HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 129 MAIN STREET 4/30/2018 129 MAIN STREET
210/030.0-0001-0000.0
i
r
1
I
Ger✓,�
i
r
��
1�2. e
G�
r
JOYCE BRADt,NAW
0'C "
NORTH T0WX CLERK
0NORTH ANDOVER
' L
FO U
* -� DEC 13 I 24 PM '96
«�9SS4CNUSES�y s
Any Appeal shall be filed TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
within (20) days after the MASSACHUSETTS
date of filing this notice in
the Office of the Town Clerk
BOARD OF APPEALS
Notice of Decision
Property at 129 Main St
129 Main St Realty Trust DECISION: 12/23/96
129 Main Street Petition# 051-95
North Andover, MA 01845 Hearing: 12/10/96
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening,
December 10, 1996 upon the petition of 129 Main Street Realty Trust
requesting a six month extension for an approved Variance pursuant to
Section 8. 1 paragraph 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant was also
granted a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9, paragraph 9. 2 of the
Zoning Bylaw. The applicant wishes to establish a Replacement Window
and Door business in the basement of 129 Main Street. The decision was
originally granted on 12/22/95.
The following members were present and voting: William Sullivan,
Walter Soule, Scott Karpinski, and Ellen McIntyre.
Upon a motion by Walter Soule and seconded by Scott Karpinski the
Board voted unanimously to GRANT the applicant a six month extension
for the Variance. Voting members were William Sullivan, Walter Soule,
Scott Karpinski and Ellen McIntyre
The petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph
10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and that the granting of these variance and
special permit will not adversely affect the neighborhood or derogate
from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw.
BOARD OF APPEALS,
William Sullivan,
Chairman
% F _
Y/ l
�-` RECEiV`D
Town of North Andov r E NORTN
OFFICE OF J�TQWN CLERK W of',� o
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A �FStftVVMS
IW
Z, 11
146 Main Street DEC 35
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 'SS�CHUSE�
(508) 688-9533
iJEC 2 b i'. :
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Property: 129 Main Street
129 Main Street Realty Trust Date: 12-22-95
129 Main Street Petition# :051-95
North Andover, MA 01845 Hearing:10-10-95,11-14-95,12-19-95
The
earin :10-10-95,11-14-95,12-19-
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday. evening, October 10,
1995 and continued the hearing to November 14, 1995 which was then continued
under advisement to December 19, 1995 upon the petition of One Twenty Nine
Main Street Realty Trust requesting a Variance pursuant to Section 8.1,
paragraph 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant is also requesting a Special
Permit pursuant to Section 9, paragraph (9.2) of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant
wishes to establish a Replacement Window and Door business in the basement of
129 Main Street.
The following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Walter Soule,
Joseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on 9.25.95 and 10.2.95
and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion by Walter Soule, and seconded by Joseph Faris the Board voted
unanimously to Grant relief from the variance requirement of Section 8.1,
paragraph 6, off-street parking, of the Zoning Bylaw upon the following condition:
Being a one man operation, the applicant or his replacement must park their
vehicles in the municipal parking lot. Voting in favor: Walter Soule, William
Sullivan, Joseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio.
The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10,
Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and that the granting of this variance will not
adversely affect the neighborhood or derogate from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning Bylaw.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 683-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Jute Parrino D.Robert Nioetta biiebael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Upon a motion by Raymond Vivenzio, and seconded by Walter Soule the Board
voted unanimously to Grant the Special Permit to alter a legal non-conforming
structure upon the following condition:
If there is any change in the occupancy of the basement of 129 Main Street that
differs from the proposed business of Mr. Zaffini, it will be required that the new
business file with the Zoning Board of Appeals
Voting in favor: William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio and Joseph
Faris.
The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions of Section 9, para.
9.10*f the Zoning Bylaw and that such change, extension or alteration shall not be
substtially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the
neighborhood.
Note: The granting of the Variance and Special Permit as requested by the
applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a Building permit as the
applicant must abide by all applicable local, state and federal building codes and
regulations, prior to the issuance of a building permit as required by the Building
Commissioner.
BOARD OF APPEALS,
William Sullivan, Chairman
C
I
i
i
129 MAIN STREET REALTY TRUST
i 129 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01845
DECEMBER -8, 1996 d
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER j DEC - 9 ,
NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF APPEALS
146 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01845 F3®AP® 4F APPEALS
RE: BOARD OF APPEALS NOTIVE OF DECISION ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 129 MAIN STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01845 :
DATE: 12/22/95
PETITION: 051-95
HEARING: 10/10/95, 11/14/95, 12/19/95
ATTENTION: MS JEAN McEVOY,
BOARD OF APPEALS
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL, THIS LETTER IS A FORMAL REQUEST FOR THE
ABOVE SPECIAL PERMIT WHICH WAS GRANTED DECEMBER 19, 1995, TO BE
EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX( 6) MONTHS, DUE TO VARIOUS BUSINESS
, ECONOMICAL AND PERSONAL HARDSHIPS WHICH HAS DELAYED MR ZAFFINI,
OF DISTINCTIVE WINDOW AND DOOR ENTRIES. INC. FROM PROCEEDING AS
PLANNED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME GIVEN, WHICH IS DECEMBER 19, 1996.
IN ADDITION, THIS REQUEST IS BEING MADE WITHIN THE ONE YEAR
TIME FRAME PERIOD: AS A RESULT, YOUR COOPERATION REGARDING
THIS MATTER WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED BY MYSELF AS A TRUSTEE
AND MAJORITY OWNER OF THE BUILDING, AND BY MR. ZAFFINI AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
SINCERELY,
12 AIN STREET LTY TRUST
MRS JANE DiPERRI
TRUSTEE/OWNER
JD/j j
a.
12/09-96 12:00 FAX 508 6889556 NORTH ANDOVER UJ001
Town of North And
ov 4aRTh
0M. CE Qr ffoEBRADrS�7HAW
oo< ��
TOWN CLERK
MMMt7MTY DE' VELOPMENT AN0F8FX%"S
146 M sit DEC Z I 11 35 P
North Andover, Mwsachuse U 0184-5 "S�ACHUs¢
(508) 688-9533
BARD OFAPPEALS
NOTICE OF I)ECISION
Property, 129 �iain Street
129 Main Street Real Trust _Date: 12-22-95 _
129 Maim Street Petition# :051-95
North Andover - — -
- d - e , MA 01 445 He O-9o,11-149_,12-19. 3
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, October 10,
1995 and continued the hearing to November 14, 1995 which was then continued
under advisement to December 19, 1995 upon the petition of One Twenty Nine
Main Street Realty Trust requesting a Variance pursuant to Section 8,1,
paragraph 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant is also requesting a Spechj
Permit pursuant to Section 9, paragraph (9.2) of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant
wishes to establish a Replacement. Window and Door business in the basement of
129 Main Street.
The folluNving members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Walter Soule,
.loseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on 4.25.95 and 10.2.95
and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion by Walter Soule, an.d seconded by Joseph Faris the Board voted
unanimasly to Grant relief from the variance requirement of Section 8.1,
paragraph 6, Off-street parlang, of the Zoniug Bylaw upon the follu�� ng condition:
Being a one man operation, the applicant or his replacement must park their
vehicles in the municipal parking lot. Voting in favor: Walter Soule, William
Sullivan, Joseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio,
1.1e Board funds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section lo,
Paxagraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and that the granting of this variance will not
adversely affect the neighborhood or derogate from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning Bylaw,
WARD of A.PPEAiS 699-9541 SU11DiN4 688-9545 CONSERVATION 692.9330 R ALT H 4588-9540 pi.ASK G 699-9535
Julic Panino D.Robot Nhzu4 bli.:6ael K-3-ard SAAdra Starr x"Itaxn Flta &] y colwe❑
12/09.96 12:00 FAX 508 6889556 ?FORTH ANDOVER
Upon a motion by Raymond Vivenzio, and seconded by Waiter Soule the Board
voted unanimously to Grant the Special Permit to alter a legal non-conforming
structure upon the following condition:
If there is any change in the occupancy of the basement of 129 Main Street that
differs from the proposed business of Mr. Zaffir�, it will be required that the, new
business file with the Zoning Board of Appeals
Voting in favor. William Sullivan, Waltcr Soule, Raymond Vivenzio and Joseph
Faris.
The Board finds that the applicant has -,tisfled the provisions of Section 9, para:
9.1 of the Zoning Bylaw and that such change, extension or alteration shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the
neighborhood.
Note- The granting of the Variance and Special Permit as requested by the
applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a Building permit as the
applicant must abide by all applicable local, state and federal building codes and
regulations, prior to the issuance of a bijilding permit as required by the Building
Commissioner.
BOARD OF APPS,
William Sullivan, Chairman
qS 4.r
Of
0�1
` r
RECEIVED
J01(CE BRADDI`IAW
, TOWN CLERK
Town of North AndoverORTH ANDOVER NORTH
of .�.o
OFFICE OF ,, �ty`` �0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Al W 6ER"vs
146 Main Street
{ KENNETH R MAHONY North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �SSACNUSEt
Director (508)688-9533
cn
,I
z
W
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the Senior
Citizen's Center located at the rear of Town Hall Building, 120 Main Street, North
Andover on Tuesday the 10th t day of October 1995 at 7:30 o'clock to all parties
interested in the appeal of One Twenty Nine Main Street Realty Trust requesting a
Variance pursuant to section Section 8.1, Paragraph 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. The
applicant is also requesting a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9, paragraph(9.2) of the _.
Zoning Bylaw. LEGAL NOTICE]
Town of North Andover
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND
SERVICES
Said premise is located at 129 Main Street which is in the General Business Zoning 146 Main street
North Andover,
Massachusetts 01645
District. Plans are available for review at the Office of Community Development& Notice is herreeby given
that the Board of Appeals
will hold a public hearing at
Services, Town Hall Annex, 146 Main Street. the Senior Citizens cen-
ter located at the rear of
Town Hall Building, 120
Main Street, North
Andover on Tuesday the
10th day of October 1995
By the Order of the Board of Appeals at 7:30 o'clock to all par-
ties interested in the
William J. Sullivan, Chairman appeal of One Twenty
Nine Main Street Realty
Trust requesting a Vari-
ance pursuant to section
Section 8.1, Paragraph 6
Publish in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune 9.25.95 and 10.2.95. of the Zoning Bylaw.Theapplicant is also request-
ing a Special Permit pur-
suant to Section 9, para-
graph (9.2) of the Zoning
i3ylaw.
Said premise is located
at 129 Main Street which
is in the General Business
Zoning District. Plans are
available for review at the
Office of Community
Development and Ser-
vices, Town Hall Annex,
146 Main Street.
_ By the Order of
BOARD OF APPIgALS 688-9541 BUnDINO 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 the Board of Appeals
William JSullivan,
Julia Parrino D.Robert Nioetta Michael Howard Sandra Starr Chairman
E-T—Sept.25;
Oct.2._1995- - �__
Town of North Andover Ot NORTH
. OFFICE OF �,t`eO eSOL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p
X *
146 Main Street "�5
KENNETH R.MAHONY North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 SS CH
Director (508) 688-9533
Date: /D `5 lq5
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before the Board of
Appeals.
