Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-19November 19, 1984 Regular Meeting The Board of Appeals entered Executive Session on Monday evening, November 19, 1984 at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Appeals office upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule. Said motion passed unanimously. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Augustine W. Nickerson; Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq., and Walter F. Soule. The purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss litigation brought against the town and the Board by Mr. John Carter and Mr. Raymond Agler. The Board came out of Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. when Chairman Serio announced that the Board would reconvene for their regular meeting in open session. The BOA_RD OF APPEAT~ held a regular meeting on Monday evening, November 19, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; William J. Sullivan; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Asso- ciate Members Walter F. Soute and Maurice S. Foulds. PUBLIC HEARINGS Boddy, William - Variance - Belmont Street (continued hearing) Mr. Soule read a letter from Attorney Mark Tay asking that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Boddy, William - Variance - Belmont Street Mr. Soule read the legal notice. Attorney Mark Tay made the following presentation to the Board: - The petition was discussed at the last meeting. The appropriate sections of the Zoning By Law were not part of the previous application and that error has been corrected. Another problem is that this parcel was involved in a decision in 1960 when the front setback requirements were dealt with and granted. The problem is that the petition was faulty in 1960. It referred to commercial property rather than industrial. The petitione£ purchased the property in July. The building is a one story wood structure. The petitioner has put a brick face on the building. They are proposing the addition of a 24' x 30' extension on the front of the lot. They are also proposing a 50' x 80' extension on the rear. They are asking for front and side yard setback variances and a front setback variance for the existing building. Next door is zoned R-5. On the other side the existing building is practically on the lot line. He has cleaned up a dumping ground. He will plant trees as a buffer and he has already planted 7 along the North Andover Housing Authority lot line and in the back. At the last meeting, the issues were 5' next to Nicetta and a question came up about parking and they were able to assure the Board that at the rear lot line there is plenty of space. Also, an issue was tenants parking in the parking lot. They cannot control the road situation but they will provide parking for tenants and employees. The proposed use will be light industrial. They will consider the neighborhood. Any use will be consistent with the neighborhood. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. Member Nickerson asked how many people will be working in the building and Attorney Tay responded "approximately 10". Attorney Tay added that if the Board wishes to impose conditions, Mr. Boddy will abide by them. He referred to footnote #2 of Table 2 of the Zoning By Law and stated that they can't do it in the front. In the back, it will be 30' - 35' in green. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. New England Telephone - Variances - Flagship Drive and Turnpike Street Mr. Soule read the legal notices. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 11/19/84 was read and placed on file. Mr. George Gagon, representing New England Telephone, made the following presentation: - They want to bring telephone service to this part of town. There are two problems - they want to place on two parcels of land a pre-cast concrete hut 10 1/2 by 15 x 9 1/2 feet high. One will be placed on Flagship Drive and one on Turnpike Street. The telephone company will bring in the latest state of the art telephone service. It will be a "light wave system". It will travel Route 114. The cable will be smaller than a traditional cable. It can process computer data. It is immune to electrical interference. - This is a million dollar project. If the petitions are granted, the industrial park on Route 114 and residential customers will beneift. - The variances are needed to provide the service. The available data on population and real estate determines the potential needed and how the project will be engineered. The engineering work is about 90% complete. Any alteration to their engineering plan will increase the cost substantially. Most importantly, any change would impair the possibility of bringing the service to this part of town. It would set them back a minimum of six months. It is in the public interest to anticipate the public demands. Therefore, they are petitioning this Board for approval for the equipment enclosures. Letters from the land owners, Powder Tech (for Flagship Drive) and Wiley and Mary Richards (for Turnpike Street), both dated Septem- ber 17, 1984, were read and placed on file. No one spoke in favor of either location. Speaking in opposition to the Turnpike Street location were Mr. Arthur Hardy and Mrs. Mary Lou Salois. Mr. Hardy stated that he is the owner of the adjoining property and that Mrs. Salois is his daughter and also an abutter. He stated that granting the variance would make the lot non-con- forming. Also, the building will abut his driveway. He said that granting the variance will ruin his property. Mr. Gagon stated that there is no driveway. The land near the proposed hut is barren with trees and brush and they will be 250' away from Mr. Hardy's house. He added that the work will be done from Route 114. Once the cables are spliced, the activity will be limited in the building. The maintenance will be very limited (one technician to maintain it). It will be monitored from the central office. They have an alarm system. Membe£ Soule questioned if the hut could be installed in an R-2 zoning district. To be investigated by the applicant. MOTION: by Mr. SulLivan to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Prevenau, Gertdude and Ducker, Daniel - Variance - Bacom Avenue Mr. $oule read the legal notice. Attoreny William Bellino made the following presentation: The petitioner (Preveneau) has conveyed the property to Atty. John McGarry, as trustee of Mill Trust. - They are seeking a variance for frontage and area. The proposal is to take the four lots (184-187), of which a dwelling exists now on Lot 186, and cut them in half, making a total of two lots. This would allow approximately 90 feet of frontage for each parcel and approximately 9,500 square feet in area for each. They seek the variance as it would be a substantial hardship to the petitioner and owners if this were not granted due to the fact that the petitioner would be taxed on all four lots with only one house. - It will not be a detriment to the public good. It will be consistent with the lot sizes in the area. There are several lots of 4,500 square feet. Directly behind the proposed lots, there are several lots of the same area. It will not be a derogation of the Zoning By Law. variances have been allowed. Other No one spoke in favor. Speaking in opposition were Mrs. Cardello and Mrs. Carlson. Mrs. Carlson questioned who will live in the houses and Attorney Bellino responded that they don't know yet. Mrs. Cardello stated that there is no sewage. She questioned if it goes in, will she have to pay for it. Attorney Bellino told her she would not - the rights will not go through her property. Mr. DeFellipo recently purchased the property of the Greater Lawrence Revolving Loan Fund and asked if the lots could perc if they decided to go with septic systems. Chairman Serio asked Atty. Bellino if they would object to a condition that the homes must be on sewer and Atty. Bellino stated that they would not. A letter from Mr. Ferraro dated 11/19/84 was read and placed on file. In the letter, he stated that he objected to a two- family dwelling. