Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-23April 23, 1984 Special Meetin~ The Board of Appeals held a Special Meetinq on Monday evening, April 23, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; William J. Sullivan; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Associate Members Maurice S. Foulds and Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq. DECISIONS Kindred, Daniel - Variance - Watershed District - Johnson Circle MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan that the variance be granted as requested subject to the condition that the plan be revised to include a Board of Appeals signature block. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : In favor - 4 (Sullivan, Nickerson, Foulds, Vivenzio) Opposed - 1 (Frizelle) ~otion carries. Dion, Robert - Special Permit - Family Suite - Russet Lane MOTION: by Mr. Foulds that the Special Permit be granted subject to the following conditions: The family suite is solely for occupancy by Beatrice Dion, mother of Robert Dion. The Special Permit shall expire at the time Beatrice Dion ceases to occupy the family suite. The Special Permit shall expire at the time the premises are conveyed to any person, partnership, trust, or cor- poration. The applicant, be acceptance of the Certificate of Occupancy issued pursuant to this Special Permit, grants to the Building Inspector or his lawful designee the right to inspect the premises. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ~lfred/~./ FriX~t~Ie~VEsq. ~ V.C. Jean E. White~ Secretary The BOARD May 21, followin~ Richard J Nickerson and Raymo also pres PUBLIC HE Rea, Gilb Sitting: The Clerk Mr. Rea m - He ha compl - He is - Only - It is A letter on file. No one sp MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : Kereage, Sitting: The Clerk Mr. Kerea - There May 21, 1984 Regular Meeting OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, 984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; William J. Sullivan; Augustine W. and Associate Members Walter F. Soule; Maurice S. Foulds; id A. Vivenzio, Esq. Building Inspector Charles Foster was ~nt. ~kRINGS ~rt - Special Permit - Earth Removal Permit - Rea/Chestnut Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Foulds, Vivenzio read the legal notice. ~de the following presentation: ~ been removing the earth for more than 20 years with very few ~ints. seeking a renewal of his previous permit. himself and the town haul from the site. not a big operation (10,000 yards per year). from the Building Inspector dated 5/21/84 was read and placed Dke in favor or opposition to the petition. Dy Mr. Foulds to grant the renewal of the Earth Removal Permit as requested for one year. Dy Mr. Trepanier ~nanimous - motion carries Robert - Variance - Greene Street Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Foulds, Vivenzio read the legal notice. e made the following presentation: is a tool shed which is too close to the lot line. - It was added in 1973/1974 and he did not know he had to meet the setbacks. - There was a previous variance granted to Doran, the previous owner. - This variance is needed for mortgage purposes. - The shed is approximately 8' x 10' and would be difficult to move. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Vivenzio to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : In favor - 4 (Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Vivenzio) Opposed - 1 (Foulds) Motion carries. Lennon, Alice - Variance - Autran Avenue Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Foulds, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. Mrs. Lennon made the following presentation: - She purchased the lot 30 years ago before the zoning laws were enacted. - A variance was granted in 1979 for area, frontage, and setbacks, but a building permit was never taken out so the variance lapsed. - She is seeking the same variance the Board granted in 1979. - Without the variance, the land is useless. No one spoke in favor. Mr. Robert Hughes, 89-91Autran Avenue, spoke in opposition, stating the neighborhood is already crowded and granting the variance will lower the property values. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries L & L North Andover Trust - Special Permit - Turnpike Street Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Foulds, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Harold Morley made the following presentation: - The purpose of the petition is to allow the Burger King Rest- Lurant to construct an addition running the full length of the ~uilding. ~he proposed addition will be in conformity with the exterior of .he existing building. ,hey are before the Board because the Zoning By Law calls for a 100 foot setback from Route 114 (Turnpike St.). ~he building is non-conforming and that is why they are seeking Special Permit and not a variance. It was constructed prior the enactment of the current Zoning By Law. - variance was granted for the front vestibule. Ale place No or Spea MOTD SECO~ VOTE A. J Sitt The Engi~ s petition is asking for an extension, but the proposed extension does not even come out as far as the existing 'estibule. 'he purpose is to add spaces so that the kitchen can be earranged to be more efficient. io impact on parking will occur. 