Kindly submit $ no for the following:
Postage: $ �a� ed, F9
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and may be sent to
my attention at the Office of Community Development and Services, 146 Main Street,
North Andover, MA 01845.
Sincerely,
Board of Appeals
Julie Parrino, Secretary
�1211 i� s
f
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Julie Parrino D.Robert Nicetta Michael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Town of North Andov RECEN::D 40RT"
J� CE BRADSHAW
OFFICE OF TOWN CLERK 3?�y' "'�°"0�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANIR EWWS ° . A
ZI II
146 Main Street DEC 35
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 SSAcNUs�t
(508) 688-9533
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Property: 129 Main Street
129 Main Street Realty Trust Date: 12-22-95
129 Main Street Petition# :051-95
North Andover, MA 01845 Hearing:10-10-95,11-14-95,12-19-95
The
earin :10-10-95,11-14-95,12-19-
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, October 10,
1995 and continued the hearing to November 14, 1995 which was then continued
under advisement to December 19, 1995 upon the petition of One Twenty Nine.
Main Street Realty Trust requesting a Variance pursuant to Section 8.1,
paragraph 6 of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant is also requesting a Special
Permit pursuant to Section 9, paragraph (9.2) of the Zoning Bylaw. The applicant
wishes to establish a Replacement Window and Door business in the basement of
129 Main Street.
The following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Walter Soule,
Joseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on 9.25.95 and 10.2.95
and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion by Walter Soule, and seconded by Joseph Faris the Board voted
unanimously to Grant relief from the variance requirement of Section 8.1,
paragraph 6, off-street parking, of the Zoning Bylaw upon the following condition:
Being a one man operation, the applicant or his replacement must park their
vehicles in the municipal parking lot. Voting in favor: Walter Soule, William
Sullivan, Joseph Faris and Raymond Vivenzio.
The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10,
Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and that the granting of this variance will not
adversely affect the neighborhood or derogate from the intent and purpose of,the
Zoning Bylaw.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Julie Parrino D.Robert Nicetta Michael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Upon a motion by Raymond Vivenzio, and seconded by Walter Soule the Board
voted unanimously to Grant the Special Permit to alter a legal non-conforming
structure upon the following condition:
If there is any change in the occupancy of the basement of 129 Main Street that
differs from the proposed business of Mr. Zaffini, it will be required that the new
business file with the Zoning Board of Appeals
Voting in favor: William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio and Joseph
Faris.
The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions of Section 9, para.
9.1 of the Zoning Bylaw and that such change, extension or alteration shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the
neighborhood.
Note: The granting of the Variance and Special Permit as requested by the
applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a Building permit as the
applicant must abide by all applicable local, state and federal building codes and
regulations, prior to the issuance of a building permit as required by the Building
Commissioner.
BOARD OF APPEALS,
William Sullivan, Chairman
G
NOV 1 71995
BOARD OF APPEALS
•
1 ilit
• yF/ y
r
� • ' i 'LI
7,A]
i,, .
..�'• I i, _'c 1' tl :!.'{� 1, r•i�:fY;I''F.'.'' 'old , ili%
._l:1`l'.'U F-S`� l.l�.ti v;EfL•flF'' '.'f _ �kiJ r{k' .- ili;Cl •11'
THE ' v:0
_, �'JC} i.::i `1'i-3 c, I'1< 1��'i i ;�- .,.' 'c' � 1 '•.i;_�i�l: "1�:,'{1
f+ S AI�L'1? F .
i-" lfl`.,L'I,J._:•!,U 1-;t', t'L'J h'(. fr ,l �Ii ,��. 1.
PO i•� ,
IT H P v►3 L YJc L�:U/i l t S L)
1 ,_'r
44g - ♦• _.� _ j
• �y�. ;. _• >_rh'+ '-�" -cA+�'--'ic�i8!�4"�CIYL'�'�: �'!. r '`6� .v� ".�u�' '�r y '°fie Yq-+•-�-1`, to 7' ..."x -�•y:� f�
..bs..,.:_ .-, - __.a°.�s..-++�!'s�`+171S.�Srj!y5— t i.2 *�'"•a.. .�4*�u:.�=��u 'rL�.+,�-.+',.+:�..,,�z€�k.-.,ww.�L,7. �'S..�i+...:.w,,...��.•-- �... .*:1.�,✓.
t� l . ' r,. Ir � l }• i^� ,\, y.. .. S 1, !'•Stir.
r
f tyi tlifiF F`t ,
1 1XMI,
Kt 'ij� �E N TIAL
ti _ . _�_-S.Y=::{v.."^a"'✓nt'daw.r.,:ar!.�kstS.#� ...7�.:`•�X� �'1��ii:�isiw'r�r`: ..w ".-�.•:'SL::'"•c-.'.,..r.-�....k
NOVEMBER 15, 1995 CONTINUED PAGE 2 OF 2
DUMPSTER WHICH CREATES A SCRAPPING NOISE. I TOLD THEM
THAT THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD DEAL WITH IMMEDIATELY
BY ISSUEING A LETTER OF REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF DUNKIN DONUTS WITH RESPECT TO ADRESSING THIS SITUATION:
E.THERE IS TREE AT THE KNOLL OF SCHOOL STREET WHICH IS OR
APPEARS TO BE DEAD? THEY ASKED THAT SOMETIME IN THE
FUTURE WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE CUT DOWN: MY
RESPONSE WAS THAT I WOULD REVIEW IT WITH THE TRUSTESS
AND RECOMMEND THAT IT BE TAKEN DOWN IF APPEARS TO BE A
A PROBLEM OR AN EYESORE TYPE OF SITUATION:
F.THEY MENTIONED TO ME THAT THE KIDS HANG ON THE REAR FENCE
AND THAT IT MAY BE LOOSE IN AREAS, AND COULD IT BE SHORED
UP AS IS NEEDED: MR RESPONSE WAS THAT I WOULD CHECK IT AND IF
NEEDED TO BE REINFORCED IN PLACES THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT IT BE DONE:
G.FINALLY, THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE OWNER OF THE ANTIQUE
SHOP NEXT DOOR PARKS HER CAR AT THE TOP OF SCHOOL STREET
IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT OR OBSTRUCTS
OR AGGRIVATES THE ABUTTERS IN SOME WAY? THEY SAID IT WAS
A WHITE CADILAC OR A BLACK CAR? HOWEVER,EVEN THOUGH THIS
DOES NOT APPEAR TOBE MY PROBLEM I SAID I WOULD LOOK INTO IT
AS A GESTURE OF CONCERN?
G. CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT KIDS HANGING OUT ARROUND THE
BUILDING? MY ANSWER WAS THAT I THOUGHT THE NORTH ANDOVER
POLICE WERE INFORMED AND WERE DOING REAL GOOD JOB OF
WATCHING THE AREA AT ALL TIMES?
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS THE COMPLETE CONTENTS OF THE IN-
FORMAL CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE THREE OF US: AND ON FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 17, 1995 BY 4 :00 P.M. I WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO SUBMIT THIS INFORMATION ALONG WITH
A LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FROM ONE OF THE TRUSTEES OF 129
MAIN STREET REALTY TRUST:
SINCERELY. [PARTITIONER]
DI INCTIVE WINDOW AND DOOR ENTRIES INC
AN INO ZAFFINI AS AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR
129 STREET REALT TRUST,
I A711,r
G O ZAF NI
PRE T AN H RIZED AGENT x r�
y... .r•{ ' '-..,� �.,f�,."^-a�,r�i'•+�'�;�'. •`:,Y»Si�.+xtrr��, ..f+»'a�`,,�"ar...'a`i"W �;�e� �� tom` ... -.trxt:.,.- wiY''��'.�.a..-y.t _:<.._vw..aS� --xc..». r..........�
t c•
FN -
[BOARD
Q U
V 1 7 1995
OF APPEALS
November 17, 1995
North Andover Board of Appeals
146 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
To the Board of Appeals,
Please allow my hearing to be continued until December 12, 1995. I understand there are
time constraints in which the Board must make a decision on my petition. The deadline for
that decision falls before the December hearing however I request that the decision be
voted upon at the next hearing.
Si er
no fini
1
no
NOV 1 7 1995
11/16/95
130ARD OF APPEALS
PAT SAYERS
19 SECOND STREET
NO. A'\�OVER, MA. 01845
TEL. (508) 591-5587
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HALL
116 MAIN STREET
NO. ANDOVER, NIA. 01815
ATTN.: MR. SULLIVAN
Dear members of the board,
This letter is to inform you of the impromptu meeting with 129 Main Street
Realty Trusts' representative, for the new business - which will be going into the
basement of 129 'lain Street.
We discussed with Mr. Zaffini all of the problems that we have with, but
yet one more business. I feel as though Mrs. Thornton and myself have been
very understanding of this man wanting to start his business, but it's very hard for
both of us to understand hov you can have a business, but not have any customers
to create any more traffic coming into School Street, going through the private way
and onto Second Street. We have discussed all the problems that we have had with
the kids hanging out in back of 129 Main Street ( Dunkin 1)onuts 1. We did
discuss the proMem with the dumpster and oil pit for Dunkin Donuts stialdnf, to
high heaven during the summer, because it's not cared for by anyone. We discussed
the kids hanging onto the fence during the summer time while we are all out in our
dards with out- families, thing to enjoy ourselves, and the tact that the Vence is on
the verge of falling down, because of the people hanging on it and the hill breaking
away. We discussed all the shrubbery & rotten-dead trees.
Let's go back to the traffic issue, we have personally asked the female owner
about putting speed bumps on her private way to prevent the speeding that goes
through there. We were told by Mr. Zaffini that the town would not allow thi-. to
be done. There are a lot of privately owned properties that have speed bumps, to
prevent speeding and endangering the lives of pedestrians trying to make there
way around. There are speed bumps in all condominium buildings such as
heritage Green, there put into any apartment complex. This little private way is no
different to myself and :firs. Thornton.
I DO WANT YOI`TO KNOtI' TIL%.T AS I TYPE THIS LETTER TO THE
BOARD IT IS NOW THURSDAY 11/16/95 at 7:00 RIM. AND WE HAVE: NOT
YET IIE:LRD FRO 11IR. ZAFFINI. IF HE DELIVERS THE LETTER TO ITS
ON FRIDAY IT IS WAY TO LATE FOR MRS. THORtiTON AND 1 V SELF TO
RF:VIFAV AND SIGN, Ii' NVE AGREE NYITH WHAT IT SAYS, REASONS BEING
MRS. THORNTON DOES tiOT GET O(-,T OF WORK AND GET TIOME
ITNTIL 5:30 OR SO AND I DON'T GET OUT OF WORK ITNTIL THREE AND
HAVE THINGS OI-,T SIDE OF INlY HOINIE TO DO AND i"R. ZAFFINI 1S
AWARE OF WIIAT TIMES HE COULD HAVE REACHED EITHER ONE OF
PRIOR TO FRIDAY. SIR. ST;I,LIVAN VOL;DID TELL IS THAT VOT,
WANTED ITS TO GFT TOGETHER SUBMIT A LETTER TO YOU, SHOWING
WHAT WE AGREED ON BUT APPARENTLY .B2. ZAFFINI AN-D THE
OWNERS DID NOT WANT TO AGREE ON ALNYTHING. I DO NOT IIAVE THE
LUX-T,RY OF WAITLtiG ARO(,ND FOR THEM TO STOP BY XIV HOUSE,
NEITHER DOES MRS. THORNTON, WE HAVE FAMILIES WE ALSO :SEED
TO SUPPORT.
