Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-08August 8, 1983 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, August 8, 1983 in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; William J. Sullivan; and Augustine W. Nickerson. Associate Member Maurice S. Foulds was also present but did not vote. Building Inspector Charles Foster was present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Higgins, George Variance Martin Avenue The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Higgins was present and made the following presentation: He applied for a mortgage and the plot plan required by the bank revealed that the garage on his parcel is 12½ feet. from the lot line. He has lived in the house for 18 years. No objection from his neighbors was heard. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the matter under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous Kellerman, Dorothy - Variance - Heath Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Andrew A. Caffrey, Jr., representing the applicant, made the following ~esentation: There is a side yard violation which was discovered when the bank required a plot plan for conveyance purposes. The dwelling was built 21 years ago and the bank is requiring the variance. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the matter under advisement. by ~r. Nickerson Unanimous August 8, 1983 -2- Regular lleeting Ethun, Alan Variance Rock Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Andrew A. Caffrey was present for the petitioner and made the following presentation: The property is being conveyed in September. The plot plan required by the bank reve~led a violation. The plan showed that the deck in the rear of the dwelling is 23 feet from the property line when it should be 30 feet. - To remove the deck would involve a hardship to the petitioner. He requested that the Board waive their regulation allowing plot plans for this case. The dwelling was constructed after March 14, 1977, which is the date specified in the Board's Rules and Regu- lations where houses constructed prior to this date requiring variances for conveyance purposes may be shown on a plot plan rather than the more detailed plans required by the Board. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Speaking in opposition were John Callahan, representing the abutters, the George family, Dr. Fred Arragg, and Theodora George. Mr. Callahan made the following presentation: - There is a complaint pending on the property. - There are other encroachments by the developer of the subdi- vision. - The deck is encroaching on the George's property. - Mr. Flatley, the developer of the subdivision,~ continued to build after he was made aware of the encroachments. - The Building Inspector took no action after being notified. The grievance has continued in litigation. - The deck was constructed prior to occupancy of the dwelling. There are also d~ainage problems. The house is such that it could have been constructed to give the correct distance from the rear lot line. - It appears they were trying to avoid a drainage easement. August 8, 1~83 -3- Regular ~eet~ng Ethun - continued Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, responded with the following statements: - He remembers this problem being brought to his attention. - Before the deck was constructed, he talked to the developer. - The lot is triangular and does not have a rear lot line. - The developer said he would place the house 30 feet back. - The question is about the porch and he rules that it is O.K. - The rear line is the line opposite the front line. His in- terpretation is that it is a side line. Dr. Arragg, speaking for the George family, added the following: - This problem has been going on since the house was constructed. - The developer and the Building Inspector knew about it and chose to ignore it. - The original surveying lines were incorrect. - There is now a violation of the Zoning By Law and it is the fault of the developer. Attorney Caffrey closed the hearing with the following comments: - The hardship is between the Ethun's and the buyers of the property, not the George family and the Flatleys. - The closing is scheduled for September 1, 1983. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Redman, George - Special Permit - Elm Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mrs. Nancy Redman was present and made the following presentation: Th~propose to convert property on Elm Street to four apartments, The main house would be converted to three units and the garage would be converted to an apartment. August 8, 1983 -4- Regular Meeting Redman - continued All of the apartments would have two bedrooms. North Andover needs rental housing. A member of the family would live on the premises and act as manager. There is ample space for parking. There is a 3 stall garage and a large front yard which will be landscaped. No one spoke in favor of the petition. A letter from Mr. Schlessinger, dated 8/8/82, was read and placed on file. The letter was in opposition to the conversion. In addition, a letter from several neighbors, dated 8/5/83, was read and placed on file. It also voiced opposition. Speaking in opposition at the hearing were Shirley Kruschwitz, Barry Rumack, and Nat Stevens. Mrs. Redman responded by stating that the conversion is an allowed use and it should be granted. