Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-09-20Monday - September 20, 1971 Regular Meeting & 5 Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, Sept. 20, 1971 at 7:30 P.M. in the To~n Office Building with the following members present and voting: Philip Arsenault, Esq., Chairman; Kenneth E. Pickard, Vice Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond and Frank Serio, Jr. There were 30 people present for the hearings. 1. HEARING: Earle &EvelynCard. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of EARLE& EVELYN CARD who requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 & 6.61 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots having less than the required area and frontage; on the premises located at the east side of Silsbee Road and to the rear of ll4 Middlesex Street. Mr. Card appeared on his own behalf and explained that they have had the land for many years; that he is now retiring and has no use for the land fronting on Silsbee Road. His residence is on the lot at 114 Middlesex Street and they would like to sell the other lot, which is the same size as other lots in the area. There is sewerage available on the street. John Gurka, 11 Silsbee Road, an abutter, spoke in opposition. Mr. Pickard made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Gerald & Carol McCarthy. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of GERALD & CAROL McCARTHY ~ho requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the combination of 3 lots of land to make two lots not having the required area and frontage under the Zoning By-Law; on the premises located at the north side of Fernwood Street, approx. 100 feet from the corner of MablinAvenue and known as 49 Fernwood Street. Mr. McCarthy appeared on his own behalf and explained that the family had acquired the land probably in the 1930's and was originally laid out in sm~11 lots. He has checked with the abutters and they feel there is no problem. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Serio made a motion to take the petition u~uder advisement; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Harold W. Trombly. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of HAROLD W. TRO~BLY who requested a variation of Sec. 6.41 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit, for pur- poses of conveyance, a variance on a parcel of land that was laid out and duly recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning By-Law and not having the reoj,4red area; on the premises located at the west side of Andover By-Pass near the corner of H~llside Road. Atty. Charles W. Trombly represented the petitioner and explained that there is presently a gasoline station on the property and has been there for many years. The area waslaid out prior to the adoption of the Zontng By-Law and has been zoned for business since 1944. It was discovered that the area was 23,042 sq. ft. and business zoning requires 25,000 sq. ft. so they are ask_tug for a variance as to the area requirement; there is more than adequate frontage. For purposes of buil~Ing September 20, 1971 - cont. and financing, it is necessary to get a variance to make a legal b,,~l~An~ lot; there is no actual transfer of land to any other party, this is just for mortgage purposes. There will be no change of frontage, rights of way or o~ners; they just want approval of an under-sized lot. Atty. Vincent Stulgis, Andover, spoke representing the Do~ning estate and heirs, immediate abutters, and said he objected to the variance being a~_lowed for purpose. No one else spoke. Mr. Drommond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Serio seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ~. HEARING: Arthur J. & A. James Valliere. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of ARTHUR J. & A. JAMES VAT.T.W~E who requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 of the ZoDingBy-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots, both lots not having the required area under the Zoning By-Law; on the premises located at the south side of Beacon Hill Blvd., approx. 15~.57 feet from the corner of Chickering Road. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioners and expl-~ned~that Mr. V~llAere had assumed that the lots on Beacon Hill Blvd. were under separate o~nership and was given a building permit. The entire area was laid out originally in 1906. Mr. Valliere built his home on Bay State Road in 1939; the land on Beacon Hill Blvd. was purchased in 1949. It was necessary for him to stop builH~n~ when he found out that the land could not be considered as separate lots. The lots have frontage on two streets and should be considered as separate lots. Both streets are sewered and are assessed as separate lots for sewers on both streets. Other lots in the area are laid out in much the same way; some have less than lO, O00 ~ sq. ft. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Picked seconded the motion andthe vote was unanimous. 5. HF~ARING: Davis & Furber Machine Company. