Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-12July 12, 1982 Regular Meeting The Board of Appeals held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, July 12, 1982 in the Town Office Meetin~ Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq..,~Vice Chairman; William J. Sullivan, Augustine W. Nickerson, and Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk, who arrived late. Also present were Associate Members Walter F. Soule and Maurice S. Foulds. Building In- spector Charles Foster was also present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Alvin Poutenis - Special Permit - Waverl~ Road A letter from Atty. JOhn J. Willis, Jr., counsel for Mr. Poutenis, was read and placed on file. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the hearing until the Board's August meeting. SECOND: VOTE: Note: by Mr. Sullivan Unanimous - motion carries Member Trepanier arrived here. John Toome~ - Variance Beacon Hill Blvd. The Clerk read the legal notice, Atty. Donald Smith was present for Mr. ?oomey. Major points by Atty. Smith: - The lot in question is at the intersection of Mass. Ave. and Beacon Hill Blvd. - Mr. and Mrs. Toomey purchased Lots 173 and 174 in 1977. - The building has been on Lot 174 since 1954. - The setbacks and the area do not meet the requirements of the Zoning By Law. - The Toomey's wiSh to sell both lots and the bank found the cloud on the title to Lot 173. The building is NO.T. on Lot 173. - They are seeking to have Lot 174 granted a variance so that the conveyansor can certify Lot 174. - Both lots will be run through Land Court, but it is a very time consuming procedure. July 12, 1982 -2- Regular Meeting Toomey - continued The bank is willing to certify the title to Lot 174 with the variance. - The purpose of the request to have the lot varied is so that there will be one viable lot. They will be sold together. In order to facilitate the sale they need the variance. There will be no changes on the premises. It has been in the same condition sicne 1954. The plan shows King's Highw,y, which is a paper street and there is a fence down the middle of the street. To deny the variance would be a hardship to the petitioner. There will be no detriment to the neighborhood. Member Frizelle asked whether or not the petitioner would have a problem with a condition that no building be placed on Lot 173 and Atty. Smith replied that there would be no problem. Speaking in favor of the request was Atty. Philip ArsenaUlt, representing the buyers of the property. Speaking in opposition was Mr. Anthony Mele who asked how much land is needed to build a house. Member Frizelle replied that the Board would add the condition that no dwelling can b6 con- structed and the purpose of this request is to clear a cloud in the title. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance as requested with the condition that no building be placed o~ Lot 173. SECOND: by mr. Trepanier VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. Mark Henry - Variance Bay State Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Mark Henry was present and made the following points: - He wishes to divide an 18,400 s.f. parcel into two 9,200 s.f. lots. - All other requirements of the Zoning By Law would be met. - There is currently a house, garage, and a shed on the premises. July 12, 1982 Regular Meeting ~enry - continued - He would raze all three structures. - A variance ~s needed for the area requirement. - There would be no detriment to the neighborhood. - The neighborhood is comprised of similar sized lots. - Two single family homes are proposed. - The buildings are in poor condition and his original intention was to renovate them. Economically, however, he has put too much money into the lot. Speaking in favor - George Scbruender and Arthur Valliere. Both stated that aesthetically, two single family dwellings would be best for the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition were: Mr. and Mrs. John Melvin, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Rabbito, John Perone, Doris Casamasina, Mary Galloni, and Cynthia Melvin. The neighbors cited drainage and traffic problems as their reasons for objection. MDTION: by Mr. Trepanier to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Frizelle VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. Dr. Dilip Mukerjee - Special Permit ~ Main Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Joseph Lagasse, architect, represented Dr. Mukerjee. Major points by Mr. £agasse: This petition was before the Board of Appeals several months ago when a Special Permit was granted to renovate the premises. In the process of working on the buildings~ it was discovered that one of them was not sound enough for renovations. - The applicant now wants to raze this