of relief sought on this /petition
-,-
'' 8. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book �� Page
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page 0
' The principal points upon which I base my application are as followss ;
i (must be stated in detail )
A T IS 000 A) ad 000 sF 1 0
f N nJ4• + ?
I 'agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and incidental
expo ses*
/ tr
Signature ot Petitioner(s)
•Every application for action by the Board shall be made on a form approved }
by the Board. These forms shall be furnished by the Clerk upon request.
Any communication purporting to be an application shall be treated as mere; .
notice of intention to seek relief until such time as it is made on theF .
official application forma All information called for by the form shall
be furnished by the applicant in the manner therein prescribed. s1`
V
Every application shall be submitted with a list of "Parties In Interest
which list shall include the petitioner, abutters, owners of land directly`
opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the
abutters within three hundred feet ( 300 ' ) of the property line of the
petitioneras they appear on the most recent applicable tax list, ` �k
notwithstanding that the land of any such owner is located in another city. , }
or` town, the Planning Board of the city or town, and the Planning Board of'' y^"
vx 'every abutting city or town.
u
*Every application shall be submitted with an application charge cost in .
the amount of $25. 00. In addition, the petitioner shall be responsible
m ' `for any and all costs involved in bringing the petition before the. Board. {`
� ± Such costs shall include mailing and publication, but are not necessarily ,r . �
limited to these.
r Y
Every application shall be submitted with a plan of land approved by the`r , ..h .
Board. No petition will be brought before the Board unless said plan has,' „'
been submitted. Copies of the Board' s requirements regarding plans are
attached hereto or are available from the Board of Appeals upon request.
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST .
Name Address
d.r
`^ih yy
'+gL `45i
3e
n .
i fh'
tr h
ah r o
(use additional sheets if necessary)
r t4
If f
`NY'✓ �a'lit, 1
PLAN'OF LAND TO ACCOMPANY PETITION
Ind
plication a .''petition to the Board shall be accompanied by
" five. (5) copies of he following described plan:
�1 A
w 'w The -size of the "pl ' shall be 11 x 17, drawn to scale, 1 inch
.• ?;equals 40 feet; i shall have a north point , names of streets ,
'', zoning districts,.:,n mes . and addresses of owners of properties
kwithin a minimum°'o' °200 feet of the subject property, property
"lines and location -f buildings on surrounding properties . The
' location of building or use of the property where a variance is
-requested . and distances from adjacent buildings and property lines
r=�
shall be verified -Un the f i eld and shown on the plan . The
dimensions of the lot and the percentage of the lot covered by the
principal and accessory buildings and the required parking spaces
a shall be shown. Entrances , exits , driveways , etc. that are
pertinent to the granting of the variance shall be shown. All
proposed data shal•l'be shown in red .
. a' Any topographical feature of the parcel of land relied upon for a
`, variance, such as ledge, rock peat , or natural condition of water ,
brook, or river , 'stiall be shown on the engineering plan . When a
variance is requested to subdivide a parcel of land, the dimen-
sions and area of the, surrounding lots may be taken from the deed
¢ ` or lotting plan fcomparison of the size of the lots in the
neighborhood, notedon the p
tclan as such, and marked "approximate" .
The plan shall belsigned and bear the seal of a registered
surveyor or engine ` Any plans presented with the petition shall
f::, . remain a part of the records of the Board of Appeals .
If living quartersNare to be remodeled, or areas are to be
.. .
r :• converted into living quarters,,., in addition to the plot plan, five
'r (5) copies of the following described plans shall be furnished:
1. A floor plan of: each floor on which remodeling is to be done
.1 .
or areas converted into living quarters;
2. A floor plan showing the stairways, halls , doors opening into
the halls, and '.exit doors of each floor or floors where no re-
modeling or converting is to be done;
3. The plans and elevations shall show all existing work . All
proposed work shall be shown in red. The size of each plan
shall be 11 x 17. or 17 x 22; it shall be drawn to scale, 1/4
inch equals onefoot.
All plans and elevations presented with the petition shall remain
1
a part of the records of the Board of Appeals .
For petitions requesting variation(s ) from the provisions of
a Section 7, Paragrpahs 7. 1; 7. 2, 7. 3, and 7.4 and Table 2 of the
Zoning By Law for conveyance purposes only, a plot plan, certified
zh'_ by a registered engineer or land surveyor , of the parcel of land
with a structure thoreon being conveyed, will be acceptable to the
? ' Board of Appeals provided:
M, ?a,
1. The dwelling(s) structure(s ) , or building(s ) were constructed
r prior to March,��14, 1977.
2.' The petition is ;not to allow construction or alteration to
the dwelting(s�,,: stXucture(s ) , or building (s ) which will re-
salt in the- need for the issuance of a building permit ,
3. The size of the plan shall be no smaller than B .1/2 x 11
inches and must show the existing area of the parcel , the
existing frontage, and the existing setbacks of the
& _ dwelling(s) , skructure(s ) , or building(s ) being conveyed.
4. ' the plot plan for the Board' s
Proper space iso provided on
signatures, as :'well as adequate space for the following
information: date of filing, date of public hearing , and
date of ,approval .
ur.
L
V
/IAS 53
/Vto "emocaoz A4 ss
Pw1ue4 .a0 9RoIJ /�- ZpsrwoOD
baa,-6-e X. 6:- oci/le
'38 / 11dwjl
D
)ecec- AIW • (�Jr�d/e
&iP,IVAMa vs , A(A 91
� A
q33 Al, LSAM Doi DIL Soo-25- 960
ial _r
Y
Hq 67
�g2cCe
39 1 MW �%Ue-.144s
iy7 /-6- f
14mvou& Mass.
px 1/ ,�c��M. �w/IavcS
/,� 7 M/6-!d J lo
l6 . �,c�xJove7Z� /�l,4
J
Oversized Maps on file with the Town