HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-02-09Frida~ - Februa~ 9, 1962
February meeting & Rearings
The Board of Appeals met on Friday eVening, .February 9, 1962 at 7:30 P.M. in the Tow~
Building. Members present amd voting were: Daniel T. O'Leary,C~,--; Henry E..
Lund, Howard Gilman, Robert J. BurMe and Associate Member Alfred Boeglin, who sat in
place of Haruld Morley. Building Inspector Charles Foster was also present.
There were appro~mately 25 people present.
1. HEARING: Charles B. Perry.
This hearing was in the appeal of Charles B, Perry requesting a variation of Sec. 7,
Para. 7.23 of the ZonZ_~ug By-Law so as to permit the placing of a dwelling being taken
by Route 110 ou Lot 87 at the corner of Beverly and Union Streets.
Ch ~mam O'Leary read the legal notice.
Atty. Fredric S. O'Brien, represented Charles Perry, showed his plans and explained the
need of the variance to the Board and those present. He called attention to the shape
of the lot, which is 48' deep, 100' on Beverly Street, amd the back lot l~,~. is
112.55'. He stated when the Board originally considered the petition in October, 1961,
,they acted favorably. The case is now pending in Superior Court. The objection in
Superior Court was that the Board did not give in detail their rsasous for the decision,
so that it would be fair now to have a new hearing. A person could not possibly con-
struct on this lot because to do so and stay within the zoning requirements you would
have to haVe a house only 18 feet wide. Mr. Perry has lived in that area for about
70 ywars. The Commonwealth is taking his house and all of his land and he and his
brother would like a place to liVe. Both are widv.~rs. He has surveyed empty land
in town and there is mo other piece of land that would not require considerable expense
to move. This particular lot would mea~ easy moving.
Atty. O'Brien showed pictures of the shed that is on the land now. Also a picture of
the Hayes house, which is 7.2 feet from the lot line. The Perry house would be 6.5
feet from the lot line. He will move closer to the street df necessary. The house to
the north is 12.4 feet from the lot line, the garage is 3' from the lot line; this
picture was also shown.
This 'w4ole area is a heavily built up area, and he e~plained how almost every house
would be in violation, as to side lines, etc., of the present zoning requirements, sc
that the placing of this house is consistent with the neighborhood. He has heard that
people in the area haVe objected to this particular house but that they would not object
if it was a single house. This is basically a double house area. Mr. Perry, s four
houses are .being taken hy the Commonwealth. The single story house could not tolerate
moving bec~ee of additions made to it. The single house in the back requires the use
of staJ_~s which is not possible for Mr. Perry or his brother to live in because of their
inability to climb stairs (arthritis). The other house also requires climbing sta~_~s.
If he built a house, it could only he 18' wide, as to the zoning requirements.
Mr. Perry will paint the house any color the neighbors wish and will plant shrubbery
etc. to please them.
The granting of this variance cannot constitute a hardship to anyone in the area.
Atty. O'Brien drew up a list of reasons which might interest the Board and gave them
to Mr. O'Leary.
Mr'. Perry then spoMe and thanked Mr. O'Brien for explaining so completely and said there
was no more that he could add.
February 9, 1962 - Cont. -2-
Mr. Perryls tenants were recorded in favor. Mrs. Ghester Sanderson, 55 Perry St.,
Mrs. Helen Ba-tchelder, 53 Perry St., and Mrs. Albina Cardello, 4~ Perry St.
Mrs. Marion Weeks, 79 Marblehead St. spoke in favor.
Atty. Charles Trembly, representing the Hayes family, spoke in opposition. He asked
Atty. O'Rrien whether the case in Saperior Court was still pending. If he will not
go back to the old case.
Atty. O'Brien said the case is not being dropped, that Superior Court wants sufficient
Atty. Trembly said that in the old case the Board exceeded their authority, not only
for not giving reasons. He said no zoning appeal should be decided on personality.
S~ould not be cluttered up with personalities. The decisions should apply to the law
and not appeal to personalities. He then referred to Sec. 6.61 & 7.23 of the by-law
and also read Chapter 40-A, sec. 15.3 as to the Board's authority to grant or de~y.
Ne said Perry did not own the land when the zoning went into effect, that he knew the
lot was not of sufficient size and that Perry purchased the laud after the last hearing
in October. (At.ry.. O'Rrien said that Mr. Perry acquired title to the land c~
September 29, 1961.) He said they will wtill go to S~perior Oourt if this variance is
granted. Ne said this house is not in keeping with the houses in the neighborhood, it
is a boxlike structure with no peak roof. The Board cannot grant this petition as a
matter of law. He stated that he didn,t want any oppositiou as to persenalities.
