Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-09-18September 18, 1956 Public Hearings The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P. M. Members present~ Ralph Finck~ ChA~rman~ Alfred Boeglin, Secretary, He~ry Lund, Nicholas Nicetta and Associate Member, Daniel 0'Leary who was designated to sit in by the Chairman. ~ ~ - The first hearing on the agenda was that of Howard J. Cam-so requesting an appeal for the variation under Zoning Ordinance, Section 2,3, and 4, Article 4. The premises affected are on the southerly side of Chadwich Street for the proposed e~action of a single family dwelling. That area is zoned General Residential. · r. Louis Minicucci, 76 Swan Street, Methuen represented Mr. Camuso's petition. He arose to point out the locust of the plan #0138, the only plan he presented was traced on tissue paper. At t~is point, Member Nicetta stated that it has alsways been the policy of the Board to be shown a regular set of plans. There was soma discussion pertaining to this matter. Mr. Lund stated that he didn't wish to see anyone spend a great deal of money, if they possible could a~oid it. The Chairmsn remarked, he would go along with the Board's wishes, if they so desired. Mr. Minicucci queried what a plan will add that was not included in the one presented. He further said it was a plan that was on file with the Registry of Deeds except that the plan on file is much larger tha~ the one he presented tonight due to the fact that he was unable to get a photo-stat .copy because of the largeness of the original. He further stated that if he knew there would be an objection, hi~ client would have spent $50.00 at the but before that was done, he would like an opinion from this Board before ~a complete set of plans was prepared. The applicant desires a variance of 2' of the side line. At the present, there is slightly more t~e~ 13~ ' The By-law requires 15' on each side line, pex~m~tting the Board of Appeals the power to go ~own to 10~. Member Nicetta once again remarked that a proper set of plans should have been presented before the Board. Associate Member, 0'Leafy suggested F~tting the issue to a vote before the members. It was decided at the conclusion of the Hearings scheduled, the matter would be taken care of. Abbutter, 0rest Coppeta, 81 Chadwich Street, stated,"~-heve Zoning Laws ~.~ you do not abide ~ them? Member Nicetta informed him the variance the petitioner seeks is pex-~mlssable by the By-Law, Abbutter, Joseph Steen 71 Chadwic~a Street objected on the grounds that it would he too close to his house. ~l~.~inicucci stated the present o~ner .of the lot in question has been paying ta~es for 30 years, also the surrounding lots are no way different from Mr. Cs~m,-so~s. He said his client could build a smaller house, perhaps without the approval of this Board, but it would not add anything toe, the area. It was brought out at this time by M~. M~nicuc~ithat the petitioner does not o~n the land, but has an agreement to purchase it. 132 September 18, 1956 Public Hearing Mr. Lund moved that the matter be taken under advisement, Mr. O'Leary seconded this motion. It was unanimously voted. The appeals of Attorney Harold Morley, Jr requesting a variance of the Zoning By-law Section 1, Article 4, on the premises on the north side of Dale Street, North Andover. The petitioner wishes to erect a two-story frame Cape cod house. That area is now zoned Agricultural. The applicant stated the land was owned by Robert Miller. The aPp$icant wishes to cut up the land into two lots of 100f. He showed the Board in detail with plan_ #2120. He said there were houses on both side of the lot. He intends to reside in the proposed dwelling hfm.~elf. The plan Atty. Morley presented had the necessary itmms marked according to the r~ea and regulations of the By-Law. The applicant stated he wo~ld present a complete set of plans when the engineer has completed them. It was moved by Mr. Nicetta, seconded by Mr. Lurid that the petition be taken under advisement. It was so voted unanimously. The Hearing of William LaBelle was nem$ on the agenda. Mr. LaBelle requesting a variance of Article 1, Section of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit the use of a single f~mfly dwelling to a two f~_mtly dwelling on the premises located at 15 Pleasant Street. Mr. LaBelle brought no plans to accompany his appeal. He said there wt]1 be no change in appearance of the outside of the house. There are 3 entrances at this time. It was also b~ought out in this particular area there are two f~mtly dwelling and an apartment house in the vicinity. Mr. Chairman read a letter from the Village Land Co., (abbuttor) signed by Sammel Rockwell, Trustee expressing no objection to this appeal. Mr. Nicetta made a motion, seconded by Mr. Terro~ that the petition be taken under advisement. Ail members in favor. The fourth Hearing was that of Maurice Sergi requesting the erection of a g~rage with a breezeway, on the premises located at 41 Mifflin Drive, N, A. The applicant stated he want to erect a garage with a breezeway attached to the house', and needs a variance of 4'. At this point, Mr. 6hairman read from the By-Law Section 5, that the requirements in rear lots are 30t. Mr. Sergi stated he could ~i!d the garage 11~ to the rear. He brought out that his uncle Mr. Cristaldi owns the rear lot for which he intends to erect a house for his own use. He went on to say that his Uncle is willing to give h~m 10f of his land, but he did not believe a lot cotuld be spl~t. It was brought out to Mr. Sergi that his uncle, Mr. Michele A. Cristaldi did not make an appearance at this Hearing. Mr. Sergi stated he will use the garage for the use of a truck. Mr. Nicetta moved that the petition be taken under advisement, Mr..O'Lear~ seconded this motion. Ail in favor 133 September 18, 1956 Public Hearing Mr. Salvatore J. Iacono came before the B~ard requesting a vari~ce of the Zoning Ord~n~r, ce to permit the erection of a singl~-family dwelling on ~e lot #16 at the corner of Herrick and Buckingb-m Roads. The area is zoned for Residential. He is basing his appeal on the variance of Section 4, Article 4. This application is based on hardship. Plans were not submitted in ih~11, however, a plan was shown showing how much of a variance is required in this appeal. The petitioner has a 50' frontage and 7726 squ~re feet. A variance of 151 or so is required by the applicant in the back. However, it was said it the dwelling were moved forward only a 5' variance in the rear would be needed. Abbutters Charles Hilse and Everette Fletcher were agreeable to this idea. Member O'Leary made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lund that the matter be taken under, advisement. It was unanimously voted. The North-m Hearing which was scheduled for tonight was p~st-poned. The Hearings completed, discussion of the presentation of proper plans to this Board was taken up. Ch_~_trman Finck stated app~licants should be required to present plans scaled down showing the exact location of the building on the lot. ~ir. Terroux - We should have more of them tb~ we had tonight. Mr. Nicetta - We shoLtld follow past procedure, ~eop!e abbutting the property can know exactly what is occu~Ing. Mr. Lund - Would like to seee them come in with more than tonight. After a decision is made, there is difficulty getting the plans. We should stick to what we b~ve been doing. Mr. Chairman discussed with the members of the Board concerning a 7 man Board or at least a 5 m~n Board for the reasons i~ ~ne member is ~uavailable at the time of a meeting the Boar~ is powerless to make a ~ecision. Mr. Nicetta at this point, remarking ~pon the Sergi petition. He stated that trucks are not allowed in that area, and moved that we should defer action until the applicant presents plans according to the Boards' procedure on on petitions. Mr. Chairman announced that the Board will be stricter on rules and regulation, and will stick right to the law. Mr. Nicetta made a motion that was seconded by Mr. Terroux that we withhold approval on applications until plans are submitted according to the rules and regulations. Ail were in favor. Mr.' Chairm~n suggested to Mr. Nicetta that by holding the motion up, until we have something in substitution continue the ruling in effect. Mr. Nicetta ~de a motion to defer action on rules and rmgulations until we fine a substitutulon. It was stated that there will be no action on any Appeal until they conform with the rules and. regulations.