Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-10The Zoning Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, January 10, 1989 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present and voting: Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. Mr. Frizelle was acting chairman. PUBLIC HEARINGS Frances E. Keys Variance - 162 Sandra Lann Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney Keys spoke for himself stating that they had a survey done by the bank in order to obtain a loan, and they were in- formed that there was a 15" violation on the setback. It should be a 20' setback. House was built in 1976 for the petitioner. No construction plans required for this at that time. No one at the meeting spoke for or against this petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor). William & Gall Tarbox - Variance 205 Forest Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Tarbox spoke for himself and explained that they needed to expand the house so that they could expand their family. He had a survey done and found out that they need a variance for the expansion. Mr. Frizelle asked why the addition would be on that side of the house, and Mr. Tarbox explained that the well is on the other side so this is the only place available. The house is 30 years old and lot lines are as shown on the plan. They have a one-stall garage. There were no objections from the abutters. They have an artesian well and do not have Town water. Mr. Soule stressed that the location of the well should be on the plans. The Board of Health has checked the septic system and it is o~, a~d plenty of distance away from the well. No one at the meeting objected to this petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor). Wreath School Inc. Party Aggreived - Lot 3, Sullivan Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney Donahue, 328 Essex Street, Lawrence, MA spoke for the petitioner stating that the application is being made to the Board regarding State Bylaws, Chapter 40A, Section 3 regarding use of property as a residential/educational facility to provide a home for adolescent students. He stated that they had been denied a building permit by Mr. Nicetta, the North Andover Building Inspector, and were filing as a party aggreived in order to overturn Mr. Nicetta's decision. He stated that the applicant has been located in the Town of Middleton for a number of years. The program is funded from MA Chapter 766 and referrals from other public schools in MA. The petitioner needs approval of plans to modify the building on the site. Mr. Demers, Executive Director was at the meeting and stated they had a high degree of acceptance from the community. These would be learning disability students and not retarded children. They are taught and then returned to the public school system when ready. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, said that they asked for a permit for a building in a R-2 district. He at first thought that it would be for half a dozen children and they would be housed there 24 hours a day. He stated that a rooming house of not more than 4 people is allowed but dormitories are not allowed in an R-4 zone. The building is up there already. Mr. Frizelle asked about a 10.4 appeal, and the applicant said that the refusal of the Building Inspector to issue the necessary permit for the school. Wreath School - con'd Page 2 The petitioner stated that a series of meetings by the school representative held with Mr. Nicetta, but no formal application or letter filed with him. Mr. Frizelle asked Mr. Nicetta if they had gone through the necessary steps for his applicaiton? Mr. Rissin stated that a formal application from the petitioner to the Building Inspector was needed before the Board could change anything. Mr. Vivenzio stated that we need a description of what they propose to do. Then we may have to make some decisions regard- ing the State as well as Town bylaws. He would be unconfortable making a decision with- out formal application from the petitioner. Attorney Donahue said he has a letter from the director about this stating that the Building Inspector would not grant a permit. The written application to the Board says that the school wants to use this property as a non-profit school. Mr. Nicetta stated that twelve(12) students residing at that location would be a dormitory. Mr. Frizelle said that he did not see the date of the request on the application.. Attorney Donahue said that it was on the letterhead and read the letter to the Board.(see file) The attorney said this is an appeal to the ZBA and not to the Building Inspector. Mr. Frizelle stressed that the application is not correct. There is no decision for the Board to overturn. Mr. Vivenzio stated that a letter should be written to the Building Inspector about this and when he refuses it, then the petitioner can come to the Board of Appeals. Attorney Donahue stated that they had four (4) meetings with Mr. Nicetta and he did not tell them that it had to be in writing. Mr. Vivenzio said that he feels that we should have a decision from the Building Inspector and a formal application from the petitioner. Mr. Soule said that they would have to withdraw and reapply so that it could be readvertised. Mr. Frizelle said they could reapply with a new section or as a party aggreived with a letter from the Building Inspector refusing them a permit. The only evidence is oral and we have nothing in writing, which we need, and feel it is appropriate for them to withdraw and reapply, do not feel that we have a decision that we can repeal. Mr. Soule pointed out that the Board members do not see each other except at meetings, and there is nothing filed about a refusal of the Building Inspector. Mr. Nickerson stressed that no plans have been given to us and the Building Inspector has not seen any plans. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, un- animously, to ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as requested.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and Rissin). DECISIONS Thomas & Carolyn Barnes Variance - 76 Saunders Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, the Board voted to grant the extension of open deck, uncovered, five '(5) in width and length of the house, 38'. The vote of the Board is as follows: In favor; Mr. Rissin, Mr. Soule, Mr. Vivenzio and opposed; Ms. O'Connor, therefore the petition is DENIED. (Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor, Rissin) Paul S. Connors Party A~reived - 18 Autran Avenue Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, that the original Building Inspectors decision ~e UPHELD on the grounds that the size of the existing structure falls within the setback variance granted in the original decision of August, 1985.(Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor, Rissin) The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. February 14, 1989. Audrey W~Taylor, C~erk Our next regular meeting will be on Tuesday evening, ~rank~rio ,