Mrs. Charles Smith, Beverly St., spoke in opposition and stated that she can under-
stand the hardship because others in the neighborhood have had to move, and did so.
Dr. Thomas Hayes, part owner of Hayes property, opposed and said the Board should
decide according to the Z~ning laws. That Perry knew the lot was not the correct
size when he bought it.
Francis Hayes, also part owner, opposed for the ~ame reasens.
Dorothea Myers, also part ow~er, opposed.
Margaret'Emmett, 93 Union St., opposed, would-be dt~rimental to the neighbors,
Mrs. Galle, Beverly St., opposed.
Bldg.~Insp. Foster spoke and said that a house could be built facing Unien St. and
be 24~ feet wide and could m~_ut~n a 20' front and rear, under Section 6.61.
George Myers, wife is part owner of Ha~es property, says it,s an old house and will
st~ll be there in future years. Nothing can be dmae to improve it. The property
~ be au eyesore if put there.
Atty. O'Brien said that it is fortunate the law does not all~ cases to be based ou
taste or designs which change rapidly. That the house is not modern is not relevant
to the case. Mrs. Galle,s own house is close to the lot line, but that is consistent
withthe zcezingthe houseSlaw, in the area. To grant this variance would not be in violation of
Atty. Trembly said that Atty. O'Brien was here asking f~r your charity. Oaunot ask
for your charity, decisions are not based on that.
February 9, 1962 - 0ont.
Yrs. Mary Flagg, Mr. Perry's daughter, spoMe for her father and said that he is being
pushed by the State and mow .the townspeople are kicking b~ a~t have him dead and
bu~ied. He ~ust wants a place to live and neighbors would never have to worry about
upkeep of property.
Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Gilman seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Morley was present for the next. two hearings but did not sit on them.
2. HEARING: Joseph Forgetta.
This hearing was in the appeal of Joseph Forgetta, requesting a variation of Sec. 6,
para. 6.2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the sale of a lot less than the required
size to be used with another lot of equal size, on the premises, located at the north
side of Sargent St., 100 feet distant from the corner of Hod_ges St.
This hearing began at 8:25. Chai~nan O'Leary read the legal notice.
Atty. John J. W~llis represented Joseph Forgetta, who was also present. He explained
that Mr. Forgetta has a lot on Sargent St., lot ~5, which he would combine with lot
~16 owned by Joseph Smith, both to be sold to John Melvitas of I~.~nce in orde~ to
erect a h~ne which would not require any fur+~her variance. Joseph Nth was recorded
in favor. There was no opposition to the petition.
Mr. Gilman made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Burke sec~d ed
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
3- HEARING: Francis A. Holmes.
This hearing was in the appeal of Francis A. Hol~es, requesting a variation of
Sec. 6, para. 6.41 of the Zoning By-La~ so as to permit the e~ection and operation
of a retail store on the premises, located at the south side of Massachusetts Ave.,
354 feet distant from the corner of C~maonwealth Ave.
Ohair~- O'Leary read the legal notice.
Atty. Vincent Ourcio represented Francis Holmes, who was also present. Atty. Ourcio
showed plans to the Board. He e~pl=i~ed that Mr. Holmes operates a hardware store on
Massanbusetts Ave. which is being taken by the State. This is the only opportunity
he has to keep the business in the ss~e neighborhood. Benjamin Hollins owns ~_he
service station in frc~t and the property on which Mr. Holmes has an agreement with
b_~m. The building is 40 x 30. There is a frontage of 60.39 feet, but there is an
additional 15 ft. easement. There are 53,000 sq. feet in the lot. Mr. Hollins has
the type of a business that will not warrant expansion. This will not create traffic
probl~ since there is adequate off-street parking space. It will not affect the
welfare of the people in the neighborhood. There is a restaurant acr~s the street.
This would be an asset to the tow,. The variance can be granted without substantial
h_~Iship to an~me.
Mr. Holmes added that the plans would ca~l for hot top drive to the store.
Those recorded in favor were: Dr. Bulger, Benjamin Hollins, & Mr. & Mrs. Francis
Holmes. There was ~o oppositic~ to the petition.
Mr. Gilman made a motion to take the petitic~ under advisement. Mr. Lurid seconded
the motion and the vote was unaniu~ous.
February 9, 1962 - Oont. -4-
The Board voted to meet ~ Thursday evening, February 15th, at 7:00 P.M. ia ~r~e~
t, discuss and vote ~ tonight's hearings.
The following bills were approved:
Mass. !med. of Planning Brds.
Anna Donahue
$1%.00