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Letarte, Richard Variance Os~ood Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Letarte was present and made the following presentation: The lot was created by variance in 1965. It was subdivided by his mother into three lots. A frontage variance was granted for the lot in question. There is a steep banking on the lot. In order to place a house on the lot, it requires 18 feet from the front of the line and 22 feet from the rear lot line. There is a brook on the property which will be flocked. He is working with the Conservation Commission concerning the brook. His mother has lived there since 1955 and always thought she had a buildable lot. August 8, 1983 -5- Regular I4eeting Letarte - continued The other reason for the petition is that the land has been part of his family and he would like to keep it in the family. He would like to stay in North Andover and this is his only chance. It would be a financial hardship to go anywhere else. - The dwelling he proposes to build is a geodesic dome house. Mrs. Alice Letarte, the petitioner's mother, added that the sketch of the dwelling presented at the public hearing does not do justice to the dwelling. There is one in Derry, New Hampshire, and the neighbors love it. Speaking in opposition were Guy McDonald, Evelyn Ronan, Mark C~otty, Douglas Ramsden, and Mr. and Mrs. Boynton. The neighbors stated that their opposition centers around the disturbance of the brook and the style of dwelling the petitioner is proposing~ In addition, Mrs. Ronan stated that the lot is actually smaller than shown on the plan and she presented copies of Mrs. Letarte's deeds which she obtained at the Registry of Deeds, Mr. Letarte responded to the opposition by stating that the style dwelling he proposes would not be as distractive as the Stevens Hall nursing home and that the brook issue will be discussed with the Conservation Commission. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECDND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Hajek~ Da. vid Variance Carlton Lane The clerk read the legal notice, Attorney John J. Willis, Jr., was present for the petitioner and made the following presentation: A variance was granted by the Board of Appeals in June for an open deck which did not meet the setback requirements. The petitioner is now asking to enclose the deck. No further encroachment to the property line will occur. No one spoke in favor or opposition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. August 8, 1983 -6- Regular Meeting Hajek - continued SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Lodge, Russell - Variance and Special Permit o Tolland Road The clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Joseph Boulanger was present for the applicant and made the following presentation: The Lodge's have owned 5 lots since 1910. Three front on Tol~and Road and two front on Berkeley Street. They wish to separate the lots on Berkeley Street but continue to maintain the garage that is located on the proposed lot line. The small wood dwelling will be razed. The petitioner has owned his property since 1956. There is an agreement W~th the neighbor to purchase the lots and construct a dwelling. Part of the agreement is to leave the structure between the lots until the Lodge's cease to live there. The cost to the Lodge's to raze the structure would be excessive. The garage is used. All of the requirements for the special permit to allow the division of the land have been met. The hardship for the petitioner to satisfy the variance requirement is the cost of removing the garage. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, stated that the section of the Zoning By Law allowing 10,000 square foot lots in the R-4 zoning district applies to vacant land. His opinion is that this land is not vacant. He believes that the petitioner should be seeking a variance only and not a special permit. Attorney Boulanger asked to amend the application. No one spoke in favor or opposition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Sullivan Unanimous - motion carries. August 8, 1983 -7- Regular Meeting Zachary..Realty Trust - Variance - Dale Street The clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Joseph Cushing, project engineer, was present and made the following presentation: - The lot fronts on Dale Street. The wetland falls along the stonewall between Zachary property and Welch. - There is a brook on the property. - The purpose for the variance request is that construction is proposed within 25 feet of a tributary. - On this lot, and because there i's no municipal sewer, they have sited the system on the back of the lot. - It is as far away from the wetland as it could be and still conform to Title V. - A single family dwellin§ and driveway are proposed. - Their concern is the septic system. - It is on a reasonably steep slope on Bear Hill. Both the town and the state regulations require a certain type of grading system. They have already received permission from both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission to construct on this lot. Both Boards will require final plans. When the plan was submitted to the Board of ~ealth, the septic system was in a different area and the driveway was on the other si de of the lot. When they realized that construction would be closer to the wet- land, they moved everything. They are trying to avoid pollution to the wetland. The Board of Appeals' concern is any tree in the 25 foot area and any tree in excess of 6 inches will be "welled". - They will do everything they can to protect the vegetation, but there will be some killing of trees and vegetation. - They have incorporated all protection measures. No one spoke in favor of the petition. August 8, 1983 -8- Regular Meeting Zachary - continued Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, added the following: - When the Form A lots were drawn, the developer was aware that Lot 1, the lot in question, was a problem. The lot lines could have been moved to give Lot I some of Lot 2 and 3's area to move everything to avoid this type of request. - They could have taken the back area. As a member of the committee when this By Law was written, he feels that it was drawn up to protect the lake. One of the conditions in the By Law is that any construction within 100 feet of the watershed would require a Special Permit. This was added after much consideration. - When this request goes before the Plannin§ Board, they are limited. Their only concern is the Special Permit. - Conservation Commission must also act within their laws. The final step is the 25 foot section of the By Law. It was written that way so that there would have to be a hard- ship and he has not seen a hardship in this case. - It was written that way to make it very difficult to obtain a variance. - The vegetation should not be disturbed. - When this developer purchased this lot, he knew it was