Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-14June 14, 1983 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Tuesday evening, June 14, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; William J. Sullivan; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Maurice S. Foulds. Member Walter F. Soule was present but did not vote at the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS Marbleridge_.R~alty Trust Variance - Marblerid.~e Road Member Sullivan read the legal notice. Mr. Jerry Crowley, contractor, made the following presentation to the Board: A cabana was constructed on the premises in June of 1982. An engineering error was made and the structure is too close to the rear lot line. Attempts to purchase additional land have been unsuccessful. The violation is only five feet. There is seventy feet from the cabana to the house. The cost to move the cabana is between $10,000 and $15,000. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. Mr, Edward Lelund, an abutter, said that he would sell the needed land if the variance is denied. However, Mr. Crowle~ said that an agree- ment could not be reached with Mr. Lelund. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Landry, William - Variance - LacZ Street Member Sullivan read the legal notice. Attorney Reginald Marden was present for the petitioner and made the following presentation to the Board.: The petitioner has entered into an agreement to purchase the 9+ acres on Lacy Street. June 14, 1983 Landry - continued -2- Regular Meeting They propose to construct a single family dwelling on the property. The petitioner has no objection to a condition that only one dwelling may be built with no further subdivision of the parcel. The parcel is unique in its shape. It is land-locked except for a peninsula with 87 feet of frontage on Lacy Street. The petitioner proposes to construct a driveway %hrough the frontage for access to the dwelling. The land at present is dormant and is not generating taxes as it would if allowed to be developed with the new dwelling. Because of the shape of the land, its topography, its lack of access, the size of the parcel, the wetlands, etc., makes it unique. The petitioner has agreed to construct a barbed wire fence along the 400 foot area where the driveway is placed to prevent horses owned by abutter Barbara Tighe from entering their property In addition, the petitioner agreed with Dr. Buchanan, another abutter, that given the nature of the narrow strip, an engineer will stake the lot lines before the driveway is constructed. Also, the petitioner has no problem with a condition that the dwelling be placed 100 feet (100 foot setbacks all around) from the lot lines. This is the best use for the land and the variance should be granted. No on'e spoke in favor of the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated June 14, 1983 was read and placed on file. Member Frizelle stated that the agreements between the petitioner and the abutters should be worked out by the parties and not made part of the variance. Speaking in opposition was Attorney Marshall Field, representing two abutters, Whippoorwill Farms, Inc. (Tighe) and Dr. Buchanan. Atty. Field made the following arguments: There is a horse farm abutting the property which is an allowed use and has been for some time. June 14, 1983 -3- Regular Meeting Landry - continued The Tighe's concern is that the animals will go onto other people's property. They are concerned about harming the property. The Tighe's would like a fence the entire distance of the horse farm and the proposed lot preventing the horses from getting through, which consists of approximately 800+ feet. With respect to Dr. Buchanan, his home is located in the upper left-hand corner of the boundary line. He is concerned with the driveway being so close to his home. He has raised the question of the actual distance along Lacy Street of 87 feet. This is not the result of a current survey. It would be appropriate to confirm that it is in fact 87 feet along Lacy Street and that it be staked properly. When asked by Member Frizelle who would maintain the fence should it be damaged Atty. Field responded "The Landry's" Atty. Field added that the decision of the Board to grant the variance will be appealed if this condition to construct the fence is not in- cluded in the Board's decision. In addition, the Tighe's want planting where the trees are removed and want the parcel ~and- scaped. Dr. Buchanan added that there is a big hill right where the drive- way is proposed. It is about 150 feet above Lacy Street. It is a heavily wooded area. He wants to minimize the noise. His house is approximately 100 feet from the proposed driveway. The only position on his 3+ acres to place his dwelling is where it now sits and the proposed lot has the same problem. There is also a problem of a leaching field. Atty. Marden concluded with stating that the petitioner intends to do it right the fence issue will be left to the parties in- volved. It will be surveyed and the driveway and the site will be staked. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Sullivan Unanimous motion carries. Lipo.mi, Louis - Variance - Mass. Avenue Member Sullivan read the legal notice. June 14, 1983 -4- Regular Meeting Lipomi - continued Attorney Lawrence Rossi was present for the applicant and made the following presentation: - Mr. Lipomi proposes to subdivide his parcel into two parcels to allow his son to construct a new home. His present dwelling is on Mass. Avenue and the new lot would front on Hemlock Street. If the variance is granted, his lot would not meet the area or rear setback requirements. In addition, because it is on a corner lot, the front setback requirement from both streets would not be met. The proposed lot would not meet the area or front setback re- qui remen ts. Mr. Lipomi has owned the parcel since 1956 and always thought he had two buildable lots. He even built a brick wall dividing the two lots. He also had the water line extended on to Hemlock Street. Mr. Lipomi's lot will consist of 10,796 square feet and the proposed lot will consist of 10,000 square feet. There are lots in the area of a similar size. Speaking in favor of the petition were Mr. Thomas Cantone, Mr. Michael Chory, and Mr. Warshaw. In addition, a letter from Mr. Chory and Mr~ Sapienza supporting the variance was presented to the Board. No one spoke in opposition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to t~ke the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Hmurciak, William - Variance - Cotuit Street Member Sullivan read the legal notice. William Hmurciak, Jr., was present for his father and made the following presentation: He proposes to divide an existing parcel into two lots of 9,500 square feet each so that his son can construct a new dwelling on the new proposed lot. June 14, 1983 -5- Regular Meeting Hmurciak continued The existing dwelling will not meet the area or rear setback requirements. The proposed dwelling, which will not meet the area requirement, will front on Brewster Street. - A single family dwelling is proposed. The lots are contiguous with the neighborhood. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Speaking in opposition were: Mr. Joseph Kort, Mr. Clayton Meserve, and Mr. George DeRoche. The neighbors stated that the area is already too congested. Mr. Hmurciak added the following to his presentation: Lot 62 was purchased recently. (last six months) Lots 71, 72, and 63 were contiguous from 1979. - Denial of the variance would create a financial hardship to him. He would like to move to North Andover. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: BY Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Richard, Roger - Variance Carlton Lane Member Sullivan mead the legal notice. Mr. Richard Kam'inski, engineer, represented the petitioner and made the following presentation to the Board: Mr. Richard is a home builder. The dwelling is not complete. The petitioner is requesting a rear setback varianceLin order to construct a 12' x 24' open deck on the rear of the dwelling. - The applicant was not aware of the 30' requirement when the dwelling was laid out. - The abutters have been shown the plan and have not voiced any objection. June 14, 1983 -6- Regular Meeting Richard- continued - The deck has not been constructed as yet, but the slider is in. - It would be a hardship to do anything but put an open deck on the slider. Speaking in favor was Mr. David Hajek, the proposed purchaser of the dwelling. He stated that without the deck, the home would not have the appeal it now has. He also stated that he would like to enclose the deck, and asked that the Board consider his request to allow the deck to be enclosed. Walter Soule spoke as a resident and not a member of the Board and stated that because of mosquitos, most people must enclose their decks. He would also like the Board to allow the deck to be enclosed, No one spoke in opposition to the petition· MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous motion carries. 114 Associates Special Permit , Turnpike Street and Chestnut Street Member Sullivan read the legal notice. Attorney Andrew Caffrey, Jr., was present for Benjamin Osgood and Robert Webster of 114 Associ~ates and made the following presentation: The petitioners are seeking a Special Permit under Section 4.11 (3) to allow the owners of the property divided by a zoning line to extend the zoning line. The property is located at the intersection of Route 114 and Chestnut Street. Route 114 is zoned Industrial, The parcel is to the South of the Willows IndUstrial Development. It consists of 8.2+ acres and the zoning line leaves approximately 2 acres in a residential zone. The petitioners wish to use an additional 100 feet of the area in the residential zone as industrial, It would leave a good piece of land as residential. The applicants intend to develop the si(e as light industrial. June 14, 1983 -7- Regular Meeting 114 Associates - continued The area is being developed and is bringing taxes to the town. The parcel has access from Route 114. The Zoning By Law requires that the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood and the neighborhood in question is Marion Drive. To the west and southwest, it is industrial land which is undeveloped. Flagship Drive also backs up to Marion Drive and the ~ame request was granted to the developer of Flagship Drive. The applicants will be willing to construct a § foot berm bordering on the back on the property and plant pine trees. In addition, if the abutters wish, the developers will deed to them the property which is between their current property lines and the 100 feet use extension line. There will be no nuisance to vehicles or pedestrians. Access is proposed from Route 114. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the operation of the proposed use. It will be developed with a higher use with the Special Permit. - This request does meet with the general harmony and intent of the Zoning By Law. It will not detract from the neighborhood. - The topography rises with Chestnut Street. The intent is to develop ~he property more mt grade with Route 114. There are no site plans available now. - There is a 50 foot requirement and an additiona~ 50 foot abutting the residential zone. The nearest building could be at the current zoning line. As of June 5, 1972, the land was owned by Sunray Bakery amd the information on ownership in 1972 will be provided. The land will be developed with or without the Special Permit, but this proposal will maximize it. June 14, 1983 -8- Regular Meeting 114 Associates - continued - If the Special Permit is denied, there will be two houses on the residential portion of the parcel. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Speaking in opposition were: Eli Mottola, Mary Mottola, Helen Kellner, Nick DiNitto, Pat Cavanaugh ,Frances Greslick, and David Asmusden. The neighbors listed the following reasons for their opposition: - The neighborhood has taken a beating and they do not want ~o see an industrial development come any closer to the boundary line than is necessary. (Mary Mottola) It is "Spot" zoning. (Helen Kellner) Theywould prefer two homes. (Mary Mod~tola) The traffic would be increased on Route 114. (Helen Kellner) With frontage on Chestnut Street, it could also be used for access. (Nick DiNitto) Section 4.11 (3) of the Zoning By Law leaves a lot to be desired. It was an attempt to grandfather those owning a parcel of land with two different zoning districts. When this land was purchased in February of 1983, the same right did not apply to the new owners. When they bought it, they bought it with the zoning restrictions that are currently in effect. The site is inappropriate for this use. There will also be a traffic hazard. There are insufficient details and the Special Permit should be denied. (Nick DiNitto) The neighborhood, as