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of DAVIS &FU~MACHINE COMPANY who requested a variation of Sec. 6.2, 6.51 & 7.4 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of land with existing builatngs thereon for the purpose of conveyance; located on Water, East Water and Clarendon Streets, numbered as follows: 140-1~2, 1~8-150, 154-156, 160-162, 166-168,172-174 & 178-180 Water St.; 2-4 East Water St. and 1-3, ~-7 Clarendon Street. Atty. John J. Lynch represented the petitioner and expl~ued that the company wantedto do away with ~ll of its real estate holdings. They~_lloffer the property to the present tenants first, then to Davis~& Furber employees in order of seniority, then to an~ interested parties. Atty. Lynch disagreed with letters that b~d been sent by thePlan~ng Board and BuildingInspector, which had stated the area should be re-zoned to Village Residential from its present Industrial and that the dwellings are presently non-conforming. He said re-zoningwouldnot cure the problem. Several of the tenants and residents of the ~rea spoke in opposition, especially as to the size of the lots, the taking away of the garages they presentlyuse, the dangerous traffic conditions in the area e]~eady present and the more September 20, 1971 - cont. serious problems that would develop by having an access road from Davis &Furber property onto Clarendon Street. Speaking in opposition were: Mr. & Mrs.~Clifton Stone and Mr. & Mrs. Peter Lorentz. Mr. Arthur Morrow, treasurer of Davis & Furber Machine Company, expl~iued that there was no way to include the garages with an~ of the lotsi that they will probably rent the large garage and take down the 2-stall garage and leave a ~O-ft. right of way so that Davis & Furber will have access to the back part of their property. He said they have no intention to do anything with the land, they Just want to keep the property. Mr. Harry Dow~ broker for Davis & Furber Machine Co. property, said the company could hire an attorney to represent all potantialbuyers to have the area re-zoned to v~11 age residential. Mr. William Bamfordt 168 Water St., said he doesn't think there is a serious prob- lem of traffic on Clarendon Street. He has lived there since 1952. Mr. Pickard made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board then discussed the hearings held during the evening. 1. CARD: Mr. Pickard made a motion to GRANT the variances Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board found that there was hardship shown because the two proposed lots had frontage on Middlesex Street and S~l~bee Road, respectively and the rear lot lines of the two proposed lots do not coincide so that the two lots cannot practically be used together. The area would be adversely affected because the lots conform to a uniformpatternof other existing lots in the area and water and sewerage are provided for both lots. 2. McCARTHY: Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was ~-1, with Dr. Beliveau voting no. The Board found that there was hardship in that the owners of the premises needed to use the land for a home for a member of his family$ that he had owned the land prior to 1930. The neighborhood would not be adversely affected and there would be no derogation from the intent of the Zoning By-Law in that the proposed lots were similar in size to other lots in the area and water and sewerage were provided. 3. TROMBLY: Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unauimous. The requested variance involves only 1,958 sq. ft. The Board found that allowance of the variance w~11 not adversely affect the area in that there will be no new censtruction; the building is already on the lot. The petitioner introduced evidence to the effect that if the variance were not granted, they would not be permitted to mortgage the existing premises. The Board found this to be hardship. The Board found that the areahad been laid out prior to the adoption of the Zoning By-Law and that the lot proposed consisted of many other sm~ller lots on the previous plan. The petitioner had no other land'in common ownership adjoining this property. This lot is sufficiently unique in that it appears to be a legal lot. September 20, 1971 - cont. Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board found hardship in that the peti- tioner needed the additional lot for a home for a member of his family and that in the past he had. been assessed for sewer on both Bay State Road and Beacon H~ll Blvd. The neighborhood would not be adversely affected in that the proposed lots would have an area of 9t200 ~q. ft. and that the proposed build~gwould meet other zoning requirements; that many of the other existing lots in the neighbor- hood are of similar size as the lot proposed by the petitioner. The land is unique in that there is frontage on both Beacon Hill Blvd. and Bay State Road. 5. DAVIS &FURB~NACHINE COMPANY: Mr. Pickard made a motion to defer action upon this petition peri, Aug further ~n*ormation as to the status of the lots, relative to size, non-conformingt etc. Mr. Serio seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Arsenault ~11 confer with Town Counsel and report to the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at iO:OOP.N. (J. Philip Arse~ault) (Arum oommue) Ohairmau Secretary