Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-09-20129 Regular Meeting Monday - September 20, 1965 The Board of Appeals held their regular meeting on Monday evening, September 20, 1965 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Building with the following members present: Daniel T. 0'Leary, Cheirman$ Arthur D~mond, John J. Shields, James Deyo and Howard Gilman, associate member who sat in place of regular member William Morton. The Board signed a bill for services for Anna Donahue for $70.95. There were approx. 18 people present for the evening's hearings. There are two hearings scheduled. 1. 7:30 P.M. J.J. SEGADELLI, INC. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice of the petitioner who requested a variation of See~ 6.32 & 6.33 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the sub-division of a parcel of land into two lots each lot to contain approx. 40,900 sq. ft., having a greater frontage on Essex Street than is required under Sec. 6.33 of the Zoning By-Laws, on the premises, located at the north side of Essex Street at the Boxford town line. Atty. John J. Lynch represented the petitioner, explaining that he requested a variance from the 44,OO0 sq. ft. requirements as to lot size, but that the frontage was more than adeqtmte. Mr. Segadelli has been building homes in North Andover since 1962 and the townspeople feel that his homes are of good quality. The original lot contained approx. 81,0OO sq. ft. and they would like to allow lot 6A to contain 40,900 sq. ft. and lot 6B to contain 40,901 sq. ft. The frontage is 163 ft. which is more than the 150 feet re- quired. The topography of the land is such that it rises in the middle so that you would have to build on each side of the rise. Robert J. Burke, Chickering Road, was recorded in favor. Atty. Alfred Fuller, of Andover, represented Charles W. Gould, Great Pond Road, who is opposed. The petitioner must prove that he can meet the requirements of the Board and the Board must find various reasons for denying. He doesn't think the petitioner has up-held his part in meeting each of these requirements. To find hardship, it must be more than a desire to divide one lot into two lots. Donald & Janet Ward, who live across the street from the premises involved, are opposed. Mr. & Mrs. Ed. Pervere, 1046 Great Pond Road, they originally owned, the premises in- volved, are opposed. Mr. Marino, representing Brooks School, was opposed. Mr. Shields asked how close the nearest house was. ~tty. Lynch said about 350 feet along Essex Street. Brooks School land abuts on the westerly side, there are no buildings nearby, and on the other side of Great Pond Road and the Boxford town line borders on the east. Mrs. Ward wanted to know how they would go about building houses on that l~d. Mr. Shields said that is not a matter for the Board. 130 September 20, 1965 - Cont. Mr. Ward said that when Segadelli bought the land he knew what he could do with it, why does he want to change it now? Atty. Lynch said the lend is divided that way because it is not feasible to build any other way. Attyl Fuller said that the petitioner still has. it shown that he has the right for e variance. Mr. Shields m~de ~ motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Deyo seconded the motion ~nd the vote was unanimous. 2. PETER & LOUISE AZIZ: 7:45 P.M. Mr. OtLeary read the legal notice of the petitioner who requested a variation of Sec. 6.33 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the sub-division of a parcel of land into three lots on the premises, loaated at the west side of Innis Street; 105 feet distant from the corner of Hillside ~oad and known as No. 76 Innis Street. There were twelve people present. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioner. The land involved was registered in Land Court. One parcel was purchased in 1961 and one in 1963, these ware separate purchases. The present dwelling is located in the middle of the property. Lot #1 contains 19,466 sq. ft., lot ~2, with the dwelling, contains 24,077 sq. ft. and lot #3 contains 23,445 sq. ft. There is more than the required street frontage. The variance is requested as to the lot area. He desires to build a new home for ht~self on lot #1. Larger quarters are necessary because of the large fsmtly. The following were recorded in favor: Mr. & Mrs. J. Balsamo, Salvatore Furnari, Gasper Balsamo, Simon Gioia, Mr. & Mrs. Michael D~Emanuelle. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Gilman made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Atty, Ralph E. Finck, Stewart Wilson and Walter S. Green appeared before the Board requesting information as to what was necessary to apply for an apa~ment development. They will make a formal application for a hearing with the Board. In Executive Session the Board made the following decisions: (after thorough discussion) 1. Peter & Louise Aziz: Mr. Gilman made a motion to GRANT the variance, Mr. Shields seconded the motion and the vote was~~ The Board .voted %o grant the variance for the following reasons~ ~'-/- Z~-~-~~ ~-~( a. The subject premises are located in the Rural Residence Zone, as defined by the By- Law, which requires a street frontage of 150 feet and a lot area of 44,000 sq. feet (section 6.33). b. Were the requested variance to be granted, no observable zoning non-conformity would appear to any passerby, nor to any adjacent landowner. c. If the variance is not granted, the Town, as well as the applicant, would suffer hardship. September 20, 1965 - Cont. 131, d. The proposed lots would not be in derogation to the neighbOrhood. $. The lot sizes were not in non-conformity with the typical influences of the neigh- borhood. The demarkation line of Country Residential zone is close to the affected premises. f. To deny the said petition would result in a substantial h?dship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. J J SEGi.DELLI: M~. Deyo made a motion to De~y the variance and Mr. Dr,,amond seconded the motion. The Board then proceeded to discuss the motion. Mr. Shields said that he does not feel that this is derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. He has excessive street frontage. He is so close to our requirements. This Board has con- sistently viewed these in good favor. One person that what opposed had originally sub-divided and sold this land. Mr. Gilw~n said he cantt see anything wrong with putting a house on 40, O00sq. ft. lots. Mr. Shields said that the man now appearing before the Board is not responsible for the way the lots are laid out - Pe~-vere, who objected, did it. It is to the advantage of the town to develop aLI of the land rather than have a 44,000 sq. ft. lot and be left with ~ ~maLler lot. Mr. O'Leary said it would benefit the town to divide it this way. He thinks it should be granted. The lots have plenty of frontage. Mr. Deyo then withdrew his motion to deny. The motion was then seconded by Mr. Drummond and voted unanimously. Mr. Shields then made a motion to GP~NT the variance, Mr. Gilman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board voted to grant the variance for the following reasons: a. The subject premises are located in the Rttral Residence Zone, as defined by the -Law, which requires a street frontage of 150 feet and a lot area of 44,000 sq. ft. Section 6.33). b. The applicant is a builder and contractor and the land had already been sub-divided by the previous owner. The various lots have been recorded, bearing Planning Board certifications that that Board's approval of them was not required under the subdivision control law; five lots have been sold and this one remains with the request to sub- divide it. c. Owing to its topography, there being a rise in the middle of the lot, it would be good land planning to divide the lot in this m~uner so that a dwelling could be erected on each side of the rise. d. Were the requested wrSance to be granted, and conforming dwellings constructed upon each parcel, as the applicant intends, no observable zoning non-conformity would appear to any passerby, nor to any adjacent laudowner. e. The proposed lots wo~ld not be in derogation to the neighborhood. 132 September 20, 1965 - Cont. fo There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in question~ which do not generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is located. g. The Board sees no derogation to abutting properties or to existing neighborhood influences. ho To deny the said petition would result in a substantial hardship, financial or othervise; the best end-use of the land would be denied and the town as ~eLl as the aoplicant would suffer hardship. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Chairman