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries McLay, John - Variance - Middlesex Street/Norman Road Mr. Soule read the legal notice. Mr. McLay was at the hearing and made the following presentation: - The property has been in his family for over 60 years. His daughter wants to construct a house. - His mother lives in the house on Middlesex Street and the proposal is to build one on a 4,500 square foot lot fronting on Norman Road. - Variances from the setback requirements, tot area, and required frontage are being sought. - Most of the houses in the area are built on 4,500 square foot lots. The lots on Norman Road have 6,000 square feet. - The proposed dwelling will be a two story of approximately 24' x 40' It will have a 10 foot setback on one side and 16 feet on the other side. - He has talked to the abutters and no objections have been forwarded to him. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 11/19/84 was read and placed on file. Chairman Serio asked Mr. McLay if he would object to a condition that only a single family dwelling could be placed ont the lot and Mr. McLay said he would not. Mr. Sweeney's daughter asked if she could build on her vacant lot and Chairman Serio informed her that she would have to file an application with the Board. MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. North Andover Mills Realty - Special Permit - High Street Mr. Soule read the legal notice. Mr. Martin Spagat and Mr. Ted Levi were present and Mr. Levi made the following presentation: They want to construct a one level parking deck. The land is zoned I-S and R-4. They are asking to go about 15 feet into the R-4 zone. The deck was originally designed as a multi-level deck and could have been constructed without Board of Appeals approval but they felt that the one level would be aesthetically better for the neighbors. In order to have enough parking, they need to use 15 feet of the R-4 zone. It is due to the topography that they need the deck. The one level will keep it low. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition but Mr. Paul Kochis of Prescott Street stated that he is in favor of the one- level as opposed to the multi level deck. He added that the owners told the neighbors that the lighting will be down lighting and that landscaping will be done. Mr. Spagat and Mr. Levi responded that they have no objection to the requests of the neighbors. A letter from the Fire Chief and Town Planner was read and placed on file. Mr. Leonard Windle asked about the traffic emptying on to High Street. He asked if they could run a right-of-way to Chickering Road. Mr. Spagat responded that they are trying to do that. It will run out to Chickering Road down the B&M. The selectmen are focusing on the Sutton Street access. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Cooper, Margaret and Joyce - Variance - Salem Street Mr. Soule read the legal notice. Joyce Cooper was at the hearing and made the following presenta- tion: As stated in the application, they are seeking relief from the requirements of Section 7.3 in order to construct a garage. - The existing driveway is there and if they had to build the garage in another location they would have to construct a new driveway. This location is the most accessible to the side door. - There was a shed in the location at one time and they are trying to preserve the carriage shed. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to grant the petition as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries DECISIONS NYNEX - Special Permit - Boston Hill Decision to be rendered on December 10, 1984. The five members needed to vote are not present tonight. Boddy, William - Variance - Belmont Street MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to grant the variance subject to the foll- owing conditions: 1. That the proposed addition of 24 by 30 feet be elimi- nated and that the second proposed addition of 80 by 50 feet be extended to 100 by 50 feet. 2. That a 15 foot grassed buffer zone on the Northeast side of the lot be maintained from the street all the way back. 3. That the plan be revised to show the correct zoning designation and the changes outlined above. 4. That the uses under Section 4.132, paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 are prohibited. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries New England Telephone - Variance - Flagship Drive MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to grant the variance as requested SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries New England Telephone - Variance - Turnpike Street The Board will visit the site and render a decision on 12/10/84. No. Andover Mills Realty - Special Permit - High Street MOTION: by mr. Foulds to grant the Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. That all ~ighting be down lighting. 2. That the structure be restricted to no more than a total of two (2) levels (ground level plus one). 3. That the remaining area in (he R-4 district be open and green, suitably landscaped, not built upon, un- paved, and not parked upon. 4. That all conditions shall meet with other town Boards and agencies under Site Plan Review prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Preveneau, Gertrude - Variance - Bacon Avenue MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to grant the variance subject to the following conditions: 1.That only a single family dwelling be constructed on Lot A. 2. That both the existing dwelling on Lot B and the proposed dwelling on Lot A be tied into the municipal sewer system. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : In favor - 4 (Serio, Sullivan, Nickerson, Foulds) Opposed - 1 (Soule) Motion carries McLay, John - Variance - Middlesex Street/Norman Road MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to grant the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. That only a single family dwelling be placed on the new lot. 2. That the plans be revised to show suitable off street parking. SECOND: by Mr. Sou!e VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries RINUTES - 10/15/84 ROTION: by Rt. Soule to accept the minutes of 10/15/84 as written. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ~/~J~~ ~ Jean E. White, Secretary ~-a~Serio, Jr.~airman ~ ~ ~~