marginal. - Each case that is granted helps to deteriorate the lake and the water is bad in this area. - Any vegetation that is removed removes the "sponge" affect in the ground. The developer could have done away with this lot and made the others larger and still make the same amount of money. In this case, he is making money at the town's expense. Mr. David Rand, an abutter, spoke in opposition to the petition with the following presentation: - There is a ditch and the Board of Health was never notified. - On the back side of the ditch is a square which runs from Lots 2, 3, and 4 and it will dump into Lot 1. August 8, 1983 -9- Regular Meeting Zachary - continued - He is concerned that the lot should not be damaged to the point where it will damage him. He asked that the Board take a good hard look at this petition. - It is the largest project to come to North Andover. He had the Board of Health at his house and they determined that his septic system is working properly. Now, they are talking about raising the grade of the road. - In discussions with 'the Planning Board, the Form A lots were not part of ~he subdivision and not in their jurisdiction, Everything r~ns to Lot 1. Mr. Cushing responded to the opposition with the following: The hardship is clearly stated in the application. If the variance is not granted, the lot is not developable. - If the applicant is not allowed to cut vegetation within the wetland area, the lot cannot be developed. - The septic system is as far away from the wetland as they could get it. They have a permit.from the Board of Health. Both the Planning Board a~d the Conservation Commission have approved the plan. The Conservation Commission is concerned with several different aspects of the law. They are concerned with flooding and pollu- tion. They said that if the development is done according to plan, Mr. Rand will not be flooded out. The law does not say you cannot develop the lot it says do a good job. The request is to cut in the buffer area. The plan shows that it would be done properly and it w~ll protect the wetland area. They only want to cut scrub trees in the 25 foot buffer zone. Member Frizelle asked why the finish grade comes so close and Mr. Cushing responded that it is because of the requirements for putting in the septic system. Also, they wanted to raise the system as high as they could. They could not drop it an extra foot because it would result in pulling the fill area. August 8, 1983 -10- Regular Meeting Zachar~ - continued The proposed buyer of the lot, who did not identify himself, told the Board that he sold his house in April because he thought he could build a house on Lot 1. Denial of the variance will be a hardship to him. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : Thom@son's Restaurant - Variance and S~ecial by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr, Trepanier Unanimous motion carries. Permit - Andover St. The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Richard Asoian, Mr. Stuart Thompson, Mr. Eric Brainerd, and Mr. Paul Ducharme were all present. Atty. Asoian made the following presentation: They are seeking a Special Permit to allow the expansion of a non conforming structure. They are also seeking variances from the setback requirements and from ~he-pa~k~ng requirements. The hardship is that the restaurant has a history of loosing bus~ness because people do not want to wait, There is no place to sit and wait for a table. They are also loosing business because there are no private rooms available. - They do not intent to turn Thompson's into a "99" type restaurant, They will maintain the bakery on the premises. The present lot coverage is 12½% and with the addition, it will be 18+%. The Zoning By Law allows for 30%. On parking, they have an agreement with the adjacent Furniture Barn to provide parking. It has been in effect for several years. They are proposing 62 spaces and the ZBL requires 88. The 62 proposed spaces do not include the Furniture Barn parking lot. - There are 22 employees at one time and they require the employees to park in the Furniture Barn parking lot. Note: Atty. Asoian presented a letter from the Furniture Barn dated 8/8/83, August 8, 1983 -11- Regular Meetin§ Thompson's continued The agreemeni is in writing with a 90-day termination clause. If the agreement ends, they should be able to handle the parking because people tend to come in groups. Compact parking spaces could be provided if the Board requested them. Mr. Stuart Thompson added the following: The restaurant has been in North Andover since 1941. They need a lounge and function space. The proposed addition would result in 60% dining facilities and 40% lounge. The following is proposed: green house to seat 16; lounge to seat 18; multi-purpose function room to seat 56 with a separate entrance; two small VIP rooms, seating 12 each; a new foyer; a handicapped entrance; new toilet facilities; an enlarged kitchen; removal of incinerator; removal of dumpster; a new back service area; and relocation of the bakery. The restaurant could expand to the front, but it was economi- cally and aesthetically undesirable. He is a resident of North Andover. Many of the employees have worked at the restaurant all of their working lives. North Andover needs this restaurant. Mr. Eric Brainerd, architect, added the following: They tried to harmonize the architecture to a colonial motif. The entrance has been relocated. ~ new emergency egress has been added, resulting in the loss of 5 to 7 parking spaces. The normal overflow is 20 people. The parking spaces can be scaled down. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Trepanier Unanimous - motion carries, August.8, 1983 -12- Regular Meeting Smerczinski, Frank Variance - Turnpike Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John J. Willis, Jr., representing the applicant, made the following presentation: A decision by the Board of Appeals in 1976 al~.lowed a variance to construct on the No. Andover/Middleton line. Mr. Smerczinski had the building constructed, which did not meet the setback re- quirement. Then an expansion was added, which was not in violation, but it expanded the building. The total property is now under Purchase and Sale. The Notice of Decision from the 1976 variance stated that the building shall conform specifically to the plan dated 4/7/76. The other attorney had some problems in that the expansion may or may mot have been proper. There is a good deal of developable land. If the Board of Appeals acts in terms of a zoning defining authority, they could go forward and obtain a building permit. If the Board feels it requires an expansion of the original variance, he asked that the Board amend said variance. