Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-06December 6, 1984 Special Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a Special Meeting on Thursday evening, December 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Associate Members Walter F. Soule; Maurice S. Foulds; and Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq. Attorney Jospeh Boulanger, Special Town Counsel for Petitions 5-'83 and 6-'83, Rollins Cablevision, Attorney Martin Jacobs, representing Mr. John Carter and Mr. Raymond Agler, owners of Mills Hill, Mr. John Carter, Mr. Raymond Agler, Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, and two abutters to Mills Hill were present. The purpose of the Special Meeting was to make specific findings for Petitions 5-'83 and 6-'83 per an order of the judge preciding over the court case. Attorney Boulanger announced that Attorney Jacobs was taping the meeting. No objection was voiced but Attorney Boulanger added that only the Board secretary's minutes would be considered official records. A letter from Attorney Boulanger, dated 11/29/84 was read and placed on file. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition NO. 5-'83 - Party ~grieved -Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts - Land off 300 Chestnut Street Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. He also read the minutes dated 1/10/83 and 1/18/83. In addition, the Clerk read the following from the file: - Letter from the Building Inspector dated 12/3/82. - Letter from E. Greenwood dated 12/30/82. - Letter from Attorney Richard Asoian dated 12/13/82. - A memo believed to be a part of the application. - Notice of Decision and Letter to Town Clerk, both filed on 2/1/83. Member Vivenzio stated: - The same rationale should be used that was used in the Boston Hill denial. The tower is 25 years old and has nothing more to do with what it was constructed for. It is in a residential district and has had its full life. Member Trepanier added: This decision should focus in on the Building Inspector's decision. Mr. Foster stated in his letter dated 12/3/82 that a variance ~as granted in 1958 and that the use of the land for towers was permitted at that time but such use has since been removed from the Zoning By Law as an allowed use. As a previously existing non conforming use, any use of the tower is limited to that conducted before the zoning change. Therefore, the proposed use of the tower for commercial purposes is a change that cannot be allowed. The law requires that any change or expansion of a non-conforming use or structure requires a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and no such permit exists. The Board instructed the secretary to forward the following addendum containing additional specific findings for Petition No. 5-'83, being the petition of Ro].!ins Cablevision of Massachusetts, for land off 300 Chestnut Street, to the Town Clerk to be attached to the original decision previously filed in the Town Clerk's office on February 1, 1983: In considering this matter, the Board finds: 1. That a variance was granted to MIT in 1958 to erect a tower in excess of the allowed height for testing and research. The use of the land for towers was permitted at that time but such use was removed from the Zoning By Law as an allowed use in 1972. As a previously existing non-conforming use, any use of the tower is limited to that conducted before the zoning change disallowing such use. 4. Therefore, the proposed use of the tower for commercial purposes is a change in use which cannot be allowed. e Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of the Zoning By Law require that any change or expansion of a non-conforming use or structure requires a Special Permit from this Board and no such Special Permit exists for this proposed new use of the tower. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals of North Andover has voted four to one to deny this request, and thereby upholds the written determination of the Building Inspector contained in his letter to Richard Asoian, Esq., dated December 3, 1982. Secretary's Note: following: the above addendum was forwarded to the Civil Clerk's Office, Essex Superior Court Attorney Joseph E. Boulanger Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts Messrs. John Carter and Raymond Agler Parties in Interest Building Inspector Assessor's Office PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 6-'83 - Special Permit - Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts - Land off 300 Chestnut Street Sitting: Serio, Trepanier, Nickerson, Foulds, Vivenzio The Clerk read the legal notice. He also read the following: Minutes of 1/10/83 and 1/18/83 Notice of Decision and Letter to Town Clerk both filed in the Town Clerk's office on 2/1/83. Member Vivenzio stated that everything he said earlier about the life of the tower, etc. pertains to this petition. Chairman Serio added that the Board must view this petition in a different way. The motion was to deny and it failed. The decision must contain reasons why it failed. The Board instructed the secretary to forward the following addendum containing additional specific findings for Petition No. 6-'83, being the petition of Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts, for land off 300 Chestnut Street, to the Town Clerk to be attached to the original decision previoiusly filed in the Town Clerk's Office on 2/1/83: In considering this matter, the Board finds: That the continuance or extension of the Special Permit would unduly prolong the life of the non-conforming use of the premises. Granting the Special Permit Would amount to an indefinite continuance of a commercial use in a homogeneous residential district. e That the non-conforming structure has long since reached the end of its useful life as comtemplated under the terms and conditions of the 1957 variance, being national defence oriented, the structure having been erected in 1958. That the continuance of the Special Permit or the grant of a Special Permit would unduly prolong the existence of this non-conforming structure. 5. Granting the Special Permit would amount to an indefinite continuance of a commercial structure in a homogeneous residential district. e The existence or increase of the non-conforming use with the addition of three dishes and fourteen antennas and a portable building is more than 25% of the original use as outlined in Section 9.2 (3). 7. That Section 10.31 (1 a) of the Zoning By Law has not been met since it is a commercial use in a residential area. 8. The use as developed will adversely affect the residential neighborhood, so Section 10.31 (1 b) has not been met. Section 10.31 (1 e) is not met because the indefinite continuance of a commercial use in a relatively homogeneous residential district is not a use that is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By Law. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals of North Andover voted three to two to deny the Special Permit. Secretary's Note - the above addendum was forwarded to the foll- owing: Civil Clerk's Office - Essex Superior Court Attorney Joseph E. Boulanger Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts Messrs. John Carter and Raymond Agler Parties in Interest Building Inspector Assessor's Office The meeting adjoured at 9:00 p.m. Upon the request of Attorney Joseph Boulanger, the Board entered Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. to discuss the ligitation brought against the town by Mr. John Carter and Mr. Raymond Agler. Mr. Trepanier made the motion to enter Executive Session and Mr. Nickerson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Board came out of Executive Session at 9:~5 p.m. FrAnk/~erio, Jr., ~rman Jean E. White, Secretary