131 %iR. ZAFFINI NOT C011/1ING TO EITHER ONE OF LS WITH HIS
TYPFD LETTER IT SHOWS LTS AND SHOUI,D SHOW YOU HOW
INTERF,STED HE IS AND HOW L'4TTERESTED THE OWNERS ARE IN
PuTTI.NG IN HIS BUSINESS. IF A LETTER SHOULD SHOWUP AND HAVE
EITHER ININ' SIGNATUTRE OR MRS. THOR'VTON'S WE DID NOT SIGN IT
%A'E IIAVE NOT HAD TIME TO DO SO.
AS FAR AS \1R. ZAFFINI BEING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR
129 1 iAL\ STREET REALTY, WE ARE NOT TO SI'RE ABOUT THAT, FOR
ANYTHING AYE ASKED IITNI TO DO, HE SAID THAT HE HAD TO GO BACK
AND SPEAK TO THE OWNERS. 1`'IIAT DO YOL THINK; OF THAT,
FSPF;TAT:-T-,Y .1FTFR TIE SAID TILkT TIE COITLD DO A.'STYTHING ON
BEHALF OF THE 0\1-NF,RS OF 129 MAIN STREET.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY 4:30 FRIDAY 11/17/95
PATS RS
1
JITNE THORN
129 MAIN STREET REATY TRUST NOV 171995
1 APPLEHILL ROAD
NATICK, MA. 01760 BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
AND OR
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTH ANDOVER TOWN HALL
146 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01845
THIS LETTER IS TO CONFIRM THAT MR. GINO ZAFFINI, PRESIDENT
OF DISTINCTIVE WINDOW AND DOOR ENTRIES INC. AND INDIVIDUALLY
HAS BEEN GIVEN THE FULL AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT 129 MAIN.
STREET REALTY TRUST WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARTITION NOW
PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND TO NEGOTIATE
ON BEHALF OF TRUSTEES[WITH THERE FINAL APPROVAL] THOSE
ISSUES WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE BOARD OR THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTITION AT HAND
AND WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ITEMS WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT TO
MR. ZAFFINIS ATTENTION FROM ONE OR TWO OF THE ABUTTERS.
ALL SUCH ITEMS SHALL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE TRUSTEES
PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN.
RESPECTFULLY,
M S. JANE DIPERR3
TRUSTEE
JD/j j
I`I{ 'r , .i r ! .L, � i 1 �� • 'j"` '+U"1."'7��l��oa��'.��� - _"..� I ''� �__�,1,i+�'•'
et- 7`
NOV
4
6:0,F.APPEALS ;. /
}, <
ix t ;
V( toll
' ' +..r.fcG.«.,.....�.., y... ., .�a..,._�e.r.rrr".ay.•»ax rwc
+ib�.a4hw.aG7fa+�K7-'C,..rnYAb F•.: ..AsT^a�F i-.1�:^7..c.
r ,
t
1
.f a �..� _ .✓ .r l•..iL� .JJ w _.1CJ ��..<1. .11.. z n. a .•ia � • 7
• . i 7
, r
a �y�
r
• I
3 ss.� h...x.--. .+t r�'r'.. j"#..Ls:f�«..f'. :i► -- cit�,' �i.a `..4.r. Ta+r' 4.rt' •"' �s,.�(f"*.Y`�.
E()KI V L,!
11L1`t`GEBR4DSHXW
"TiOM,'N- tLE ,K
fl� i 1H
IND
OVER
SES 'S 3 3 FO 's
Received by Town Clerk:
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant9&Lm- dress
Tel. No. 7 2/ 04S
1. Application is hereby made:
a) For a varianc from the requirements of Section � �
Paragraph a and Table of the Zoning Bylaws.
b) For a special Permit under ,SectionParagraph
of the Zoning Bylaws.
C) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by
the Building Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land �n and buildings)
numbered Q� Street.
b) Premises affected are property with frontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( ) West ( ) side of
Street. G 9 D ,50
Street, and known as No.
Street.
C) Premises affected are in Zoning District and the
premises affected have an area ofV'�0'95� square feet
and frontage of v/4 feet.
3 . Ownership:
a) Name names)nd address
s �ow�r (if join ow/ ��''�-.�-f�f
G t�! 76 0��;yr,
G`
Date of Purchase i �-- 8_(Previous Owner��1291 15"IC44.4"1
b) 1. If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises:
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
2 . Letter of uthorization for Variance/Special Pe mit
required.
✓✓lit
4 . Size of pro osed building: 301 front; �� � feet deep;
! t �
Height stories; _�� feet
a) Approximate date of erection: 4 X20
b) occupancy or use of each floor: l
c) Type of construction: ,/MOM c <�
5. > Has there bqep a previous appeal, undn thesee, /
premises? If so, when? 7//;MY-
q /!�/ X16
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain,
in detail below. If requesting a variance or s ecial ermit
Please fill out the attatched table. )10 r
lam .
S 40�
Z4Ce
�S7 . DTd d in the € e ist of Deeds in Book Page
e� g Y
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
The principal points upon which I base my pplication are as /�
follows: (mus be stated in detail) �/� /-�.� �� /�eaa"�C(-
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
inc ' ental ex enses*
Signatu e of Petitioner( 9-10
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: g o7' `'�- � 16'J"t, / '�
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot Dimension
Area 16' k } eX C}j 16 g S 4 �i
Street Frontage / /i (f 4pp"y—,
Front Setback
Side Setback(s)
ODS l � ,
7761
�J
Rear Setback �"
J
Special Permit Request:
TG'tf:lF :
NORTH ANEOV1-R
Town of North Andover o, H0 TH ,�
3� y<< °. O
. OFFICE OF °
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES ° . A
146 Main Street '1.7
KENNETH R.MAHONY North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 9SS+cHUS��
Director (508) 688-9533
Any appeal shall be filed BOARD OF APPEALS
within (20) days after the NOTICE OF DECISION
date of filing of this
Notice in the office of Property: 129 Main Street
the Town Clerk.
One wenty Nine Main Street Realty Trust Date: 9-21-95
1 Applehill Road Petition# :047 -95
Natick , MA 01760 Date of Hearing: 9-12-95, 9-19-95
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, September 12, 1995
which was continued and discussed under advisement on September 19, 1995. The
applicant, One Twenty Nine Main Street Realty Trust petitioned as a Party Aggrieved as a
result of a decision issued by the Building Inspector.
The following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Robert Ford, Walter
Soule, Scott Karpinski, and Joseph Faris.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on 8.23.95 and 8.30.95 and all
abutters were notified by regular mail.
Motion by Rober Ford to deny the petition of the Party Aggrieved and uphold the
Building Inspector's decision as outlined in his letter addressed to the applicant dated
August 17, 1995 on the grounds that evidence shows that the use of the basement portion
of the building was discontinued for more than two years (Section 9.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw) and must now conform to the current 1995 zoning regulations, seconded by
Joseph Faris.
Vote: 4-1. Voting in favor: William Sullivan, Robert Ford, Joseph Faris and Scott
Karpinski. Voting against: Walter Soule.
BOARD OF APPEALS,
William Sullivan, Chairman /,_ 6L
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Julie Panino D.Robert Nicata Michael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Applicant MUST provide labels for mailing if there are
twenty or more abutters . ZBA
-IST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST PAGE10F
OF 1
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS
M_AP IPARC=L NAME North Ando
30 1 129 Main Street Realt 1129-131 Main Street,
Trust
One Applehill Road, Natick MA 01760
pB'✓TIERS ADDRESS
CIAp PARCEL NAME
2g 37` Sherrill Lent ' 156 Neck Road , Ward Hill MA0 8
X56 Neck
' Road Ward Hil
29 36 Richard Lent01845
1120 Main Street Nort
2229 34 Town Offices & F ' 9 ui. eE-2 North 01845
29 48 San Lau Realty1109-123 Main
,-3-0--'3 Louis J . Kmiec , Jr. 11001 Turnpike Street , 845
845
30 2 Louis J . Kfn-ec Jr.
NOTE: Parcel 3 & 2 are owned by Fr e ' slCo rt
Ruby Manor RealtyTru
30 41I Andover , 845
Vincent & Donna Lee RubirT 625 Great Pon
30 38 Vincent J &
i
40 Court Street
Landers
27 Setbn3 Street 0185
37 Joan M. Mawson 5
22 School
30 36
5
30 4
Paul R. & 20 School
DATE:
CERTIFIED BY:
Assessor' s Office page 7 of 8
Page 3 of 4
/ l-� -je--7-;ie/s 1 q gl-67
o3D
3
131- 1a q Ma,
J
��
�� �
� ` �
"v�
1
. G-I � I � D � ��� �0 � I
Legal Notice
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
O
c fot
• i
•��'"`''November 21,1988
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals
will give a hearing at the Town Building,North An-
dover, on Tuesday evening the 131h day of
December.at 7:30 o'clock,to all parties interested
in the appeal of 129 Reafty&Trust Co.requesting a
variation of Sec.9,Para.9.1 of the Zoning By law
so as to permit tenants to occupy basement area of
building on the premises,located at 129.131 Main
St.
-By Order of the Boaro of meals
Frank%io,Jr.,(Zairman
Publish in North Andover Gfinri Nov.23 and Dec.
1,1988 - 1411
Legal Notice
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
MO.TN
r+f L
i
s
Npvembef 21,1988
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals
will give a hearing at the Town Building,North An-
dover, on Tuesday evening the 13th day of
December,at 7:30 o'clock,to all parties interested
in the appeal of 129 Really&Trust Co.requesting a
variation of Sec.9,Para.961 of the Zoning By Law
so as to permit tenants to occupy basement area of
building on the premises,located at 129-131 Main
St.
By Ord 'of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman
Publish in North Andover Citizen Nov.23 and Dec.
1,1988 1411
Lega
i TOWN OF NORTN ANDOyQt
BOARD OF MASSACHUSETTSAPPEALSt =+ }
t NOTICE "i 4::' L¢s j•t
r MONTH
Notice is hereby given that thNovember 21,1988 ,
Wil give a hearing Board of Appeals
dover, on Tues the Town Building,North An-.
December,at 7:30 o'clocevening all parties the
13th day of:,
N in the appeal of 129 Parties interested
variation of Sec.g, %*&Trust Co.requesting a
so as to 9.1 of the Zoning By Law
Permit tenants toccupy basement area of
building on the premises,
o located at 129-131 Main ! _
• By Order of the Board of A
Publish in North Frank Serio,Jr„ mm;
1,1988 . Andover Citizen Nov.23 and Dec.
