Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-10December 10, 1985 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting on this date in the Town Building at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Frank Serio, Jr., Walter Soule, Alfred Frizelle Esq., Augustine Nickerson, and associate members John Simons and Anna O'Connor. Anna O'Connor will be sitting on the Board tonight. PUBLIC HEARINGS Delta & Delta Real~y Turst - Variance - Arlington Trust Co., North Andover Mall Legal notice read by clerk, Augustine Nickerson. Mr. Frizelle stated that even though this sign is smaller, petition for free standing sign was denied last time and that this application is a repetition of the last petition filed. If this is granted, all other stores in the Mall would want a free standing sign and we do not want to set a presedent said Mr. Serio. Mr. Smith felt that this application should be seperate from the old one. They need a free standing sign for identification of drive-up window at new bank. Mr. Frizelle referred to Section 10.8 of the Zoning Bylaws stating that when the Board of Appeals denies a petition or a variance, no application on the same matter may be heard and acted favorably upon for a two (2) year period unless the following conditions are met: 4 of the 5 members of the Zoning Board of Appeals find that there are specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based and describes such changes in the records of its proceedings and only after a public hearing, held by the Planning Board, at which consent to allow the petitioner to re- petition the Zoning Board of Appeals will be considered and after notice is given to parties in interest and only with four (4) of the five (5) members of the Planning Board voting to grant consent. Mr. Smith stated that the sign is not in the middle of the lot and would be near the wooded area and would not interfere with traffic. One sign at the entrance would be taken down if free standing sign granted. Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule that decision on this was made previously and denied and this application is repetitive, so hearing was not held. VOTE: Unanimous Paul W. & Marlaine H. Auffermann - Variance ~. 98-100 Marblehead Street Legal notice read by clerk, Augustine Nickerson Mr. Aufferman spoke and showed maps of Lots A and B which he purchased in 1983. It is R-4 district with commercail, single and multi-family dwellings similar to what we want. Setback and frontages are mostly undersized in this area. Area has all town utilities. We propose a 30' setback in front and back and 10' on one side and 12' on the other. Presently five (5) car parking lot in front, if variance is allowed, parking could be in back of houses. The lot is 140' deep, while other houses in area are near street, we would put more open space in front. Hardship is that no use could be made of lots if variance is not granted and taxes still have to be paid on them. With a shortage of multi- family housing in downtown North Andover, this would benefit the low-income housing shortage. Mr. Frizelle: Do you live in North Andover? Mr. Auffermann: No. Mr. Serio: Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this petition? No. Mr. Frank Stewart and son spoke against the petition stating that they live across the street from petitioner and they do not want more absentee landlord property in the area. Attorney Joyce spoke for Richard and Marjorie Heider, abutters, stating that requirement is 12,500 sq. ft. for R-4. Hardship is a windfall profit and petitioner has failed to provide proof that this lot is unique in any way. We feel that no special attention be given to this petition and feel that grant- ing of same would be a determent to the neighborhood. Richard Heider said he had checked measurements and house would be erected in a space of 50' Plot shows it larger but ~100 Marblehead Street has trees, banking and from my house is 50' Noise from present tenants and load noises outside are very disturbing. The owners have trouble keeping the tenants quiet. According to Mr. Aufferman there would be two (2) units in the house. Mr. Gilligan said that he does not want it, and certainly no absentee landlord. The parking lot is full now. Mr. Aufferman knew it was non-buildable when he purchased the land, so no hardship shown. Don Fountain lives near and when property was sold, the surveyor said that a Dutch flat would be added but did not mention a 2-family house. He is against any more multi-family dwellings in area. Mr. Aufferman said that he had told Mr. Heider to call him if any problems came up with the tenants and he would take care of them immediately. Claims they care very much about the neighborhood and have as much investment in it as any one. Believe they are justified because of special deep lot and have parking and can provide more if needed. Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson to take matter under advisement. VOTE: Unanimous Aldo & Marie Sommovig? - Variance - 24 Autran Avenue Legal notice read by Augustine Nickerson, clerk. Attorney Gorham representated the Sommovigo family regarding a mortgage survey problem. When plot plan requested, they found shed and side deck in violation. They have owned property since 1976, and when purchased records were unavail- able, so were unable to see building permit. Bank does not recognize section of land so have to have a variance to continue existing non-conformity. Shed is on cement slab or cinder blocks and has been there for a long time, side deck is to close to lot line and needs a variance for acceptahce by bank. Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule that we GRANT this vari an ce. VOTE: Unanimous North Andover Fire Department - Variance & Special Permit - Salem Street #1063 Chief Dolan stated that Lally ASSociates are doing a land survey and plans for this project and they will be available next week. Purchase and sale agreement have been verbally agreed upon. Sketches by Joe DeAngelo have been made of site. Plan to draft an article for the next Town Meeting to purchaseland and hire an architect. Lot lines on Salem St. have to be de~ermined by survey and property lines. 