building and construct a new one more off the street and off the side property line. The parking lot will be to the Sutton Street side of the building. July 12, 1982 -4- Regular Meeting Mukerjee - continued The staircase on the lot line will be for egress/ingress off the second floor. The proposed building will be the same size as the previous building. Member Nickerson asked - "Why are you hugging the lot lin~?" and Mr. Lagasse replied - "Because of parking." Building Inspector Foster added - "This is an extension of an existing building, so it is a Special Permit request. After the original Special Permit was granted, it was apparent that there were problems with the foundation. It didn't make sense to take it down piece-meal. It made more sense to take it down and start new. I don't think he could proceed that way under the old Special Permit." Mr. Lagasse added - "The present use is O.K. but the lot lines are the problem." Speaking in favor was Mr. John caron who informed the Board that the town has purcahsed the B&M and there will be a parking lot there. The side staircase won't be a problem according to Mr. Caron. No one spoke in opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated July 12~ 1982 was read and placed on file. Member Sullivan asked whether the petitioner considered placing the building anywhere else on the lot and Mr. Lagasse replied that there is a stone builidng on the site and he believes that if another building were to be closer, fire apparatus could not get in. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. EPR Realty Variance Elmwood Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Gene Rosinski, owner of North Andover Building Center, was present for EPR Realty. Major points by Mr. Rosinski; - Since his business is located adjacent to the land in July 12, 1982 -5- Regular Meeting EPR - continued question, he wants to construct a duplex on the property on Elmwood Street. - The lot presently backs up to the store. - The bulk of the land is zoned commercial, but the lot on which the house would be built is residential. - He proposes to break the lot at the zoning line. No one spoke in favor to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated July 12, 1982 was read and placed on file, Speaking in opposition were Mrs. Finnochiaro and Mrs. Napolitano. Both women stated that when they built their homes several years ago, only single family dwellings were a)lowed and they think the same restriction should apply now. They also feel the proposed lot is too small for a house. Mr. Rosinski stated that he would not consider a single family dwelling for financial reasons. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries Condon/Goodrich - Parties Aggrieved ~ Marion Drive The Clerk read the legal notice. Atty. Thomas Caffrey was present for the petitioners. (The petitioners were also present) Points by Atty. Caffrey: The petitioners are asking for a revocation of a building permit for Lot W, Flagship Drive. The issue is how to measure a "Buffer Zone" between an Industrial and a Residential district. ~ In this case, the petitioners own property on Marion Drive, a residential street. ~ They have been involved in the development of an industrial subdivision. (The Willows Industrial Park). July 12, 19~2 -6- Regular Meeting Condon/Goodrich - continued The statute (setbacks) was set in 1980. In September of 1980, Mr. Condon was conderned about how the industrial area might develop. He wrote to the Building Inspector asking for an investigation. - At various Planning Board meetings, the question continued to come up. The Planning Board approved the subdivision known as the Willows Industrial Park in October of 1980, with conditions. The Condon's felt satisfied after that decision that they were guaranteed a 100 foot setback. When the building permit was issued for Low W, however, the building was constructed 60 feet from their property line. The fact that their land is partially zoned industrial works to their disadvantage. They feel that the Building Inspector issued the permit against the intent of the Zoning By Law, creating a hardship for the petitioners. The building is now complete. The same thing could happen in other parts of town. Mrs. Fran Greslick, Marion Drive, stated that when people on Marion Drive purchased their property, the entire street was residential. When the Master Plan was done, it changed to industrial. Mr. Condon added that his property was completely residential when he purchased it. Atty. Joseph Fitzgibbons, representing Mr, Charles Nigrelli, owner of Lot W, was also present. His points were: - The hardship lies with Mr. Nigrelli. - Mr. Nigrelli was not aware of this problem until the spring of 1982, after investing $750,000 for the lot and the building. He