! -' 1411 `
i
_ Legal Notice
TOI.WN OF NORTH ANDOVER r i_
MASSACHUSETTS `
BOARD OF APPEALS
` NOTICE
Mo;•M
November 21,1988.
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals
will give a hearing at the Town Building,North An-
dover, on Tuesday evening the 13th day of
December,at 7:30 o'clock,to all parties interested
in the appeal of 129 Realty b Trust Co.requesting a '
variation of Sec.9,Para.9.1 of the Zoning By taw .�
so as to permit tenants to occupy basement area of I
building on the premises,L"ed at 129-131 Main I
st.!
-By Order of the Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman .CI
Publish in NZrth Andover Citizen Nov.23 and Dec.
1,1988 ,* ;! •, 1411
TOWN NORTH kjL
MASSACHUSEM�y.
BOAR NonCE'- s.°.`AJ
r
O4 pO1,fN S
T .,• f0
' P
Nance is hereby given that November 21,1988,r
will 9 Lie Board of Appeals
give a hearing at the Town Building,North An.
duvet, on Tuesday evening"the 131h day of
December,at 7:30 o'clock,to all parties interested a
in the appy of 129 Realty&Trust Co.requesting a
variation of Sec.9,Part.9.1 of the Zoning By Law";;
so as to permit tenants to occupy basement area of
building on the premises,located at 129131 Main
n
�..
-By birder of the Board of Appeals.,
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman
Publish in North Andover Citizen Nov.23 and Dec.
1' ;= 1411
x
• r
Army" ?
iaas
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
. . .November "21 . . .19. .88
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
/i hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,on. .Tuesday
. , ev-ening. . . . . . . . . . . thel.3.th . day of .December . . . . . . . . . . . .
19. .88, at.7.:3®'clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
' 129 Realty. &. .Trust. Co.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
requesting a variation of Sec.. .9, ` Para: -9.1 of the Zoning
By Law so as to permit. -tenants- to occupy- basement- area
of—building.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
on the premises, located at. .129-13.1 .Main. S.t... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
By Order of the Bpard of Aroppals
Frank Serio, Jr. , airman
tblish in the N. A. Citizen on Nov. 23 & Dec. 1, 1988
�WN S4t..i..�. Q NOR7h q
H
NOPT4 {;U0„3
[�(+� qq 1- P
�Llr Zo �� 1 --ti.iT.- r
.; * 11 be filed
appeal e
S^;KD'S� Any , Sari after tri
gCHU
W{tl1in �2 , �L
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER i �i a of :_f,iMil
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
December 16, 1988
Mr. Kenneth Bernier, Mgr.
129 Realty & Trust
1 Applehill Road RE: Petition #30-89
Natick, MA 01760
1 Al9- \3\ 41-a,.-
Dear Mr. Bernier:
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on December 13, 1988 upon your
application requesting a variation of Section 9, Paragraph 9.1 of the Zoning
Bylaw so as to permit tenants to occupy the basement area of building on the
premises located at 129-131 Main Street.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on November 23, 1988
and December 1, 1988 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
The following members were present and voting: Walter Soule, Acting Chairman,
Louis Rissin, Acting Clerk, Raymond Vivenzio and Anna O'Connor.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted,
unanimously, to ALLOW YOU TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as requested in your
presentation to the Board.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Walter Soule,
Acting Chairman
/awt
V
I�� OF NORrH 9
? •' "•�O
OFFICES OF: o °m Town of 120 Main Street
APPEALSNORTH ANDOVER North Andover
BUILDING gMassachusetts 01845
CONSERVATION ss^OHUgEt� DIVISION OF (508)682-6483
HEALTH
PLANNING PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KAREN H.P. NELSON, DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals
FROM: Scott A. Stocking,'.Ts " manner
DATE: November 23, 1988
RE: 129 Realty Trust
Special Permit - Non-conforming Lot - Non-conforming Building
Staff has directed the applicant to apply for a Special Permit
under Section 9 . 1 to allow the utilization of the basement for 129 - 131
Main Street.
Staff found that the Planning Board acted on this building and
lot during the Dunkin Dounts petition in February of 1987 and no formal
action has taken place regarding the basement of this building.
Staff finds the application non-conforming in the following
areas:
Non-Conforming Lot Exist Required/Allowed
1 . Lot area 16 , 641 sq. ft. 25 ,000 sq. ft.
2 . Lot coverage 6 ,438 sq. ft. 6 , 250 sq. ft. ( 25% )
( 25 . 7°% ) *
3. Lot frontage 61 . 42 ' 125 '
Non-Conforming Structure Required/Allowed
1 . South sideyards 5 ' 25 '
North sideyards 0 ' 25 '
Front yard 22 ' * 25 '
* Approximate
In addition the applicant needs to apply for a parking variance
since all parking provided on or adjacent to this lot was allocated to
Dunkin Donuts and the first floor of this structure under previous
approvals by the Town. The parking provided must be realistic in
providing access to users of the building without resulting in conflicts
to loading areas, fire lanes and allow for practical moverability for
automobiles.
i
` R-a-cei!aed by Town Clerk:
Ile 4(A,
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS J'c;4:e
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant /V2 ZJ�V,-7 ' Address
1 . Application is hereby made: � /yl�. 0/7G6
a ) For a variance from the requirements 'of Section / Paragraph
and Table of the -Zoning By Laws .
b) For a Special Permit under Section _Paragraph of the Zoning
By Laws . --"
c ) As a Party Aggrieved, for review .of a decision made by the
Building Inspector or other authority.
2. a ) Premises affected are land -and building (s ) ' / numbered
Street .
b) Premises affected are property with frontage on the North ( )
South (-I East ( ) West ( ) side of In14i,y S T"
Street , and known as No./ ��_ 2=-=� Street .
c ) Premises affected are in Zoning District and the premises
affected have an area of -----square feet and frontage of
_f eet . --
3 . Ownership
a ) Name and address of owner ( if joint ownership, give all names ) :
Date of Purchase Ic? _Previous Owner_,
b) ' If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in the premises :
-Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain)
. 44 Size of proposed building:' _ front ; feet deep;
It Height stories ; feet .
a ) Approximate date of erection:
b) Occupancy or use of each floor :
c ) Type of construction:
5 . Size of existing building: 5'T-r-feet front ; Z,- deep;
Height -;)o —stor ies ;_L— feet .
a ) Approximate date of erection:—/9w/5
b) Occupancy or use of each floor : 7- Lit
c ) Type of construction: , Q.a C_j�
6. Has there been a previous appeal , under zoning, on these premises?
If so, when?
'.. Description. of relief . sought on this petition
't Y ��v ccJ 7�PR/ TS tel/ _OCCll/
Deed recorded in the Registry of . Deeds in Book Page
..
V, Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
e principal points upon which I base . my application are as follows :
last be stated in detail )eaz
:U' 1
agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper , and incidental • '
Denses*
�4i .
••�:.'I
Signature oi= Pet ti �er s :,•
!ry application for' action by the Hoard' shall be .made on a form approved
the Board . These forms shall be furnished by the Clerk upon request .
communication purporting to be an app.lication shall be treated as mere
:ice of* intention to seek relief until such time ;as it 'is . made on the
:ficial application form . Alt information . called ,for by the form shall
furnished by the applicant in tlic .manner ' therein°.-prescribed . 4
:ryeapplication shall bb submitted with a list of '•"Parties In Interest" .
,ch list shall • include .the petitioner , . abutters , owners of land directly
)osite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the
itters ;within : three hundred feet ( 300 '. ) of the property line of the
:itioner' as they appear . on the most recent applicable tax list ,
:withstanding that the land of any such owner is located in another city . .'••;;';�`�
town, the Planning Board . of the city or town, , and the Planning Board of•': :;�;
:ry, abutting city or town.
ery application shall be submitted with an application charge cost in =;
amount' of •$25 . 00. In addition , the petitioner shall be responsible '.*%
any. and all costs involved in bringing the. petition before the, Board . `;:'.0-1
h. costs shall include mailing and publication, but are not necessarily;:''.!: :":I
i ted to these . '°!G
ry application shalt be submitted with a plan of land approved by the
rd .- No petition will be brought before the Board unless said plan has
n submitted . Copies of the Hoard ' s requirements regarding plans are
ached hereto or are available from. the Hoard of Appeals upon request .'. .
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST
Name Address
`)-nom its � �,���:. �� . • •• '�) .�' ' • .••.•: .••:4
(use additional sheets if '' necessary)
/7FE
Room Roo t(\ uiA- eL
5"-Aes 3 ,
a
NV Aye C:LJD
14
POST
DFF1 C. �
8 s c m T i R p L c. -�-.. a6
MIT
PXI7 - yon
a2oorn 'Roo t(\ W ATo
zj
I to
Vt
Aye ceu�
COST
OF F ! C C-
k.4; P 9/4
/tom/v c�c°e/vl,-;:
• - ''t� .7r(�rYV
+�.� ✓'�r at�+� ,,rl tFY � 1'� ,��irf}�'J���, ^� dY"!Aaq�` i�,r�'r! F r� ;��' t��,SN�'�vJ �i' �- � S �
`f �'�fi�� r��S�'i�>nt�1•r '„' '"qr Y'q•7�Ee�` ��U 4�r r ,'R,`7zz 's " .��.�" '! '��' t�•q�*as•t � �`�!►r •�f Gr�
�•��u .,f• �S•.,�'�rr. ..,�,i�r. �'�. Nvp,: t : .i Xd'p�,•�ai"'S E•':A4'�t- � ".�.L , ,r �y lr..1��, , .q I�V�.N.. . ,
1 '^. Y �Y'F,�-j�t "��Tr:�}. i:�F��, '.'7 r .�.�1
p f K. ..F
� �rsy�; 5` #q�r�'� .�{�a+.t.K zw.: •}+; r'�' °t.. ... • q .rS ...1 I
K li y,`�ti �YNr s{«?H• .E. i 1 •�1 •' �.Vtt;!p„1 'N
Li
k
- :m
m '' Near O-r""I� '
l;
WC
q
zs?+
A% Tir
Recorded Nov.9,198"7 at 3:51Pii• > 34 i
� K
ir
?fir, ! 4, V' /i 1!J �� _•�;' �'.,.,':F`"\ t„'' '�i
<� ;
NI
IL
\ a .tie'$•u�a\r _ CiYj Noo\
� ` +tom<��t},t `tom).- /�,\F�� y /� i� 4 a •�
++ � —\ ` � ) �, t. t V.l{,�2•'.t'.
q
'.