'he maximum will be 116 seats. ter from the Building Inspector dated 5/21/84 was read and ~d on file. .e spoke in favor of the petition. ling in opposition was Helen Kellner, Turnpike Street. )N: by Mr. Sullivan to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Trepanier Unanimous - motion carries Maillett - Variance - Davis Street ing: Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Foulds; Vivenzio ~lerk read the legal notice. leer Thomas Neve made the following presentation: ?he request is to subdivide one lot into two lots. ?he lot consists of 32,600 square feet with 133 feet of frontage. ~here is an existing 1 1/2 story building with a garage in the )ack on the lot. It is currently being used as a single family residence with a construction-type use of the garage in the rear. There are a few trucks being stored. They would like to subdivide the land into two lots. The lots would have sufficient area but would not have the proper amount of frontage. They are proposing to move the west addition to the garage and make it a conforming structure. They would create the subdivision line so that the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling would conform to the set- backs and area. They are only asking for a frontage variance and allow the non-conforming use of the land. The shed and the addition will be removed. - The land will no longer be used as a constructure atmosphere. Note: Member Nickerson arrived here. The proposed dwelling is a two-family dwelling. There are other two-family dwellings in the neighborhood. Each dwelling will have its own driveway. If the variance is not granted, there are other options. One is to build on the land and create a two family situation by attaching it to the existing dwelling. The other would be to leave as is and continue to use the garage as a contractor's use. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, stated that the use of the property is not grandfatherd in. The use of the property is governed by the home occupation by law and it must comply with the conditins. The property is residential. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 5/21/84 was read and placed on file. No one spoke in favor of the petition. The following neighbors spoke in opposition: Paul Toomey (speaking for his father); Bob Ritter; Tom Driscoll; Mr. Roberts; Doug Danforth; Jerome Pimpis; Ms. Roberts; Linda Winning; and Peter Rovinski. The neighbors cited the following as their reason for opposition: the nieghborhood consists of mostly single and not two family homes; the commercial use of the property should end with the death of the previous owner. Most of the neighbors stated that they would not object to a single family dwelling on the proposed lot. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries The Willows - Special Permit - ~urnpike Street Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Nickerson, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. Bob Regan made the following presentation: - The petition represents a request for a heliport on the premises. There is a new addition on the racquet club and the heliport will be on the roof of the new facility. It will be 24 feet off the ground. The request was denied approximately two years ago, but the issues have been addressed since the previous denial. - It will be approximately 800 feet from Route 114. The heliport will be for his use and for use by the tenants of the professional park. No fuel will be stored per an order from the Fire Chief. Letters from the following were read and placed on file: David Graham of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (5/18/84); Town Planner Karen Pomroy (5/21/84); Daniel O'Sullivan (5/18/84) Fire Chief (5/8/84); Johnathan Gilmore, Director of Planning and Community Development of Andover (5/1/84). Speaking in opposition were: Herb Meyers; Dick Valle; Nick DiNitto; Mary Mottola; Sheldon Gilbert; John Curtain; Helen Kellner; Monique Goodrich; Dave Asmussen; and Pat Cavanaugh. The neighbors cited the following objections: they would be detri- mentally affected by the heliport; the route would be above their homes; they already have a problem with low flying planes and this would create an added noise disturbance; there is no need for a heliport since there is an airport so close in North Andover; there are several children in the neighborhood; a helicopter cannot land wouthout disruption to the neighbors; the heliport will be used as encouragement for tenants of the proposed industrial park; there is the chance of a mislanding; there is a gas station that is within 100 feet of the proposed site; the quality of life of Marion Drive will be affected; the landings and take-offs will create a dangerous situation since people travelling on Route 114 will be curious. Mr. Regan responded to the objections with the following: It will not be a commercial use, but will be used by himself and the residents of the industrial and professional parks. It will be used once a day by himself and in order for someone else to come in they need prior authorization. - The heliport will be a benefit to the park. - It is a permitted use in the Zoning By Law. - The proposed flight pattern is not over a residential district. - The Fire Chief, the Town Planner and the safety inspector for the MAC visited the site and the inspector stated that it is in a safe location. - - It will also be used as a medical evacuation center. Bon Secours Hospital in Methuen and Lawrence General Hospital in Lawrence both have helipads. North Andover does not have one. - The town is expanding and these things are important. Mr. Joseph D'Angelo of the Mass. DPW asked if the building can support the helipad and Mr. Regan responded that it was designed for it. Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, said he was unaware of the building's design for a helipad and questioned if a Special Permit could be issued since the proposed location is located so close to a restaurant. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Landers, Vicent - Variance - Osgood Street Sitting: Serio, Sullivan, Nickerson, Soule, Foulds Mr. Sullivan read the legal notice. Mr. Landers made the following presentation: - Many years ago he purchased land on Osgood Street. The zoning was changed and the lot is now non-conforming. - Last month, he sought a variance but due to a technicality in the legal notice, the petition was withdrawn. - He has made some changes in the plan and has spoken to the Airport Commission. Letters from the following were read and placed on file: Building Inspector (5/21/84) Gerald J. Russo, Airport Enginee~ (4/26/84) Speaking in favor was Mr. Joseph D'Angelo of the Mass. DPW. Speaking in oppositin was Hr. William Chepulis, an abutter. Mr. Chepulis' objections were: - Initially, this lot did not meet the 80,000 square foot re- quirement. It was purchased after the State took the land. When the State took the land, they had an iron pipe. The pipe disappeared. He has trees on the East side of his property and going from where the pipe used to be, he put them 3 to 4 feet in. The plan presented tonight shows that the garage is only one foot away from the land. According to this plan, one of his trees is on Mr. Landers' land. Also, there is a marker on the West side of Mr. Landers' land with a pipe. In the middle, between th~ two set pipes, there is another one which forms an angle. Note: Mr. D'Angelo said this could be a state bound. Mr. Chepulis continued with the following: There is a State marker near the catch basin. Judging from the plan, the catch basin is on his land. The lower left hand corner of the lot is wet. He thinks there are springs in there. It is wet where the proposed building is going. A Notice of Intent should be filed with the Con- servation Commission. He is concerned about the huge paved open area and how much of a buffer zone will exist for him. - He wants verificatin of the lots lines for his protection. He does not see a hardship as required under the Zoning By Law. This request represents a great derogation from the Zoning By L~w. Mr. Landers responded that the large paved area will be used to drive in and out and his trailers will park there. All vans and small vehicles will use Osgood Street until Clark Street is fixed. The trailers will have to use Osgood Street. There will be a garage on the lower level and an office and stock room on the top floor. There will be several doors facing the Sunoco station away from Mr. Chepulis's house. There will probably be one on Osgood Street so that a big trailer can back right in. The buffer zone will be 50 feet from the lot line and he thinks he must fence in the property. Also, he filed with the Conservation Commission and they determined that no Notice of Intent uas necessary. On the drainage, etc., he has gone to the Board of Public Works and they said he can go septic - the perc tests passed. Also, he can go into Sutton Street with a gravity sewer or to Route 125 if it becomes a reality. The Building Inspector added that many public places are going to tie into the sewer from French Farm Village. MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Joyce, Ralph - Variance - Rea Street - continued public hearing Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Nickerson, Soule A letter from Mr. Vern Roddhal dated 4/21/84 was read and placed on file. Mr. Roddhal asked to amend the letter. He has tried to get a detail engineering plan of the proposal. He has other questions and concerns about the construction. The plan does not show where the septic system will be placed. A letter from Hr. Roddhal dated 5/21/84 was read and placed on file. Also speaking at the hearing were: Mr. John Kendrick, Mrs. Averka, Mrs. Veronica Landry, Mr. Joseph Averka, and Mrs. Vern Roddhal. Mr. Kendrick stated that there is a brook that runs from Rea Street. In the spring, it overflows and eats up the land. The children in the neighborhood are attracted to it. It is a health hazard to the neighborhood. It is a nuisance. Mrs. Averka stated that she owns the other side of the driveway and there is a well very close to the wall. It is not clear to her what is going to happen. The boundary line on her side should not be disturbed. She is worried about he~ boundary line. She thinks there is a hardship to the abutters because they must go from Board to Board. Mrs. Mandry said she is concerned about what will happen to the water that has been coming through the streams and where it will go. Joe Averka asked to have the hearing continued until they know exactly where the septic system and the house