also spent in excess of $10,000 for a zoning opinion for the bonding, and it was determined that the Building Inspector was correct. - The 100 foot setback is not required by the Zoning By Law because it states "adjacent to residential districts" - This property (Lot W) is not adjacent to a residential district. It is adjacent to an industrial district. July 12, 1982 -7- Regular Meeting Condon/Goodrich - continued - On the question of how it became Industrial, it was done by a vote of the people of North Andover. If the petitioners, who want Mr. Nigrelli to take down his building had taken the time then to investigate their property investment, this would not be happening. - He showed the Board a 12-page complaint asking the Planning Board to have the building removed, It comes down to the same question that will be presented to the court on July 27, which is - "ts Lot W adjacent to residential property? - According to the zoning map - it is NOT!" - Mr. Nigrelli's financing is being held up. Building Inspector Charles Foster added that he has tried to be consistent in his decisions. He presented a plot plan and the permit application. He also stated that he referred to the zoning map and the Assessor's plat. They both showed that a portion of the abutting property is zoned industrial, so it does not require an additional 50 foot setback. Mr. Foster further stated that while it is true that setbacks are always taken from the property line (Section 2.71 of the Zoning By Law), it is his opinion that only 50 feet was required from the side line of the property because it did not abut' a residential zone. He read Footnote 3 from the Zoning By Law. He also stated that he refused to revoke the building permit because he believes it is legal. Also, according to Mr, Foster, nowhere on the approved subdivision plan was this condition (the additional 50 foot setback) noted. In order for a condition to be binding on the land, it must be on the plan or be referred to by instrument in the Registry of Deeds, Also, according to Mr. Foster, the only thing for the Board of Appeal's consideration is whether or not this land abuts resi- dential land. In examining the zoning map and the plot plan and the subdivision plan, it complies with the Zoning By Law. Atty. Caffrey disagreed with Mr. Foster saying that in terms of reliance, it was reliance of the part of the petitioners to find out how it would be interpreted. The Planning Board's minutes say 100 feet. Going by Mr. Foster's interpretation, you are denying them their buffer zone. He maintains that the way to determine it is by the dominant characteristic of the lot. In this case, the residential zone is dominant. July 12, 1982 ~8- Regular Meeting Con. d.o.n/Goodrich - continued Member Frizelle asked Atty. Caffrey - "When you refer to zonings you don't refer to the individual lot of land. What you are saying now is that in this case, the buffer zone should be read from the property line and not the district line. How do you support this position?" Reply from Atty. Caffrey "To take the other position is not common sense. What you are saying is that the Planning Board should have said 100 feet from the property line in this case. The Building Inspector should interpret to go with the property line." Atty. Fitzgibbons added "What action did the petitioners take? They had notice that there were proceedings and they could have taken some action and remember the conditions were never re- corded. With respect to the locus, you cannot see their houses from the new building." Mr. Condon disagreed saying he could see the new building on Lot W. Mrs. Greslick added that the Condon's found the problem long before Mr. Nigrelli bought his lot. Member Frizelle asked Atty. Caffrey - "How do we go about getting the building moved?" R~ply from Atty. Caffrey - "It is not directly your problem - in such a situation, it should be remedied in a reasonable manner." Atty. Fitzgibbons added - "In respect to the complaint, it seeks $10,000 for each petitioner from Advanced Reproduction Co." In response to a complaint from Mrs. Condon that she did not re- ceive a reply from the Building Inspector several months ago, Mr. Joe Raguski, Assistant Building Inspector, gave a summary of what happended in February when Mrs. Condon brought her problem to the Building Inspector's office. He also referred her to the Town Planner as well as the builder, All felt that because Lot W abuts an industrial zone, the building was legal and only a 50 foot setback was required. MOTION; by Mr. Frizelle to take under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries. duly 12, 1982 .9- Regular Meeting Maureen Joyce - Variance - Second Street Sitting: Serio, Sullivan, Nickerson, Foulds, Soule The legal notice was read. Atty. Ralph