.' �L f� � t:A.i�f � •� �/ is �,yN.. - i /1•r "� .,
On
,
r � � ' G. . t is �^' 7{�{'j%�}K� ' , ��J� T.� ` ��`� a:►
+� ,Y r; i,.<s ` t �,1+•Y,r i�;xaY t 1 ,pC r,,F `<q
yrf -, t4►�' a'`i��'*. :i< +'.of �ix�}�Lrj•K rl... ;�� - (,}� .�'L r .:
� � `� �k _;,tom ;,"':� .,j n'` �� � t ,•f��j3�
�jfy{.t :Ebrt
Ane s:
�5��. .tV <t ��\fir �Y •-S- � '.Z \ - _ �•. �;��
+ E y y,`t}r�'.� a,qtr 1° i r }f. t x i,T�• ,yr. •ka.t n '� - �+' �, .5
eaa°a.R .t„k �x�"^i�•, .� 5 .fi°'a�;�. a . . �. 1' � 4y�. .
i V
iG�yY,y��IY L<!j C�, 'a��• F: y t•� .a:`�Y }9kS 5' \��. .,fir
ri'frt�r 5�kr� 1' rnT•, ♦�.t .+ R � .. � \ '�..: N5 }• �"`• �\,� , (i�LfJ y ... .
�r„�.��t,�t„ ,, w n ...� "- �5,: � '`��':. C,�`� �V-',,moo, •�t�.
Sf>,�t<r�i'7[y, ,t�,vJa�tM �r�13 r��ara�,'?'•'/ ,�f^�•,V:a'1'. \' .��D ::1. `'rh _�L ,�: ,, I
'S r- ti�'1�1 S.A�'F'+k'd• e ��)�[.� Via. .. \` ����♦�� ++ �i" ` ,`�•�
J
. Z5f
r J
P `-
--�. Cyd .�•
OF%
('91k,rr,
► Ii
d
C. 40A ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 5 § 6 ZONING C. 40A
s� council and it makes no allowance for the power, and was invalid for failure to
ture. Pre-existing nonconforming structures or uses may be extended
} 5 temporary disqualification of a council comply with statutory procedures for or altered, provided, that n0 SUCK eXtenSlOri t2Fati�authorit�
member to vote on the proposal. Hence,a amending zoning laws. Rayco Invest.
nine to three vote of a thirteen man
Corp. v Board of Selectmen (1975) 368 permitt ermtt rantin �
board of aldermen in favor of adopting a Mass 385, 331 NE2d 910. y t especial permitMgi2ntin_aunts O! es �Sfdtii nce
x} zoning change after a protest filed did Amendment to zoning by-law increas- �� -law ha s' '�uc C' anger e,extension or alteration. shall not be
} § not comply with the instant section since ing lot size from 25,000 to 50,000 square substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use
it was less than three fourths of the
{ € feet was not applicable to preliminary to the neighborhood. This section shall nota 1 to billboards, signs
thirteen man board, and the result was g apply g
grid end cluster subdivision plans, since
a h not altered by the fact that one board and other advertising devices subject to the provisions of sections
# x r member was disqualified from voting be amendment took effect under GL c. 40
s q g twenty-nine through thirty-three, inclusive, of chapter ninety-three,
cause he was actin as mayor during a §32 after filing of plans. Chira v Plan-
t � ^� x' t g y g Hing Board of Tisbury (1975) 3 Mass and to chapter ninety-three D.
temporary absence of the elected mayor. A 433, 333 NE2d 204.
`h � r Kubik v Chicopee (1967) 353 Mass 514, pp A zoning ordinance or by-law shall provide that construction or
233 NE2d 219. Section mandates written reasons to be tv
filed with protest, if unanimity or three- operations under a building or special permit shall conform to any
fi A town zoning by exempting all
q subse uent amendment of the ordinance or by-law'unless the use or
e i municipal uses from zoning restrictions is
quarters vote is to be required. Parisi v
a aGloucester (1975) 3 Mass App 680, 338 construction is commenced within a period of not more than six
not invalid on the theory that it would NE2d 847.
r allow the town to locate a use in a months after the issuance of the permit and in cases involving
t particular district and thus to change the Amendment to zoning bylaw took ef- construction, unless such construction is continued through to com-
g character of the district without the hear- feet as soon as it was adopted, approved, pletion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable.
SS
e r 4 ing and showing required by the instant and published in accordance with proce-
�= < $ chapter. Where the exemption itself was dure prescribed in former statute GL c A zoning ordinance or by-law may define and regulate noncon-
4b
f adopted after a public hearing and where 40A §7 (prior to being stricken by St. ✓ forming uses and structures abandoned or not used for a period of
a hearing was also afforded when the 1975 c 808 §3) and c 40 §32. Wolk v two years or more.
q i selectmen, acting under the exemption, Planning Board of Stoughton (1976) 4
7 , ' located a particular use. Sinn v Board of Mass App 812, 347 NE2d 700. Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements
Selectmen (1970) 357 Mass 606, 259 Private individuals have no standing to Of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply to a lot for single
.' NE2d 557. challenge town meeting vote to rezone and two-family residential use which at the time of recording or
}
By
limiting maximum number of land. Knowles v Codex Corp. (1981, Mass
[ endorsement' whichever occurs sooner was not held in common
trailer park licenses was zoning regula- App) 1981 Adv Sheets 1708, 426 NE2d
*U IL ti�i J tion and not exercise of general police 734. ownership with any adjoining land, conformed to then existing
eq
XM-
requirements and had less than the proposed requirement but at least
five thousand square feet of area and fifty feet of frontage. Any
increase in area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirement of a
s § 6. Prior Nonconforming Uses. i
3 zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply for a period of five years
Except as hereinafter provided, a zoning ordinance or by-law shall from its effective date or for five years after January first, nineteen
not apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully hundred and seventy-six, whichever is later, to a lot for single and
1 begun, or to a building or special permit issued before the first two family residential vie, provided the plan for such lot was
publication of notice of the public hearing on such ordinance or by-
recorded or endorsed and such lot was held in common ownership
law required by section five, but shall apply to any change or with an adjoining land and conformed to the existing zoning require-
s
i
substantial extension of such use, to a building or special permit ments as of January first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, and had
j issued after the first notice of said public hearing, to any reconstruc- less area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements than the newly
l , h tion, extension .or structural change of such structure and to an effective zoning requirements but contained at least seven thousand
rd.a alteration of a structure begun after the first notice of said public five hundred square feet of area and seventy-five feet of frontage,
hearing to provide for its use for a substantially different purpose or and provided that said five year period does not commence prior to
for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a January first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, and provided further
substantially greater extent except where alteration, reconstruction, that the provisions of this sentence shall not apply to more than three
is extension or structural change to a single or two-family residential ( :' of such adjoining lots held in common ownership. The provisions of
structure does not increase the nonconforming nature of said struc- this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a lot being built
260 261_
t
t -
� i
a x
LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ZONING C. 40A Y '
C. 40A ANNOTATED § 6 1 § 6
upon, if at the time of the building, building upon such lot is not The record owner of the land shall have the right, at any time, by k
prohibited by the zoning ordinances or by-laws in effect in a city or an instrument duly recorded in the registry of deeds for the district t '.
town. in which the land lies, to waive the provisions of this section, in which `
case the ordinance or by-law then or thereafter in effect shall apply. s ,
If a definitive plan, or a preliminary plan followed within seven
is submitted to a planning board for The submission of an amended plan or of a further subdivision of all
months by a definitive plan, p g
or part of the land shall not constitute
approval under the subdivision control law, and written notice of such a waiver, nor shall rt s ;
such submission has been given to the city or town clerk before the have the effect of further extending the applicability of the ordinance �}
effective date of ordinance or by-law, the land shown on such plan or by-law that was extended by the original submission, but, if f a
shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the zoning ordi-
accompanied by the waiver described above, shall have the effect of
nance or by
if any, in effect at the time of the first such extending, but only to extent aforesaid, the ordinance or by-law
submission while such plan or plans are being processed under the made then applicable by such waiver. (1975, 808, § 3; 1977, 829; 1979,
subdivision control law, and, if such definitive plan or an amendment 106, approved April 19, effective by act of Governor, April 20, 1979; a y
thereof is finally approved, for eight years from the date of the 1982, 185, approved June 28, 1982; effective by act of Governor, June
endorsement of such approval, except in the case where such plan 28, 1982.)
} ,
was submitted or submitted and approved before January first, .
nineteen hundred and seventy-six, for seven years from the date of
Editorial Note--
the endorsement Of such approval.
Section 7 of the inserting act provides as follows:
Pp
SECTION 7. This act shall take effect on January first, nineteen hundred and seventy- t >�"
When-a plan referred to section eighty-one P of chapter forty-onesix as to zoning ordinances and by-laws and amendments, other than zoning map
has been submitted to a planning board and written notice of such amendments, adopted after said date. ;
submission has been given to the city Or town clerk, and use of the The 1977 amendment rewrote the second paragraph, changing the time period,
land shown on such plan shall be governed by applicable provisions of relating to exceptions to the requirement of conformance to amendments of ordinances
the zoning ordinance or by-law in effect at the time of the submission and bylaws, from less than 6 months to more than 6 months after the issuance of the {
of such plan while such plan is being processed under the subdivision permit.
The 1979 amendment, in the fourth unnumbered paragraph, added a new second 3
control law including the time required to pursue or await the sentence relative to nonconforming use where area, side yard, etc., restrictions are
l,.
determination of an appeal referred to in said section, and for af fi
increased.
period of three years from the date of endorsement by the planning }
The 1982 amendment, in paragraph five, increased the time for which land shown
board that approval under the subdivision control law is not required, on an approved definitive plan shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the
Or words of similar import. zoning ordinance or bylaw from 5 years to 8 years from the date of the endorsement n I
of such approval.
Disapproval of a plan shall not serve to terminate any rights which ? i
shall have accrued under the provisions of this section, provided an
P Total Client-Service Library®References—
appeal from the decision disapproving said plan is made under 82 Am Jur 2d, Zoning and Planning§§178-236(Nonconforming uses). sz
applicable provisions of the subdivision control law. Such appeal shall
PP P '
stay, pending an order or decree of a court of final jurisdiction, the ALR Annotations—
applicability to land shown On said plan of the provisions of any Change in ownership of nonconforming business or use as affecting right to
zoning ordinance or by-law which became effective after the date Of continuance thereof.9 ALR2d 1039. %
submission of the plan first submitted. Validity of provisions for amortization of nonconforming uses. 22 ALR3d 1134. =
t
In the event that any lot shown on a plan endorsed by the Validity of front setback provisions in zoning ordinance or regulation. 93 ALR2d -
1223. $ ~
planning board is the subject matter of any appeal or any litigation, n
Construction of front setback provisions in zoning ordinance or regulation. 93 '
the exemptive provisions of this section shall be extended for a period ALR2d 1244. P
equal to that from the date of filing of said appeal or the commence-
area for house lots or requiring
Validity of zoning regulations prescribing minimum y 4K 3
ment of litigation, whichever is earlier, to the date Of final dispositionan area proportionate to number of families to be housed.95 ALR2d 716. t
thereof, provided final adjudication is in favor of the Owner of saidConstruction of zoning regulations prescribing minimum area for house lots or s
ri<r
lot. requiring an area proportionate to number of families to be housed.95 ALR2d 761. p y, t k
262 263 f= `
1
¢ti
tY`
a
ZONING C. 40A
C. 40A ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 6 § 6
i z
Validity and construction of zoning regulations prescribing a minimum width or once valid lot from being rendered un- of building could not be enjoined because
Y buildable for residential purposes, assum- building was used for that purpose prior } d
frontage for residence lots.96 ALR2d 1367.
