Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-10May 10, 1982 Regular Meeting The Board of Appeals held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, May 10, 1982 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~ Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq., Maurice S. Foulds; and Walter F. Soule. Mmebers Frizelle and Vivenzio sat on all hearings except that of Maureen J. Joyce. Building Inspector Charles Foster was also present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Benjamin Farnum - Request to change Special Permit - Boston Hill Atty. Howard Berger was present for the petitioner. He asked to withdraw the petition without predjudice. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to allow the petition to be withdrawn without predjudice. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. Gilbert Rea - Renew Earth Removal Permit The legal notice'was read. Mr. Rea was present and made the followin.g points: Building is off, but a little better. There was some activity last year, but not much. A letter from Building Inspector Foster was read and placed on file. Speaking in favor of the permit were Mr. Jack Carter, Mr. Henry Fink, and Ms. Claire Scott Speaking in opposition were Mr. James Kelley who also spoke for Mr. O'Hagen and Mr. Miller. Mr. Kelley stated that the document was written several years ago and stated that Mr. Rea could not use Chestnut Street. Be- cause times have changed, so has the enforcement of the original decision. His main concern is the space between road and the digging area~ as well as the buffer. Mr. Rea responded that the Police Chief asked him not to use the road; and the letter did not apply to his trucks. May 10, 1982 -2- Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Rea - continued by Mr. Frizelle to take under advisement. by Mr. Nickerson Unanimous - motion carries. John Rizza - variance - Park Street The legal notice was read. Dr. Rizza was present and made the following points: - His house is small and on a small lot. - The size and shape of the lot is unusual. - They need more room in which to live. - He would like to construct an addition to his house. - The addition would go "straight back" A variance from the required setbacks is required. Dr. Rizza asked the Board for a quick decision. A letter from the Building Inspector was read and placed on file. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. Maureen J. Joyce - variance - Second Street Sitting: Serio, Sullivan, Nickerson, Foulds: Soule The legal notice was read. Atty. Ralph Joyce was present for his wife. His points were: - He is here to represent his wife and not acting in a pro? fessional capacity. The property is in the vicinity of Second St, and Maple Ave. - It was owned by William and Arlene Kent ~ his wife purchased it seven weeks ago. May 10, 1982 -3- Regular Meeting Joyce continued The area is 34.5 square feet. It is an R-4 zone, which requires 100 feet of frontage and 12,500 square feet area. The Kent's bought the property in 1931 and when the acquired it the building in front was a 2½ story, 2-family dwellinp, which remained that way until the 1940's when they converted it to a 3-family unit. They stayed there until the late 1950's. At that time, they came to the Board of Appeals and secured a variance to main- tain four units (Lot A on the plan), making it a legally non- conforming 4-family dwelling. With respect to the building on Lot B, it is a cinder block garage. The Kent's ran their moving company from the building. They used it for storage of furniture also. There was also a barn on Lot B which has been removed. It has ~been a business use until the time the Kent's sold it to Mrs. Joyce. They also allowed a tenant to house his business in the garage. There exists some rights to use it as a legally non-conforming structure. What Mrs. Joyce proposes to do is renovate the cinder block buildin~ to a residential use. She is asking for a frontage variance. She has three times the density required. The garage is an eyesore. There is no way in its present condition that it can be improved. Allowing the non-conforming use to continue would be a hard- ship becuase of the way it looks. The variance request is related to the shape of the lot. The shape does not allow a subdivision without the variance. Granting the variance would not be a detriment and renovation of the building would be an attribute to the neighborhood. It would also generate more taxes. May 10, 1982 ~4- Regular Meeting Joyce - continued - The variance could contain a stipulation so that if the front or rear parcels were sold, they would remain residential. - He also suggested the conditions that the existing building be allowed to be renovated and that the title owner will abandon anything other than residential uses. The plans are for a two-family dwelling. It is not yet known if it will be up and down or side by side. She would keep the existing driveway and cross easements with the lots. In order to fund the renovation, the variance is needed. Building Inspector asked Atty. Joyce - "Are you asking for a use variance or a front and setback variance?" Atty. Joyce replied "Front and setback. I need the variance and frontage in order to use the lot. It allows me to abandon the uses that exist now and convert it back to what I want to do." Speaking in favor was Mike Starr and Thomas Ventura. A letter from the T own Planner was read and placed on file. Speaking in opposition were; Peter Raadmae, Steve Doherty, Roland Giard, John Cyr, Anthony Nicosia, and Mr. Casserly. The neighbors cited increased traffic and a lack of a hardship to the petitioner as their reasons for objection. Building Inspector raised the question of whether or not the parcel is indeed "legally non-conforming" because no decision has been made by a zoning officer whether the use is legally non-conforming. Mr. Cyr asked - "If it is non-conforming, can it be transferred from one party to another?" Mr. Foster replied - "If the use is established, it can be trans- ferred from one owner to another, but it cannot be another type of non-conformin~o use in there." Mr. Giard disagreed with Atty. Joyce saying that the garage is not an eyesore - it is not visible from the street. Mr. Foster asked to have the issue of the common driveway addressed and also wants the petitioner to show the parking on the plan. Atty. Joyce said that the Planning Board is the Special Permit Granting Authority for common driveways and if the Board of Appeals grants the variance~ he will petition the Planning Board fo~ the common driveway permit. May 10, 19B2 .-5, Regular Meeting ~oyce - continued MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries OTHER BUSINESS Letter from Atty. Michael Stella, Sr. Member ¥ivenzio read a letter dated April 13, 1982. Atty. Stella was present and made the following points~ - The Building Inspector issued a permit contrary to law. - He has had several conferences with the Building Inspector. - He has talked to Town Counsel who agrees with Atty. Stella - The building in violation is the North Andover Aquarium and Pet Shop, where an addition was constructed recently. - There is no provision for parking, garbage and who is intended to rent the building. His clients (Mr. and Mrs. Filetti) li~e next door. The Board of Appeals has the jurisdiction to stop this. Chairman Serio stated that this matter is not before the Board properly it is under the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector. Member Frizelle added that he does not think the Board of Appeals is the enforcing Board and Building Inspector Foster agreed, saying that until re:ently, the policy was to allow an extension of a non-conforming building ~ you can extend as long as it is not increased - it has come to his attention that on commercial buildings, it should come to the Board of Appeals now. He has changed his interpretation of the Zoning By Law since he issued this particular building permit. He added that this is an existing permit in effect and construction is almost complete. He will NOT reverse his decision because of suit by the abutter, MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: by Mr. Sullivan to receive the' letter as written by Arty. Stella. by Mr. Frizelle Unanimous - motion carries, May 10, 1982 -6- Regular Meeting DECISIONS Rizza Park Street MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance as requested. by Mr. Sullivan. Unanimous - motion carries. Rea MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Earth Removal Permit by Mr. Frizelle to continue the matter until next month and the permit will be continued in effect until that time pending the Board's review of the old decision. by Mr. Sullivan Unanimous - motion carries. Ventura - Ashland Street Sitting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule by Mr. Frizelle to grant the Special Permit subject to the condition that the parking lot with a minimum of eioht spaces be constructed to the rear of the building (shed) as Shown on the plan and the building be razed prior to the issuance of the building permit for reno- vations and a variance be granted as requested from Paragraph 7.2 and 7.3 as shown on the plan. by Mr. Nickerson Unanimous - motion carries. Joyc~ Second Street The Board asked Building Inspector Foster to investigate whether or not the bu~ldin? is in fact legally non-conforming before rendering their decision. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m, Frank Serio, Jr., Ch/airman Jean E. White, Secretary