Joyce was present for his wife. Major points by Atty. Joyce; - Because this property was before the Board of Appeals in May, it is not necessary to go over everything again. - This petition asks for one variance on the premises. - She has the right to utilize the building. - She proposes to petition the Planning Board for a common driveway to service two lots. - She would put up a fence and maintain 7-9 parking spaces and 3-4 on the other side of the fence. This would create privacy on the back lot, - She proposes to raze the garage and construct a 2-family dwelling. The hardship is a financial one. - To utilize the garage, there will be trucks in and out. - She would rather get rid of the issues. - She wishes to utilize the property in the manner in which it is intended in the Zoning By Law. ~ Af for the density factor~ the existing dwelling will be a conforming lot. - The proposed lot would conform except for frontage. Member Serio asked if there would be objection from the petitioner to placing the fence and driveways on the plan and Atty. Joyce said there would be no objection. Member Sullivan asked what would happen if the Planning Board denies the common driveway permit and Atty. Joyce stated that two parallel driveways would be put in. No one spoke in favor to the petition. Speaking in opposition were; Mr. Roland Giard, Mr. Casserly, Peter Raadmae, John Cyr, Anthony Nicosia, and Steven Doherty. July 12, 1982 -10- Regular Meeting. Joyce - continued Mr. Giard said that he does not see a hardship. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take under advisement SECOND~ by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - Motion carries OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Serio read a letter from Mr. Gayton Osgood, Director of Community Development, dated July 12, 1982. The letter concerded the need for rental housing in North Andover and urged the Board of Appeals to allow for more multiple family dwellings in their decisions. Accepted and placed on file. DECISIONS Joyce - Second Street MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to grant the variance with the conditions that: 1. The existing 1½ story garage be razed before a building permit is issued. 2. That each lot have its own driveway. 3. That the plans be revised to show the fence or barrier and the proposed parking spaces. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds Discussion Building Inspector Foster warned the Board not to render a decision before the plans are revised. Motion and second withdrawn by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Foulds The Board requested of Atty. Joyce to revise the plans and re- submit them at the next meeting when they will render their decision. Atty. Joyce agreed. Condon/Goodrich - Marion Drive MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to deny the request made by the petitioners. SECOND: Chairman Serio passed the chair to the clerk and seconded the motion. VOTE: In favor - 4 (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Trepanier) Abstained- I (Sullivan) Motion carries. July 12, 1982 -11- Regular Meeting Decisions - continued Dr. Mgkerjee- Main Street MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the Special Permit as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries Benjamin Farnum - Boston Hill - from June 14~ 1982 Member Frizelle read a draft decision to the Board. MOTION: by Mr. Sullivan to grant the continuance of the Special Permit and change the name of same permit from MIT to Benjamin Farnum with the conditions that the permit be for MITRE, Rollins Cablevision, and Eastern Microwave only and that the frequencies normally associated with residential television reception not be interferhed with. Also, said corporations may not lease, sell, or otherwise transfer their rights to any other party. SECOND; By Mr. Frizelle VOTE: In favor - 4 (Serio, Frizelle, Trepanier, Sullivan) Abstained- 1 (Nickerson) Motion carries Mark ~e~nry__-. Bay State Road MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to deny the request for a variance SECOND; by Mr. Trepanier VOTE: In favor - 3 (Frizelle, Trepanier, Sullivan) Opposed - 2 (Serio, Nickerson) Motion is defeated MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: In favor - 2 (Serio, Nickerson) Opposed - 3 (Frizelle, Trepanier, Sullivan) Motion is defeated. Therefore, the petition is denied. EPR Realty Elmwood Street MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to deny the request for a variance July 12, 1982 Regular Meeting EPR - continued SECOND: by Mr. Frizelle VOTE: Unanimous - motion carries Nan c~_y Melillo - Marblehead Street Continue to August - no plans submitted, ?he meeting adjourned at 11~30 p.m. ~-~k~/~r iT, ~r. ~/Ch a i r m a n Jean E, White, Secretary