Validity and construction of zoning regulations prescribing maximum percentage of ing lot meets modest minimum area and to and since the adoption of original
frontage requirements. Sturges v Chil- zoning bylaw. Inspector of Bldgs. v Eder
residence lot area which may be occupied by buildings.96 ALR2d 1396. a '
mark (1980, Mass) 1980 Adv Sheets 815, (1981, Mass App) 1981 Adv Sheets 844, py
Validity and construction of zoning regulations prescribing minimum floor space or 402 NE2d 1346. 419 NE2d 1045. E "
x
cubic content of residence.96 ALR2d 1409. Record was insufficient for court to Landowner entitled to endorsement
Zoning: right tresume nonconforming use of premises after involuntary break in determine whether lot was exempt from that subdivision approval was not neces-
ro V
the continuity of nonconforming use caused by difficulties unrelated to governmentalfrontage requirement of town's zoning Bary where lot met frontage requirement.
activity. 56 ALR3d 14. bylaw. Warren v Board of Appeals Duhaime v Planning Bd. of Medway " f'
Zoning: right to resume nonconforming use of premises after involuntary break in (1981, Mass) 1981 Adv Sheets 522, 416 (1981, Mass App) 1981 Adv Sheets 1305, € r
the continuity of nonconforming use caused by governmental activity. 56 ALR3d 138. NE2d 1382. 422 NE2d 790.
Construction of new building or structure on premises devoted to nonconforming Hotel located in residential zone and 3."Freeze"periods
operated as nonconforming use changed
use as violation of zoning ordinance. 10 ALR4th 1122. Protection period had expired when
its operation to such a substantial extent P P � F
application for building permit was de-
Law Review References— that it lost protection as a nonconform- PP g P
ing use, by changing lodging and meal nied. Falcone v Zoning Board of Appeals t
Suburban Apartment Zoning: Legality and Technique. 12 Boston College L Rev function of hotel to live entertainment (1979)7 Mass App 710, 389 NE2d 1032. 1 _ry�t
j 955.April, 1971.. and sale of alcoholic beverages designed Mere filing of application for building
Hays, Application of chapter 808 to existing structures, uses, plan variances and to attract yount people; in short, it permit does not toll running of protection 1 w'
permits.22 Boston Bar J, No.4,p. 17,April, 1978. changed from hotel to entertainment period. Falcone v Zoning Board of Ap-
The Massachusetts Zoning Appeals Law: First Breach in the Exclusionary Wall. 54 complex. Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v Al- peals (1979) 7 Mass App 710, 389 NE2d
Boston U L Rev 37.January, 1974. coholic Licensing Bd. (1982) 385 Mass 1032.
205,431 NE2d 213. Section provides for protection or
+� I Zoning variances. 74 Harvard L Rev 1396. ,
Zoning: Non-conforming uses, accessory uses and variances, by Henry W. Hardy, Abandonment of nonconforming use "zoning freeze" for 3 years from date of
j Mass n- No. 1, p. 3. results from concurrence of (1) intent to endorsement of subdivision plan, so as to
Jr., n
abandon, and (2) voluntary conduct protect developer during planning stage
Land use and planning—some Massachusetts developments concerning non-conform- which carries the implication of abandon- of building project. Falcone v Zoning �.
ing uses. 54 Mass LQ No 4 p 323. ment. Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v Alco- Board of Appeals(1979)7 Mass App 710, ^ t `
Town Meeting. 55 Mass L Q 363. No. 4, holic Licensing Bd. (1982) 385 Mass 205, 389 NE2d 1032.
Johnson, The "City Lawyer" and the
6 1970. 431 NE2d 213. Court rejected contention that 3 year
Ford, Judicial Review in Zoning Variance Cases and Related Matters. 61 Mass L Q Sale of property protected as noncon- protection applies only to uses permitted Q
'i 24. Spring, 1976. forming use does not by itself establish as of right before zoning change and not +
McLaughlin, The Obligation of the State Legislature to Amend the New Zoning abandonment of use. Cape Resort Hotels, to those which were subject to special " )
u
Act.63 Mass L Rev 149. August, 1978. Inc. v Alcoholic Licensing Bd. (1982) 385 permit. Miller v Board of Appeals (1979) !
j
Mass 205,431 NE2d 213. 8 Mass App 923,396 NE2d 180.
McGregor and Dawson, Wetlands and Floodplain Protection. 64 Mass L Rev 73.
i Change and use of annex to hotel from Building permits were not subject to
April, 1979.
!' Healy, Massachusetts Zoning Practice under the Amended Zoning Enabling Act. 64 employee dormitory to housing for pay- development moratorium adopted as, f
ing guest was not protected as noncon- amendment to zoning ordinance where
i Mass L Rev 149. October, 1979. forming use. Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v they were issued prior to first notice of
nabling Act. 64 Alcoholic Licensing Bd. (1982) 385 Mass public hearing within 90 days of which
Healy, Massachusetts Zoning Practice Under the Amended Zoning E 1
Mass L Rev 157. October, 1979.
205,431 NE2d 213, city council adopted amendment. Carsten-
Use of premises by excavator to main- sen v Cambridge Zoning Board of Ap-
CASE NOTES tain and service his vehicles (trucks, trac- peals (1981, Mass App) 1981 Adv Sheets # fvK
mer GL c 40A §7A. Falcone v Zoning tors, bulldozers) and those of others and 315,416 NE2d 522.
1. In general to store unregistered vehicles in unorga- Where planning board gave conditional ' !
2. Construction and effect Board of Appeals(1979)7 Mass App 710, nized and unsightly manner was substan- approval to plan in 1974 and owner sub- t t
3. "Freeze"periods 389 NE2d 1032. tiall different from use as car dealership P y P mitted plan for approval in 1980 based on
I 2.Construction and effect and repair shop and constituted imper- 1974 vote in order to take advantage of 7
missible extension of nonconforming use. year "freeze" given by GL c 40A §6, 5th
Two lots coming together at one point
1.In general were not "adjoining." Sturges v Chilmark Building Inspector of Groton v Vlahos paragraph, as to plan submitted and ap-
1980, Mass 1980 Adv Sheets 815, 402 (1980, Mass App) 1980 Adv Sheets 1725, proved before January 1, 1976, owner y
Language of GL c 40A §6 (as appear- ( ) 409 NE2d 795. could not compel board to approve plan +
ing in St. 1975 c 808 §3) is identical in NE2d 1346. copp +`�
all material respects to language of for- Section is concerned with protecting a
Retail sale of merchandise on first floor because 1974 vote was in effect final # i'
2
265
64
! action disapproving plan as submitted. work on or completion of project. Pas-
in and legislative functions of zoning in to ne v Kenney 1934 288 Mass 363, 193
Falcone v Planning Bd. of Stoughton qualino v Board of Appeals of Wareham g g g y( )
separate municipal bodies, and the statu- NE 9.
2X � L (1982) 14 Mass App 950, 437 NE2d 531, (1982) 14 Mass App 989,440 NE2d 523.
tory zoning provisions are peremptory to Without an bylaw concerning the
�< -'. '
app den 387 Mass 1102,440 NE2d 1177. Seven year "freeze" period was not the effect that no original zoning bylaw matter an existingybuildin or structure
g
Seven year period may be tolled if tolled by financial difficulties experienced may be adopted except in the prescribed would not be affected by a zoning by-law
S 4,� litigation, appeals, or actions by munici- by developers. Pasqualino v Board of manner. Canton v Bruno (1972) 361 and the use of the building or structure
al officials make the legality of construe- Appeals of Wareham 1982 14 Mass Mass 598,282 NE2d 87. at the time a zoning by-law is adopted is
u � P g Y PP ( )
tion or plans questionable so as to impede App 989,440 NE2d 523. The right to continue a nonconforming protected by this section. Inspector of
Bldgs. v Nelson
use after adoption of a zoning regulation g • (1926)257 Mass 346, 153
CASE NOTES UNDER FORMER§5 is not personal to the particular owner or NE 798.
. occupant on the effective date of the The statute does not impose any mini-
_ v 1. In general formed to the requirements of former regulation. Revere v Rowe Contracting mum zoning in this particular. It does
2. Protection of existing structures and §§2, 3, and 5, of the instant chapter was Co. (1972) 362 Mass 884,289 NE2d 830. not forbid this alleviation of loss which
use assumed, without decision, in Wrona v Tests to be applied in determining g g
otherwise might befall owners of existing
3. Increase or change in use Board of Appeals (1958) 338 Mass 87,
whether a use of land is protected as a structures and uses situated within a zone
r � ti 4. Alteration of existing structure 153 NE2d 631. p to the requirements of which they do not
q ( 5. Regulation of non-use lawful nonconforming use—(a) whether
The instant section exempts from the conform. La Montagne v Kenney (1934)
6. Rebuildingof destroyed structure the present use reflects the nature and use
Y operation of zoning laws the use of any prevailing when the zoning by-law took 288 Mass 363, 193 NE 9.
ry 3 structure at the time of adoption of the effect; (b) whether there is a difference in Former §§26 and 29 of c 40 were
at zoning law but excludes from such ex-
referred to in a case involving the u
the quality or character, as well as the g q es-
x emption any change of use. Building In- tion whether the use of remises as a
r „ k 1.In general degree,of the present use;(c)whether the P
y spector of Malden v Werlin Realty, Inc. restaurant came within an authorized
b Excavation and engineering work and (1965 349 Mass 623,211 NE2d 338. current use is different in kind in its
nonconforming n comparison with a
forms constructed held not to constitute effect on the neighborhood. Powers v g use iP
"existing structures," within this section, A town which by zoning by-law regu- Building Inspector of Barnstable (1973) Provision of a zoning ordinance providing
lates the location and content of advertis- 363 Mass 648,296 NE2d 491. that any building, structure or premises
as it formerly read, relating to building Ing signs on private property may also, in a particular zone, which, at the time of
t§ y restrictions. Brett v Building Comr. of by virtue of the instant section, provide Nonconforming use not established, be- the adoption of the bylaw, was being
Brookline (1924) 250 Mass 73, 145 NE cause landowner did not show that he
that nonconforming signs may not be used for a purpose not permitted thereun-
7 269. See also, Commonwealth v Atlas was agent of Commonwealth or Massa- der, could be continued to the same e
j reworded or altered unless a special per-
�C (1923)244 Mass 78, 138 NE 243. mit is obtained, and such a provision chusetts Aeronautics Commission when tent in such use or in a use not substax-
n-
i The provisions of former §26 of c 40 would be valid as being designed to he took steps to acquire land from Com- tially different therefrom. Paul v Select-
that a zoningordinance or bylaw should achieve monwealth for airport purposes prior to men of Scituate
Y purposes coming within those set effective date of town zoning bylaw. (1938) 301 Mass 365, 17
not apply "to existing buildings or strut- forth in former §3. Strazzulla v Building g Y NE2d 193.
