HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 271 STEVENS STREET 9/13/2016 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
Office of the Building Department
of�aoRTy q~O Community Development and Services
6`YL o
0� 1600 Osgood Street,Bldg.20,Suite 2035
North Andover,MA 01845
a 978-688-9545
�SSACHU5Et
Donald Belanger,Inspector of Buildings August 15,2016
To:Donald Borenstein,Esq.
Johnson&Borenstein,LLC
12 Chestnut Street
Andover,MA 01810
From:Donald Belanger
Re:271 Stevens Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Map 95,Lot 8,R3
Dear Attorney Borenstein,
Your client Jerry Brecher applied for a building permit for the property located at 271 Stevens
Street supposedly on the basis that a 1963 variance created two(2)lots at the location. Your client is a
prospective purchaser,not the owner of the property.
You stated in your lune 30,2016 correspondence to me:"The issue to be considered is whether
the variance remains in effect today." The variance is clear on its face that it was to be recorded at the
Registry of Deeds by the"Landowners." Your client has provided nothing to show that the variance
dated November 6,1963 was ever recorded at the Registry of Deeds as required by Massachusetts
General Laws ch.40A,sec.11 which provides in part:
"No variance or special permit,or any extension,modification or renewal thereof,shall take
effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the city or town clerk....Is recorded
in the registry of deeds for the county and district in which the land is located and indexed in the
grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's
certificate of title."
Because the variance was apparently never recorded at the Registry of Deeds the variance did
not"take effect"at any time so the issue as to whether the variance has lapsed is moot. See Cornell v.
Board of Appeals of Dracut,453 Mass.888(2013)(a"variance does not take effect"until it is recorded
at the Registry;"thus the variance could not become operative,and by implication could not be
exercised until it was recorded.")
You cited Mark Brobrowski's Handbook in support of your position. However,as stated therein
on page 327:
"In Cohasset Heights Ltd.v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Cohasset,the Land Court ruled that a
1976 special permit,which was not recorded in the registry of deeds until 1996,had lapsed forfailure to
record."
The Land Court determined in that case that because the special permit was not recorded as
required by Ch.40A,sec.11,it"had not gone into effect."
In addition,the applicant proposes a completely different subdivision which in itself voids the
claim of subdivision.
Therefore a proposal would be to subdivide the single family lot into two(2)lots with a new
single family on Lot 2 and expansion of existing single family Lot 1.See attached table.
In summation,your client cannot rely upon the unrecorded variance to claim that the property
is two lots,as well as the deviated subdivision proposal,the application for a building permit is denied.
Very Truly Yours,
Donald Belanger
Inspector of Buildings
Cc:Eric Kfoury
William Melvin
Thomasl.Urbelis,Esq.
Town of North Andover-Zoning Requirements
Required Lot 1 Lot 2
Lot Area(Sq.Ft.) 25000 16025 25000
Height(Ft) 35 35 30
Street Frontage(Ft) 125 147.48 174.52
Front Setback(Ft) 30 10/9 30.5
Side Setback(Ft) 20 22.7/18.3/6.4 20.5
Rear Setback(Ft) 30 N/A N/A
Parking 2 2 2