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Webster, Robert - Variance - Andov~r_S.t.. The Clerk read the legal notice, Atty. Robert Lavoie was present for the petitioner and made the following presentation: The property is two dwellings located at 471 and 477 Andover St. - They have been deeded by separate deeds. - Mr. Webster took title in September of 1982. - He now wishes to sell one of the buildings. August 8, 1983 -13- Regular Meeting Webster - continued - In applying for a plot plan, a problem arose. - The thrust of the problem is that the dividing lot line dis- appeared when the property came under one ownership. - If there was a merger, the request is that a variance be granted so that Lot A can be conveyed. - These two lots have always been by separate deed. - The garage that separates the lots has been there for several years. They are looking for a determination of whether or not a merger has taken place. Building Inspector Charles Foster added the following: He feels that once the two lots came under common ownership, they had to be treated as one lot. To divide them would require a variance because they are under- sized. They are in the B-4 zoning district and the previous zoning was Residential. The driveway between the two buildings has always been shared. - On parking, they have a long term lease for 12 spaces from Poste Realty Trust (Bixby Building) next door. - The owner of Lot A will be granted an easement across a 15' way for entrance into the parking lot on the Bixby property. - He has never determined in writing that there was a merger. Member Frizelle added that parking is a problem because the ZBL states that parking must be on the same lot or on a lot of con- tiguous ownership. Atty. Lavoie responded that ample space can be provided on Lot A. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until the next meeting. by Mr. Trepanier Unanimous motion carries. August 8, 1983 -14- Regular Meeting Jayson Realty - Variance Cotuit St. The Clerk read the legal notice, Atty. Jay Willis represented the petitioner and made the following presentation: This petition and the one coming up for M. Ann Bush are the same. This area of Cotuit St. is being developed as a duplex/condo development. The requirements of this particular request is that the engineer did not take into accouht a little jut in the front of the building and it was constructed 2.2~ too close to the street. The major portion of the building meets the requirements of the ZBL. The portion of the dwelling in violation is a foyer. - The hardship is that it will be expensive to cut off the 2.2' - It can be removed but it is not desirable. - The violation was not intentional and was not discovered until the plot plan was drawn. Building Inspector Foster added that when the error was discovered, he gave the builder the option to go for the variance and has an agreement that if the variance is denied, the violation will be removed. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. ~E¢OND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. S.B. Homes - Variance - Cotuit St. The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. V. Scott Follansbee made the following presentation: - The lot is known as Parcel "E". - There was an error on the old plan. - When the foundation was staked out, the lot line was in error, August 8, 1983 -15- Regular Meeting S.B. Homes continued The situation is that there is plenty of room in the front but they are too close to the back. - The error was found when the certified plot plan was done. It is the foundation in violation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries S.B. Homes - Variance - Cotuit St. The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. V. Scott Follansbee made the following presentation: The lot is known as Parcel "F". It is the same request as Parcel "£". No one spoke in favor or oppos~tioh. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Hr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries M. Ann Bush Variance Brewster St. The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John J. Willis, Jr., representing the applicant, made the following presentation: front The ~de setback of the dwelling is 29.6 feet and it should be 30 feet. The Building Inspector had a plot plan which said it was 30 feet. The violation can be fixed but it is not desirable. Ms. Bush spoke in favor of the petition and no one spoke in opposition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Nickerson Unanimous - motion carries. August 8, 1983 -16- Regular Meeting Willows - Special Permit - Willow Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Robert Regan was present and made the following presentation: - He is proposing to add two raquetball courts to the present building. The property line goes to the center of Willow St. The Building Inspector said he is unsure of the status of the addition and Town Counsel said that he needs a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. The property was previously zoned residential and it has changed to Industrial -1. The existing building is legally non-conforming and a Special Permit is needed to expand. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Nickerson Unanimous - motion carries. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the meeting until Tuesday, August 9, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room or the Board of Appeals office if the meeting room is unavailable. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous motion carries. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Secretary