it exists now, is not in harmony with industrial zoning. The neighbors should be protected and they must keep coming back to defend themselves. The noise and the lights are a nuisance. (David Asmusden) - Children are dropped off on Chestnut Street and with the added traffic, they are concerned for their safety. (Pat Cavanaugh). The building heights could be as high as 50 feet. (Fran Greslick) Attorney Caffrey answered the objections with the following points: On the traffic hazard, we are talking about Route 114~ The development of other parcels in the area have nothing to do with this proposal. - This proposal will not increase the traffic on Route 114 more than a drop in the bucket. June 14, 1983 -9- Regular Meeting 114 Associates - contin.ued - It is unfortunate, but it must be recognized that the people on Marion Drive abut an industrial zone. The applicants knew it was residential and industrial, but they also knew that the Zoning By Law provided the 100 foot extension. In terms of harmony, we are dealing with harmony and the intent of the Zoning By Law in this neighborhood, Mms. Mottola commented that the area is becoming another "Love Canal" and Atty. Caffrey argued that her comment has nothing to do with this petition. by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Foulds Unanimous motion carries. John - Special Permit Foxhill Road Member Sullivan read the legal notice. Mr. Gromko was present and made the following presentation: - He is seeking a Special Permit to allow him to construct an "in law" apartment on his property. - It would consist of a 24' x 30' addition to the back of his garage. There will be a common deck. - The in law apartment, or family suite, will be occupied by his mother and father in law. H(s mother in law is not well and he and his wife would like to bring them to North Andover to take care of her. - The family suite will have its own entrance. No one spoke in favor of the petition. The fOllowing spoke in opposition: Mr. Linquist, Mrs. Panek, Mr. John Harriman, Mrs. Linquist, Philip Defusco, Mr. Darah, John Leveque, Lillian Leveque, Judy McManus, Pat O'Neil, Ron Panek, and Rose DeFusco. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : Gromko~ MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Nickerson Unanimous - motion carries. June 14, 1983 -10- Regular Meeting Gromko continued Mr. Gromko stated that in view of what his neighbors stated at the public hearing, he would like to withdraw his petition. OTHER BUSINESS Delaney,_David Revised elan submittal The plan did not contain a signature block for the Board's signatures. The Board instructed the secretary to return it to the applicant for the n~essary block. DECISIONS Marblerid~e Realty Trust - Variance - Marblerid~e Road MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Sullivan to grant the variance as requested. by Mr. Frizelle Unanimous motion carries. La.ndr~,, William - Variance MOTION: Lacy Street by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance from the lot frontage requirement with the conditions that only a single family dwelling be constructeQ on the premises and that said dwelling be construCted-with a setback of a minimum of 100 feet from any boundary line and that proper plans be submitted meeting the Board's requirements. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. L.ipomi, MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : Louis Variance - Mass. Ave. by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance as requested as shown on the plan. In so doing, the Board finds that the existing parcel was a total unit as purchased by the owner prior to the zoning change and that the unusual size of the parcel creates the specific hardship in question pursuant to the Zoning By Law. by Mr. Foulds Unanimous - motien carr}es. June 14, 1983 -11- Regular Meeting Decisions continued Hmurciak, William Variance - Cotuit Street MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : In favor 4 (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Foulds) Opposed I {Sullivan) Motion carries. Richard, Ro. ger- Variance Carlton Lane MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant t)~e variance as requested for an open deck only. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : In favor- 4 (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Foulds) Opposed I (Sullivan) Motion carries. 114 Associates - Special Permit - Turnpike and Chestnut Streets MOTION: SECOND: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: by Mr. Foulds to deny the Special Permit by Mr. Nickerson by Mr. Frizelle to amend the motion to deny the Special Permit for the following reasons: that the plans presented to the Board do not meet the conditions of Section 10.31 of the ZBL. Specifically, the plans diid not show that the site is an appropriate location for such a use, since no use was shown, so Section (al cannot be complied with; that since no use was shown, Section (b) could not be complied with which states that the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood; that there be no nuisance to vehicles or pedestrians could not be found by the Board, since no use was shown, so Section (c) could not be complied with; that the Board could not make a finding that adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided since no use was shown, so Section (d) could not be complied with; and Section (el could not be complied with which states that the Special Permit Granting Authority sh~ll not grant any Special Permit unless th~ey make a specific finding that the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By Law, since no use was shown. by Mr. Foul ds Unanimous on both the motion to denS and the motion to amend. June 14, 1983 -12- Regular Meeting Decisions - continued Gromko, John -.Special Permit - Foxhill Road MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. REPORT FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR Ventura - Ashland St. A letter from the Building Inspector dated June 14, 1983 was read. Mills Hill No report. MINUTES - May 9, 1983 and June 6, 1983 MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to approve as written. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous Since the majority of the Board will be away for the month of July, the Board will hold its next meetin§ on Monday evening, August 8, 1983. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Frank~Serf°' J~ Chairman Jean E. White, Secretary