i tures, nor to the existinguse of an Inspector of Wellesley Building Inspector of Lancaster v San-
Y p y (1970) 357 Mass derson 1977 372 Mass 157, 360 NE2d Even though at the time of the adop-
( )
building or structure . ." constituted a 694, 260 NE2d 163, cert den and app tion of a zoning ordinance restricting the
on the zoning 1051.
limitation upon g power of a dismd 400 US 1004, 27 L Ed 2d 618, 91 land in a certain district to residential use
f I municipality. Smith v City Council of S Ct 568. Earth removal by-law is not subject to there was in existence a nonconforming
Aiv
1 Marlborough (1939) 302 Mass 571, 20 existing use provisions of this section. use of some of the land within the dis-
The 1962 amendment addingthe pro-
Kingston
NE2d 408. P Kingston v Hamilton (1975) 2 Mass App trict, the ordinance could validly rohibit
viso as to the expansion of agricultural y p
a Former §26 of c 40, was derived from use to the instant section discloses a legis- 773,321 NE2d 832. the erection of buildings for commercial
r � former §29 of c 40. Inspector of Bldg. v lative intent to protect the expansion of purposes, and there was nothing in for-
t.Protection of existingstructures and
Murphy (1946) 320 Mass 207, 68 NE2d agricultural land from the restrictions of mer §26 of c 40, nor in its predecessor,
` *n I 918• zoning regulations, and also an intent use which would prevent the ordinance from
Former §26 c 40 was referred to in a that the proviso is not to be narrowly The statute relates to nonconforming prohibiting the erection of buildings even
case holding that an amendment to a interpreted. Cumberland Farms of Con- buildings, structures or uses of buildings, though they were to be used in connec-
zoning bylaw was invalid because im- necticut, Inc. v Zoning Board of Appeal structures or premises, It protects law- tion with the nonconforming use because
properly adopted, in connection with a (1971)359 Mass 68,267 NE2d 906. fully existing buildings, structures and the existence of a nonconforming use of
s. uses against prohibition or destruction by land when an ordinance was enacted did
f , r statement by the court that the amend- Legislative history of 1962 amendment
a zoning ordinance or by-law. Re Opinion not require that new buildings be legai-
ment as voted did not tend to show the of instant section.—See Cumberland
Of Justices (1920) 234 Mass 597, 127 NE ized in connection with that use. Wilbur
existence of a nonconforming use covered Farms of Connecticut, Inc. v Zoning 525. It exempts such uses from the opera- v Newton 1938 302 Mass 38, 18 NE2d
by former §26 of c 40. Fish v Canton Board of Appeal 1971 359 Mass 68, 267 P P ( )
s r ( ) tion of a zoning ordinance or bylaw.
to the Where certain land had been used for law. It 365.
x ai (1948)322 Mass 219,77 NE2d 231. NE2d 906. limits that exemption, however,
} The question as to whether an excep- Read as a whole, this section evinces a situation existing at the time of the adop- the removal and sale of sand and gravel
j I! tion contained in a zoning ordinance con- legislative intent to place the recommend- tion of an ordinance or law. La Mon-
e y prior to an amendment to a zoning ordi-
266
267
I
' 1
s -
1
r
�; a
C. 4OA ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 6 R 6 ZONING C. 4OA
nance which regulated the use of land, it bottles was not within the permitted use, Building Comr. of Medford v McGrath ica v Quinn (1947) 320 Mass 687, 71
was said that existing uses to the existing nor was it permitted by the instant sec- (1942)312 Mass 461,45 NE2d 265. NE2d 235.
extent were preserved by former §26 of tion either as part of a conforming use or For a case where a zoning ordinance Nc:hing in this section indicates a leg-
c 40, a's amended through St 1933, c 269, as the continuance of a nonconforming excluding from residence districts "all islative intent to subordinate the zoning
§1. Wilbur v Newton (1938) 302 Mass use. Parrish v Board of Appeal (1967) lands which at the time this ordinance principle in favor of existing uses of such
38, 18 NE2d 365. 351 Mass 561,223 NE2d 81. a character that the cannot be continued
becomes effective are used for any busi- y
without extending them. The exception
Where the use of the premises for a A nonconforming use of property for ness or industry" was held to permit a
riding school was an existing noncon- trailer homes would not be destroyed for change in an existing business use to use in favor of an existing use is expressly
forming use at the time of the adoption zoning purposes if the owner failed to for a business of a different type, see limited by the statutory words "to the
of a zoning ordinance, it was unaffected obtain a license under c. 140, §§32A— Smith v City Council of Marlborough extent to which it is used at the time of
by the ordinance. Building Comr. of Med- 32L, which latter statute requires a li- (1939)302 Mass 571,20 NE2d 408. adoption of the ordinance or law."
ford v McGrath (1942) 312 Mass 461, 45 cense for such use but is not a zoning use which cannot be so limiteted not
NE2d 265. regulation, where the defect, assuming A mere increase in the amount of busi- within the exception and is not preserved
Existing uses are unaffected by a zon- that one existed, could be easily remedied ness done, even a great increase, would at all. Billerica v Quinn (1947) 320 Mass
ing ordinance. Foster v Mayor of Beverly by the obtaining of the license. Board of not work a change in use. Marblehead v 687 71 NE2d 235.
Rosenthal(1944) 316 Mass 124, 55 NE2d The extension of a use to which this
(1944)315 Mass 567, 53 NE2d 693. Selectmen v Monson (1969) 355 Mass
Under this section,which prescribes the 715,247 NE2d 364. section refers to extension in the area
minimum of tolerance that must be ac- The instant section protects existing Where before the adoption
corded to nonconforming uses, existing buildings and uses against zoning there had been a gravel pit off considera- amount a by-law devoted of use within the same area.
othe use and not increase in
ble size on one portion of the premises, Billerica v Quinn(1947) 320 Mass 687, 71
buildings and structures, and the existing changes. Nyquist v Board of Appeals
1971 359 Mass 462,269 NE2d 654. and topsoil at this location had been NE2d 235.
use of any building or structure or of ( ) and had ravel the at
land, are protected against zoning regula- Where the published notices of the removed to get g Where, at the time of the adoption of a
tions. Y Mur h planning board incorporated by reference v Bldgs.of Inspector been used elsewhere and the gravel pit zoning ordinance, a building within a
p g P comprised only a small portion of the
(1946)320 Mass 207,68 NE2d 918. a detailed description of the locus which P Y P district zoned for apartment houses was
By former §26 of c 40, a zoning bylaw was available for examination by inter- total acreage, the stripping of the surface being used for a dance hall, former §26
did not apply to buildings and structures ested persons, the statutory requirement soil from the whole acreage would have of c 40 did not validate a subsequent use
existing before its adoption, nor to the that the subject matter be specified was an altogether different effect upon the of the premises for a restaurant. Lynn v
existing use of any such building or fulfilled. Crall v Leominster (1972) 362 neighborhood than the operation of the Deam (1949) 324 Mass 607, 87 NE2d
structure, nor to land to the extent to Mass 95,284 NE2d 610. former. gravel pit t its original location g49. I
which it was used before the adoption of y_ regulating and would amount o a change of use Where at the time of the adoption of a +
P By-law re ulatin earth removal beyond the protection of this section.
such prior law, but it did apply to any adopted pursuant to former GL ch 40 zoning ordinance, premises situated in a
1
change of use and to alterations of build- Even if the purpose of stripping the soil residence district were used for purposes t t
g §21(17) was not a zoning by-law to was to get at gravel beneath it, which
ings or structures amounting to recon- which provisions of former GL ch 40A of a garage, such premises could legally
struction, extension or structural change. §5 protecting nonconforming uses al),- * could hardly be the case over the whole be used as a garage because such use was t
area, that process was at least an exten-
Connors v Burlington (1950) 325 Mass plied. Byrne v Middleborough (1973) 364 P a nonconforming use under former § e
� 494,91 NE2d 212. Mass 331,304 NE2d 194. Sion of the former use and so was not of c 40, but such premises could not bbe i
protected by the section. Burlington v used for the storing therein of machinery 1
Existing nonconforming use may be Building in process of construction was Dunn 1945 318 Mass 216, 61 NE2d
continued. La Charite v Board of AP- not "existing" and did not fall within ( ) and equipment and bottles in connection
243, cert den 326 US 739, 90 L Ed 441, with a bottling business, even though the
peals(1951)327 Mass 417,99 NE2d 66. protection of former GL c 40A §5. 66 S Ct 51.
Under the instant section, and under Smith v Building Comr. of Brookline latter use of the premises was no more } ! '
former § t of c tan if, at the time of the Smith 367 Mass 765, 328 NE2d 866. A small existing nonconforming busi- objectionable than the nonconforming use
ness cannot be so enlarged as to be differ- in existence at the time of the adoption of ,
enactment of a zoning bylaw, land is Section protects lots shown on appro-
bein used for articular purpose, the ent in kind in its effect upon the neigh- the ordinance. Adamsky v Mendes (1950)
g P P P priately recorded plan from subsequently- borhood. Inspector of Bldgs. v Murphy 326 Mass 603,96 NE2d 236.
continuation of such existing use is not a enacted zoning amendments increasing (1946)320 Mass 207,68 NE2d 918. Under the comparable provisions of
violation of the zoning bylaw..Meadows v necessary area, frontage, width, depth or
Town Clerk of Saugus (1956) 333 Mass yard requirements. Spalke v Board of An owner who, before the passage of a former GL c 40, §26 it was held that a
j zoning by-law, had stripped the topsoil change of buildings occupying 200 square t
760, 133 NE2d 498. Appeals (1979) 7 Mass App 683, 389 g Y PP P ?"
from a part of his lot, and piled it on the feet to a building covering 2400 square g'
± Where a zoning bylaw permitted the NE2d 788.
use of land in a residential district for the lot for sale, could, under this section, feet was a non-exempt change in use.
