Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-08November 8, 1982 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APP[ALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, November 8, 1982 in the Town Office Meeting Room at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present and voting: Al- fred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; Augustine W. Nickerson; Maurice S. Foulds; Walter F. Soule; and Richard J. Trepanier, who arrived late. Building Inspector Charles Foster was also present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Maureen McAloon, Mary McAloon, Eileen Jones Mt.'V~rnon Street. Variance Requests Sitting- Frizelle, Nickerson, Foulds, Soule Three petitions were received by the Board for three parcels of land. However, one plan was submitted and the three petitions were presented as one by the petitioners. Member Nickerson read the three legal notices. Attorney John J. Willis, Jr. represented the three petitioners and made the following points; There are three different lots of land on Mt, Vernon Street. Lots D and C are one lot and lots A and B are on.e lot. When one of the lots was purchased from the Town of North Andover, had it had the required square footage, it would be grandfathered in. What has happened, however, is that there were two plans of land off of Prescott Street. The first plan is by C. O. Barker dated 1906. According to that plan by Barker, Mr. Barker originally sub- divided all the area consisting of'High Street, Upland Street, Mt. Vernon Street, Chadwick Street, Barker Street, and Prescott Street. Some lots were not transferred by Mr. Barker. In 1912, ~4r. Barker deeded out to Mr. Mahoney, who also owned the fee in the streets. Mr. Mahoney had a new plan placed on. record which chopped off approximately 10 feet from each lot from Upland Street to Mt. Vernon Street, leaving the lots on the other side of the street exactly the same. The only conclusion is that the new plan is inaccurate. November 8, 1982 -2- Regular Meeting McAloon, Jones - continued - The Board of Public Works provided a copy of the original newer layout from 1913. The layout ran the center of Pres- cott Street. - There is a concrete corner bound which is 22½ feet from the center line of the sewer. The majority of the lots were take~ by the town for non- payment of taxes and they have sold off the lots. They have also referred to Mahoney's plan of land, which appears to be inaccurate. Anyone who bought a lot shifted 10 feet down. What this does to the petitioners is that Lot A has 10 feet of the lot they bought off the town because you have to shift Lot 35. This affects some other people on Mt, Vernon and Upland Streets, especially the abutter on the corner. The problem was discovered when the engineer went out to stake out the land. - There is a 10 foot "no man's land:" The petitioner has agreed to deed the 10 feet to the Libby's. This has put the petitioners in a~position that the land would have consisted of legally existing lots under the l~ws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They are still in that position with lots A and B and D and C together. Because of the shift, Lot C now contains 4,068 feet. The petitioner claims that the former lot 35 has a substantial hardship because it is no longer a buildable lot. The petitioners suggest that if variances are granted for all three lots, they would end up with three useable lots. The street is being developed with 2-family, owner-occupied homes. They are NOT duplexes. They are closer to condominiums. The petitioners feel that the variances can be granted without a detriment to the area. R-4 is an older district and they would not be nullifying or derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By Law. The new dwellings can be built with the appropriate setbacks. Note: Member Trepanier arrived here. November 8, 1982 -3- Regular ~leeting McAloon, Jones - continued - When Eileen Jones purchased Lot C, it appeared to have 5~!000 square feet. - The lots have always been in separate ownerships. No one spoke in favor of the petitions. Atty. Donald Smith, representing Mr. and Mrs. Henry Libby, spoke in opposition. He made the following points: - In order to grant a variance, certain requirements have to be met. - One is that there must be a substantial hardship to the pe- titioner or applicant. - There are three applicants in this case. - For lots A and B, there is 100' x 100', which he understands can be built upon. There should be no problem with these two lots and there is no hardship. - This whole area is less than 25,000 s.f., not enough to permit building two houses. - The petitioners are proposing to correct an error by creating three lots. - Their proposal is not in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By Law. - The purpose of the Zoning By Law is to prevent over-crowding and a variance, if granted, would be contrary to this intent. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to take the matter under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds ~ VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Gil Wallace Variance Request - Tolland Road Sitting: Frizelle, Trepanier, Nickerson, Foulds, Soule Mr. N~ckerson read the legal notice. Mr. Wallace was present and made the following points: He does not have the plan of land with him tonight which is a requirement of the Board. November 8, 1982 -4- Regular Meeting Wallace - continued He wishes to construct a shed which would not meet the setback requirements of the Zoning By Law. There are no structures to the rear within 75 feet of the pro- posed shed. - He wishes to locate the shed within 3 feet of the property line. - He does not want to place it next to his house because it'would be an eyesore to the neighborhood. A letter from the Building Inspector dated November 8, 1982 was read and placed on file. Mr. Foster told the Board that many people are under the impression that sheds do not have to meet the requirements of the Zoning By Laws, but they do. Up until 1975, no permits were required; and, therefore, no setbacks were required. Now, the State building code requires a building permit for small accessory sheds. Once a permit is required, the setbacks must be met. To stabilize the situation, the Town Planner and himself have been discussing a smaller setback for sheds of certain sizes. