Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-02-15Thursday - ~ebruary 15, 1962 Special Meetimg The Board of ~pe~l:~* met at 7 :O0 P.M. en Thursday evening, February 15th, in the T~,= Building to discuss and vote on the hearings held on Friday, February 9th. Members present and voting were: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman; He,~d Gilman, Robert J. Burke, Henry E. I~nd and Associate Member Al ered Beeglin. Cha~ OlI~ary read portions of the minutes of the last meeting. 1. Joseph Forgetta. This petition was for a variance of Sec. 6, para. 6.2 of the Zoning By-Ls~ so as to permit the sale of a lot less than the recfaired size to be used with another lot of equal size, on the premLises located at the north side of Sargent St., 1OO feet distant from the corner of Hodges Street. The Beard discussed and voted ~ the petition. Mr. 0'~1-,.~,,.~ made a motion to GRANT the petition. Mr. IAu~d seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. This variance was granted because the combL~ation of these lots would ce~form to the requiremsnts of the Zc~ing By-Law as applied for under Section 6, para. 6.2. 2. Francis A. Holmes. This petition was for a variation of Section 6, para. 6.41 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection and operation of a retail store ~ the premises, located at the south side of Massachusetts Ave., 354 feet distant from the corner of Common- wealth Ave. The ~eard discussed and voted on the petition. Mr. G~ made a motion te GRANT the petition. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The variance was g~anted under the follom~ing reasons: 1. There exist certain conditians, especd~.]ly affecting the parcel in question, which do mot generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is located. 2. Unless the variance is granted, the applicant will suffer substantial hardship, financial er othe~-,ise. 3. The requested variance will not adversely affect the public good te any sub- stamtial extent. 4. The requested variance will not be in substantial deregatisn from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. 3. Charles B. Perry. This petition was for a variation of Sec. 7, para. 7.23 of the Zoning By-Ls~ so as to permit the placing of a dwelling being taken by R~ute 110 on Lot 87 at the corner of Beverly and ~nion Streets. The Board thoroughly discussed the petition. Mr. Burke made a motion to d~ tbs petition, seconded by Mr. Boeglin. There was no vote. Chairman O'Leary stepped do~n fr~ the seat of Chairman and Mr. Lu~ took over as Chairm~u. Mr. O,Leary made a motion to~ the petiti~. Mr. Gilman seconded the motion. Mr. Lurid, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Boegl and Mr. O'Leary voted in favor. Mr. Bur~e voted against the petition. February 15, 1962 - Cont. The variance was granted under the following reasons: 1. A plan showed the proposed use of the lot ou which the variance was requested. 2. The lot in question is roach smaller than the running requ*rements in the Residential district, has no mor~ land available te meet the provisions of the La~ and is comparable to most lots in the ~ediate vicinity. The lot was in existence as such before the Zoning By-Law bec~we effective. Although it is 100 feet long, it is only 48.50 feet wide. Because cf the n~row width of the let it would be impossible to face a house on Beverly Street, the front and rear yard re- quirements being greater than the depth of the lot. By facing a house on Uniou Street, Mr. Perry could have only a 24-foot house. The applicant,s house is now located a short distance away and the land ~ which it sits has been seized by the Commonwealth by eminant dc~i~ for road purposes. The house is 31.3 feet wide and 39 feet long and would occupy 175 ~f the let, area. It is feasible to move the house to the lot for which he seeks a variance. If the lot is to be used it seems reasouable for the applicant to use it in accordance with his petitiou for a variance. The let in question is one of very few opera lots within the area ~ at present is in an unsightly coudition, containing an old abandoned store which ~ill have to be taken down te make room for the house. The applicant has lived in the neighborhood for seventy years. 3. The variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public geed and without nullifying or substantially deviating from the intent and purpose' of the Zoning By-Law. The direct abutter to the east of the lot in question is 7.24 feet from their west boundary and about 7.5 feet from their east boundary. The property directly to the north contaims a house which is 12.~2 feet from its south boundary and has a garage which is ouly 5 feet fr~m the south boundary. We find that the placing ef the Perry house 6,~3 feet fr~ the east boundary and 10 feet from the w~st boundary is ia substantial accord with the placing of other houses in the area. The Board then signed all the plans for the three hearings. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.