are going. Chairman Serio re- sponded that the Board of Appeals is addressing the request for a variance from the frontage requirement and that Mr. Averka will have to go to the Board of Health concerning the septic system. Mrs. Roddhal asked where the dirt will go when the home and pool are constructed. Mr. Joyce responded to the objections by stating that the tests that were performed on the site were deep water tests and not perc tests. Until the tests are done and submitted to the Board of Health, the site of the septic system will not be known. When the house and septic system are located, it will be determined how far away from the wetland he will be. He does not think it will be within 100 feet of the brook. On the driveway issue, he does not know yet what it will be. It will probably be crushed stone. On the frontage and purchasing from other people, he asked Mr. Roddhal if he would sell him some frontage. Mr. Roddhal responded that this is not the place to discuss it. Mr. Joyce added that he is asking for a frontage variance to build one house on eight acres and the Purchase and Sale is contingent upon obtaining the building permit. If he does not obtain a building permit, the hardship falls on Helen Koroskys, the current owner of the land. Also, at least five acres are outside the wet- land area. He does not plan to cross the brook. He offered a condition last month that as long a~ the configuration and the frontage remains the same, he will only build one house. He has no intention of crossing the streams and he cannot subdivide the parcel without the frontage. The dirt from construction will be used to landscape. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries The Willows - Variance - Willow Street Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Sullivan, Nickerson, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Robert Regan made the following presentation: The variance request is to allow the sign in front of the Willows to remain. It has been there for 11 years. - The Willows owns the property and they ran a strip. - The sign has not changed. The Willows originally owned all of the land and sold it to the professional park. The Building Inspector said the sign must be taken down be- cause they didn't own the land. He will have to have the Planning Board endorse the plan as a Form A. It is 6 feet back from Route 114 and the Zoning By Law calls for 10 feet. It will be a hardship to move it. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. DECISIONS Lennon, Alice - Variance - Autran Avenue MOTION: by Mr. Trepaaier to grant the variance with the condition that only a single family dwelling be constructed on the lot as requested in the petition. SECOND: by Mr. Vivenzio VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries L & L No. Andover Trust - Special Permit - Turnpike Street MOTION: by Mr Foulds to grant the Special Permit as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Sulliva VOTE : In favor - 4 Opposed - 1 (Vivenzio) Motion carries A. J. Maillett - Variance - Davis Street MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance subject to the con- dition that only a single family dwelling be built on the new lot and that the existing dwelling on Lot 1 remain a single family dwelling and that the proper plans meeting the Board's requirements be submitted to the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit and that the existing buildings be razed as shown on the plan and that they be razed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Also, the shed as shown on Lot 2 will be razed prior to the issuance of a builidng ~ermit. SECOND: by Mr. Vivenzio VOTE : Unanimous - motion carr es Joyce, Ralph - Variance - Rea Street MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance subject to the conditions that only a single family dwelling may be built as long as the property lines remain the same as shown on the plan of land entitled "A Composite Plan of Land in North Andover, Mass., dated April 6, 1984, prepared for Helen A. Kororkys, Owner, by John C. Callahan Associates" unless additional land with adequate frontage is obtained according to the existing Zoning By Law in effect at the time the additional land and frontage is obtained. In addition, the variance is subject to the condition that the driveway leading to the property be gravel according to standard construction procedures. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : In favor - 3 (Trepanier, Nickerson, Soule) Opposed - 1 (Serio) The motion fails to carry and the petition is denied. Mr. Joyce asked for a reconsideration and the Board instructed him to submit the request in writing within ten (10) days. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. At the request of Attorney Joseph Boulanger, Special Town Counsel, the Board entered Executive Session at 11:30 p.m. upon a motion made by Mr. Trepanier and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio. Said motion passed unanimously. T~e purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss litigation brought against the town by Mr. John Carter and Mr. Raymond Agler. The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:30 a.m. on May 22, 1984. Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman Jean E. White, Secretary