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to take the matter under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Daniel Takesian - Variance Request-Dale Street Sitting: Trepanier, Nickerson, Foulds, Soule Mr. Nickerson read the legal notice. Mr. Takesian was present and made the following points; - The request is so that he can construct a garage which would be the full depth of the house. - It will be used to garage his three cars. - He wants to enclose the existing carport. It will be 60+ feet from one neighbors house and there are fully grown pine trees along the side where it will be constructed. - There is a leaching field on the other side of the house, and a swimming pool in the rear. November 8, 1982 -5- Regular Meeting Takesian - continued No one spoke in favor or opposition to this petition. MOTION: by Mr. Foulds to take the matter under advisement SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Soule Unanimous - motion carries. Mary For~etta - Special Permit and Variance requests - Ashland Street Sitting: Frizelle, 'Trepanier, Nickerson, Soule Mr. Nickerson read the legal notice. Mrs. Forgetta was present and made the following points: - The building lends ~tself to conversion to four dwelling units. The Community Development Department has approved funding to allow this conversion. There will be no detriment to the neighborhood. The Board of Appeals recently granted a similar Special Permit for conversion for the adjacent property. The lot is oversized and there is ample room for necessary parking. The lot is already hottopped. The variance is necessary for the front setback, side setback, and frontage. It will be impossible to utilize the property withou~ the variance and Special Permit. Most of the dwellings in the area have similar setbacks. It is an economic hardship for her to maintain the property. - Time is very critical because she does not know what to do with the property in its present state. - The property was previously used as a day care facility. It was recently rezoned from Industrial to R-4. - There will be no construction to the outside except the addition of a stairway. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. Letters from the Building Inspector and the Office of Community Development were read and placed on file. November 8, 1982 -6~ Regular Meeting Forgetta - continued MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to take the matter under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries OTHER BUSINESS R. equest for Mr. Dunn - Boston Hill Ski Area Members Frizelle, Trepanier, Nickerson, Foulds, and Soule were si tti ng. Mr. Dunn submitted a letter to the Board of Appeals requesting an extension of his Earth Removal Permit. Mr. Foster, Building Inspector, informed the Board that Mr. Dunn has not done much in the last year. There has been little demand for the fill. He now has an opportunity to remove the fill and has asked for an extension of the permit which was issued for 5,000 cubic yards. To date, he has hauled out less than 1,150 of the 5,000 cubic yards. He is asking to extend and/or renew the permit so that he can start work on the ski tow by removing the fill. Following a discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Foster will issue the permit and it will be endorsed by a member of the Board of Appeals. MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to grant the request for the Special Permit subject to the restrictions of Par. 5.6 of the Zoning By Law for 3,800 cubic yards. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries 397 Trust request for plans Building Inspector Foster explained to the Board that sever61 attempts have been made to obtain plans for a Special Permit which was granted in 1979. The building on the subject land has since been removed, so there is some question as to whether the permit is still in effect. The Board decided to take no action at this time but rather wait until the land is conveyed. November 8, 1982 -7- Regular Meeting Table 2 - Discussion with the Building Inspecto~ Mr. Foster explained to the Board that an attorney brought to his attention the fact that when Table 2 is mentioned in a variance request and again in the Board's written decision, it can be interpreted to mean the whole table and not just a portion of it. He suggested that the Board, in its decision, refer only to the section of the table being varied. DECISIONS Wallace - Tolland Ro~d MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to grant the variance subject to the condition that the structure (shed) be constructed 10 feet from the property line and the variance will lapse when the shed is removed. SECOND: by Mr~ Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Takesian - Dale Street MOTION: by Mr. Soule to grant the variance as requested. No second to the motion; therefore, the motion fails and the request is denied. McAloon, Jones -Mt. Vernon Street MOTION: by Mr. Nickerson to deny the variance requests. SECOND: by Mr. Foulds VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Forgetta - Ashland Street The Board will render their decision at the next meeting after viewing the property. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Alfre~ E. Fr~ze~le, Esq., V~ce C~a~man