1.48 acreas is size of entire lot, will leave 1 acre for Mr. Bodge for future use and have .48 acreas for station. One story building, with parking lot and room for 2 trucks and 1 ladder truck. Want to form a Citizen Committee of area residents to confer with architect to determine design of building, similar to Old Center Fire Station. Need a meeting place in that area and also room for spare truck and ambulance in future. Mr. Frizelle: Will you need more equipment? Chief Dolan: Yes, eventually. Other vehicles could be stationed there such as snow equipment in emergencies, etc. Possible use of solar panels to be discussed. This is the best location for centralization; Salem St. to en~, Boxford St., Forest St., Foster St., and Sharpener Pond Rd. are in a spoke fashion. This area has a great deal of new development. A lot of work has gone into the selection of this site. A year after station put in Old Center, all new streets were red lined and definitely need a station in the Salem St. area. Building would not take place until 1987, at which time a new pumper will be needed. Complete plans will be brought to next meeting. Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson to continue this petition to next meeting, January 14, 1986. VOTE: Unanimous Min Yong Lee & Young Ja Lee - Variance - 223 Forest Street Letter from Building Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson, clerk, stating that no variance required if house build in 1957. Attorney Cregg represented the Lee family and believed that a variance was needed and advised his clients to file for same before bank clearing. Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule to GRANT this variance. VOTE: Unanimous Signing of plans completed. Members decided to stay with the Tuesday evening meetings, on the second Tuesday of the month. DISCUSSION C~r Engineering - Pleasant Street C. Foster, Building Inspector reported on the Pleasant St. site, no seeding will be done until Spring, so that grass will grow better. New plans were submitted and reviewed by him. CORR~SPONQENCE: Letter from Town Counsel read by Mr. Frizelle as follows: S~bject: Indemnification for Coolidge Construction Co. case This memorandum serves as our opinion concerning the indemnification of municipal officials. After review of the relevant case law and statutary law it is our opinion that the Executive Secretary's assessment of Chapter 258, Section 13 is correct. That is that municipal officers whether they be elected or appointed are indemnified and saved harmless from personal financial loss o and expenses including reasonable legal fees and costs in an amount not to exceed One-Million Dollars for any claims, demand, suit or judgement by reason of 'any act or omission that they shall undertake or cause. Since the town has adopted and accepted C~apter 258, Section 13 which provides for the indemnification of municipal officers it is not necessary for these officers to request such indemnification as it is granted as a matter of course. This indemnification applies so long as the municipal officers or boards were acting in their official duties or employments. Chapter 258, Section 13, how- ever, does not provide indemnification for the intentional violation of the civil rights of a person. Since Coolidge Construction Co. case has to do with an act taken by the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals acting in their official capacity, we believe that they fall squarely within the protection of Chapter 258, Section 13. CHAPTER 258, SECTION 13 reads as follows: SECTION 13: Indemnification of Municipal Officials (The first paragraph is amended to read as follows) Any city or town which accepted section one hundred I of chapter forty-one on or before July twentieth, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight and any other city which accepts this section according to its charter and any town which accepts this section in the manner hereinafter provided in this section shall indemnify and save harmless numicipal officers, elected or appointed, from personal financial loss and expenses including reasonable legal fees and costs if any in an amount not to exceed one million dollars, arising out of any claim, demand, suit or judgement by reason of any act or omission, except an intent- ional violation of civil rights of any person, if the official at the time of such a~t or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment. (Amended by 1982, 176, Chapter I, approved June 28, 1982; by Chapter 2, effective July 20, 1978.) The act shall be submitted for acceptance to the voters of each town at an annual town meeting in the form of the following question which shall be placed on the official ballot to be used for the election of town officers at said meeting; - "Shall the town vote to accept the provisions of section thirteen of ~hapter two hundred and fifty-eight of the General laws which provides that the town shall indemnify and save harmless municipal officers, elected or appointed from personal financial loss and expenses including reasonable legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed one million dollars, aris- ing out of any claim, demand, suit or judgement by reason of any act or omission, except an intentional violation of civil rights of any person under any law, if the official at the time of such act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment?" If a majority of the vote~ in answer to said question is in the affirmative, said provisions shall there- upon take full effect, but not otherwise. (1979, 396, Chapter I, approved, with emergency preamble July 20, 1979; by Chapter 3, effective July 20, 1978.) Accepted by Question 1, March 2, 1981 Annual Town Election Yes: 1,347 No: 781 Blanks: 550 Letter from John F. McGarry(Coolidge Construction Co.) read by Mr. Frizelle as follows: Dated: December 6, 1985 Re: Coolidge Construction Co., Inc. vs Board of Appeals, Town of North Andover et at - C. A. Nos. 85~2538/85-2539 Enclos, ed ~;ou w, ill find two Amended Complaints filed in the above-referenced actions. The provisions of each Amendment are to clarify that the inverse condemnation suit containing a proayer for damages is asserted by the Plain- tiffs only against the Board of Appeals, Town of North Andover, and not against the individual members of either that Board or of the Planning Board, Town of North Andover, MA. I apologize for the confusion,~ Signed by William C. Sheridan, Attorney Motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson that meeting be adjourned at 9:45 p.m. VOTE: Unaminous Frank-se~r"lo, Jr., ~airman Audrey ~. Tayl~, Clerk