Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-19223 l~onday - 2ebruary 19, 1968 Regular Meeting & He s The BOARD ~F API~.AT~ held their regular ~eeting on ~onday evening, February 19, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Ja~s A. Deyo, Cheirm*~; Arthur Dr.:--ond, Secretary; Donald J. Scott, Daniel T. 0'Leary and John J. Shields. 1. WILLIAM A. FI~RAN: ~r. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of W~ll~n A. F~eran re- questing a variation of Sec. 6.41, 7.3 and 6.2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a presently existing lot into two lots for the purpose of conveyance on the premises, located at the west side of Main Street at the corner of School Street and known as mo. 129, 131 and 133 Main Street. The applicant was represented by J. Philip Arsenault, Esq. Mr. Arsenault pleaded the case by stating that the lot of land in question had erected thereon three buildings of various dates of construction. It was desired to ~=ke two lots of land, one of which would have one building, a wooden structure, and the other 1ct would have the two brick buildings. Separation or dividing the lot would enable the present owner, the applicant, to dispose of the lot with the woode~ building. Denial of this application would mean a hardship to the petitioner by forcing him to keep and maintain property ha did not necessarily want. There was no opposition to the petition and there were no abutters present. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. 0'Leafy seconded the motion and the vote was u~animous. 2. JAMES C. HA~AM~ Mr. D~, ....... ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Ja~es 0. B~nnem requesting a variation of See. 7.21 of the Zo-~g By-Law so as to permit the addition of a 2-stall garage and family room to the existing dwelling on the premises, located at the east side of Turnpike Street, approx. 500 feet from the corner of Chestnut Street and known as No. 962 Turnpike Street. The applicant represented himself and pleaded his case by stating that to abide by the By-Laws would require excessive construction costs for the addition he planned due to the topography of his land. He explained that he had to have r~w~.s in his home because his daughter was in an automobile accident and is paralyzed and that the addition is necessary because of her condition. The lots in the area have 150 feet frontage on Turnpike Street and the variance sought would not be noticeable to the passer-by. There was no opposition to the petition and there were no abutters present. Mr. 0'Leafy made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Dx-m~ond seconded the motion and the vote was un~-~mcus. The Board then proceeded to discuss and vote on the petitions of the 224 19, 1968 - cont. J~-~es C. Banna~ The Board discussed and voted on the petition as follows'- Mr. OtLeary w~de motion to GRAFT the variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was l~.~,n 'I w~Us , The principal reasons for granting the variance are as follows: 1. Denial of the variance would have caused bA~dship, financia~ or otherwise, to the petitioner. 2. Granting the variance would not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. 2. William A. Finneren:. The Board discussed and voted on the petition as follows* Mr. 0'Leafy made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote wa8 'mn~4 mOUe. The principal reasons for granting the variance are as follows'- 1. Denial of the petition would cause hardship, financial or otheA-wlee, to the petitioner. 2. There were to he no physical changes to the properties or buildings in question. 3. Granting the variance would not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. The Board signed the necessary plans. WALXER REALTY TRUST and ANGELO CATALDO: The Board discussed the hearing that had been held on January 15, 1~68~ and ~de the following vote: Mr. Scott made a motion to ~ the petition. seconded the motion and the vote was una-~us. Mr. Burke ~s present to vote on this petition since he sat on the original hearing. The principal reason for denying the petition was that in the opinion of the Board, the erection of an apartment cam~lex as proposed would be detrimental to the neighborhood. This decision is made under the provisions of Section 4.74 of the North Andovar Zoning By-Laws. The Board signed the necessary vouchers. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.