Appeals David v Board of A 1956 333
sale of farm products raised on the prem- 3.Increase or change in use remove and sell the top soil so stripped, PP ( )
A nonconforming use of the same
ises, while the sale of ice cream and milk but he did not by his actions acquire an Mass 657, 132 NE2d 386.
d but "existing use" within the meaning of this The use of a building for the cooking,
shakes made from products raised on the premises may be not only continue
premises would be within the permitted also increased in volume. Cochran v section; and could not strip and remove preparing and sale of foodstuffs, in addi-
use, the sale of fruit punch in half-gallon Roemer(1934)287 Mass 500, 192 NE 58; the loam from the entire acreage. Biller- tion to the sale of some of the usual
268
269 f
{ t
C. 40A ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 6 § 6 ZONING C. 40A s
grocery items, and the conducting of a which differs in quality from a prior Where a landowner conducted upon Michael A. Dolan, Inc. (1968) 355 Mass
catering service was held, without refer- nonconforming use is less objectionable land in a residential district an extensive 17,242 NE2d 540.
ence to the instant section, to differ in than the prior use does not make the use milk and dairy products business and sold Under a zoning ordinance adopting
quality and not merely in degree from a valid one under the instant section. the products to customers upon retail substantially the language of the instant
the operation of a grocery store,and thus Building Inspector of Malden v Werlin routes, the erection of a building for the section, it was decided that a change in i
to constitute a use different from the Realty, Inc. (1965) 349 Mass 623, 211 manufacture and sale of ice cream and the nonconforming use of premises from
previously existing non-conforming use NE2d 338. ; dairy products to retail customers at the sale of beer and wine to the sale of all j
of the building for a grocery store. A change in the nonconforming use of # "outside service windows" of the build- alcoholic beverages, including hard liquor, '
Hinves v Commissioner of Public Works a building from the manufacture and ( ing, where previously no building existed did not reflect the nature and purpose of
(1961)342 Mass 54, 172 NE2d 232. incidental storage of oxygen to the stor- in which the sale of farm products was the preexisting nonconforming use, it dif-
For a case where changes by a railroad age of ice cream cones and straws is a carried on in the manner contemplated in fered in quality or character as well as
in the use of its land were examined and change in the quality of use which is not the new building, would not, by virtue of degree from the prior use, it constituted a
it was found that an increase in the exempted under the instant section. the instant section, be exempt from a new use and was in violation of the
amount of business did not work a Building Inspector of Malden v Werlin zoning regulating nonconforming uses. zoning ordinance. Jasper v Michael A.
change in use nor an enlargement of any Realty, Inc. (1965) 349 Mass 623, 211 Parrish v Board of Appeal (1967) 351 Dolan, Inc. (1968) 355 Mass 17, 242
nonconforming business so as to be dif- NE2d 338. Mass 561, 223 NE2d 81. NE2d 540.
ferent in kind in its effect on the neigh- Change in pre-existing use depends on Use of oil tanks for distribution of oil Under the 1962 amendment to the in-
borhood, see Medford v Marinucci Bros. degree to which original nature and pur- to owner's consumer customers did not stant section relative to expansion of
& Co. (1962) 344 Mass 50, 181 NE2d pose of undertaking remain unchanged. authorize use of tanks for distribution of agricultural use, while the expansion of
584. Superintendent & Inspector of Bldgs. v oil as wholesaler to other retail dealers. agricultural use either by the enlarge-
The instant section prescribes the mini- Villari (1966) 350 Mass 176, 213 NE2d Kreger v Public Bldgs. Comr. (1968) 353 ment of existing buildings or by the erec-
mum tolerance which must be given to 861. Mass 622, 234 NE2d 283. tion of new buildings may be made sub-
nonconforming uses and it does not pur- Where it appeared that the making of The expansion of a nonconforming ject to local regulation provided that
port to authorize changes therein. Chilson minor repairs was incidental to the opera- dairy use was found to constitute a there is a direct relationship to matters
v Zoning Board of Appeal (1962) 344 tion of a gasoline service station, that change of use within the meaning of the such as public health, morals, safety and
Mass 406, 182 NE2d 535. there was no change in its original nature instant section upon findings, among oth- welfare, such expansion cannot be prohib-
New nonconforming structures may and purpose, and where there was evi- ers, that the dairy herd had increased iced by local action neither by direct
not be allowed, in absence of variance, dence that prior tenants of the premises tenfold, the land use had more than dou- prohibition nor by unreasonable regula- I
where zoning bylaw does not authorize had done minor repair work, a conclusion bled, new buildings had been erected and tion which amounts to prohibition. The
them. Simeone Stone Corp. v Board of was warranted that the making of minor a new system of milk production had foregoing principles are applicable even if
Appeals (1962) 345 Mass 188, 186 NE2d repairs came within the prior noncon- been installed, where the aggregate of
the change in use amounts to a change in
457. forming use of the premises. Superinten- such changes amounted to a difference in the quality of the use rather than the '
Where the facts found by the Superior dent & Inspector of Bldgs. v Villari quality rather than in degree alone. Cul- degree and even if the use is commercial
Court as to a nonconforming use of land (1966)350 Mass 176,213 NE2d 861. len v Building Inspector of North Attle- to some degree. Cumberland Farms of
for a marina or boatyard showed more Change in nonconforming use from borough (1968) 353 Mass 671, 234 NE2d Connecticut, Inc. v Zoning Board of Ap-
than an expansion within nonconforming mixing small amounts of concrete as inci- 727• peal(1971)359 Mass 68,267 NE2d 906. f .
premises of a nonconforming business dental to construction of houses by prop- A zoning law requiring approval by Where a parcel of land was originally
there conducted, and showed a change in erty owner to mixing large amounts of the board of appeals for the expansion of used for the manufacture and sale of
quality or character as well as the degree concrete for sale and distribution of a nonconforming agricultural use doescandles, it was protected as a lawful
of use, the conclusion was warranted that ready mixed concrete to others not per- not violate the provision of the instant nonconforming use although the owner ,
the nonconforming use had been unlaw- missible. See Bridgewater v Chuckran section forbidding zoning laws which pro- had greatly increased the volume and
fully expanded by changes in character (1966) 351 Mass 20,217 NE2d 726. hibit the expansion of nonconforming variety of the candle manufacturing oper-
and area, within the meaning of the in- agricultural uses because the mere re-
section. Board of Appeals Three tests for determining whether g ation, but as to a second parcel of land, ;
Bradyy pp current use of property fits within the quirement for seeking such approval does while the first floor of one building '
(1965) 348 Mass 515,204 NE2d 513. not amount to a prohibition of such use. g
exemption granted to nonconforming P thereon used for miscellaneous storage '
In the absence of a special provision in uses are:"(1)Whether the use reflects the ® If, upon request for such approval, the was lawful as a continuation of a noncon-
a zoning ordinance, the test of whether `nature and purpose' of the use prevailing action of the board would be such as to forming use, the use of the second floor . '
there is a change in use within the mean- when the zoning bylaw took effect;" (2) amount to a prohibition, a different ques- as administrative offices of the candle
ing of the instant section is as to whetherWhether there is a difference in the qual- tion would then be presented. Cullen v business was not entitled to protection as f
the .new use is different in quality from ity or character, as well as the degree, of Building Inspector of North Attlebor- a nonconforming use, and the use of a k
the prior nonconforming use. Building use;"-and "(3) Whether the current use is ( ough (1968) 353 Mass 671, 234 NE2d second building thereon as the receiving,
Inspector of Malden v Werlin Realty, 'different in kind in its effect on the 727• storing, packaging, and shipping center v
Inc. (1965) 349 Mass 623, 211 NE2d 338. neighborhood'". Bridgewater v Chuckran Tests for determining whether use is for the wholesale aspect of the candle 1
The mere fact that a change in use (1966)351 Mass 20, 217 NE2d 726. within nonconforming use. See Jasper v business was also not a protected noncon- Y
270 271
x
V '
y k, in
C. 4OA ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 6 6 ZONING C. 4OAE
forming use, since it previously had been tion under the instant section, and it was 4 time, nor does the proviso of the instant ises for agriculture, horticulture or flori-
used only for "dead" storage of various held that a covered wooden bin or shack section relative to agricultural buildings culture for more than 5 years, the provi- r .
materials. Powers v Building Inspector of supported off the ground by posts which protect a new building constructed for Bions of the instant section relative to
Barnstable (1973) 363 Mass 648, 296 replaced a lean-to formerly maintained in t agricultural use because the proviso re- such uses may not be invoked to invali-
NE2d 491. the same place did not constitute a strut- ; lates to changes in nonconforming build- date a zoning restriction. Mioduszewski v
Town could prohibit conversion of cot- ture so as to come within the prohibition ? ings or the expansion of land, used pri- Saugus (1958) 337 Mass 140, 148 NE2d
tage c lony to single-family use under of the instant section. Manchester v Le- marily for agriculture. Cullen v Building 655.
ah 1957 336 Mass 158, 143 NE2d 198. Inspector of North Attleborough (1968)
condominium type of ownership. Gold- Y( ) P
man v Dennis (1978) 375 Mass 197, 375 The instant section does not purport to 353 Mass 671,234 NE2d 727. 6.Rebuilding of destroyed structure i
:NE2d 1212. prohibit the erection of a new building or Change in outside porch and steps of While G.L. c 40A §5 does not confer
Increase in landowner's operations not alteration of an existing building for sub- onconforming com- the right to erect a new building in place
building, used for n
stantiall greater use in connection with 1 mercial purposes, by enclosure of porch of an existing building used for a noncon-
improper extension of nonconforming Y g
use. Board of Selectmen v Tellestone a nonconforming use,but it provides only so that it became part of room to which forming purpose, there is no statutory
(1976)4 Mass App 311, 348 NE2d 110. that if changes, as defined in the section, it was formerly contiguous,where change prohibition against a zoning provision
occur, the exemption from the operation was to prevent further deterioration of which grants special rights to the ownerel
4.Alteration of existing structure of the zoning ordinance is destroyed and exposed parts, found to be permissible as of a pre-existing nonconforming use to
As to the instant section in an earlier that the validity of the use, no longer coming within minimum of powers ac- rebuild a structure which has been de-
form, it was said that by mandatory exempt, must then be determined under corded by instant section. Crawford v stroyed by catastrophe. Berliner v Feld-
terms it definitely made subject to the the provisions of the applicable zoning Building Inspector of Barnstable (1969) man (1973) 363 Mass 767, 298 NE2d 153.
operation of such ordinance or bylaw all ordinance. Where, therefore, other provi- 356 Mass 174,248 NE2d 488. Where building was operated as an inn
alterations of constructions for a new or Bions of the applicable zoning ordinance Construction of large pier for berthing from 1888 through 1963 and was de-
different use sought at any time subse- Provides that permission may be given of boats for commercial purposes, to be stroyed by fire and local zoning regula-
quent to the adoption of such ordinance for the alteration or replacement of a used in connection with a building used
y_ y P nonconforming structure in cases of un- tion permitted pre-existing nonconform-
or by-law. This mandator phrase was g � for nonconforming commercial purposes, ing building to be rebuilt if destroyed,
necessary hardship, such an ordinance y
not confined to any particular aspect of Y P. found to be in violation of instant section an reconstruction (1) must conform to
the nonconforming ordinance or law. may be valid where proper standards are where it was found to be a structure Y
g y- the extent possible with the requirements t
La Montagne v Kenney (1934) 288 Mass provided for, and permission for the mod- t making use of the water side of the of the present zoning by-law, (2) must
363, 193 NE 9. ernization of an existing structure may building different in quality, character
validly be granted thereunder. Chilson v and kind, as well as degree, from that not exceed in ground coverage, height
While the nonconforminguse of an old entire
and other dimensions, number of stories '
Zoning Board of Appeal (1962) 344 Mass made before, and to constitute an e
building as a slaughterhouse was pro- and floor area of the destroyed building,
tected by a predecessor of this section, as 182 NE2d 535. new facility. Crawford v Building Is 174,
for of Barnstable (1969) 356 Mass 174, and (3) may have insulation and heat
the building had been so used before the The proviso to the instant section 248 NE2d 488. throughout, modern plumbing, and sepa- 1
passage of a zoning by-law, a new strut- added by the 1962 amendment relative to rate baths for each room and functional
ture attached to the old building could alterations of nonconforming buildings is S.Regulation of non-use floor layouts. Berliner v Feldman (1973)
not be so used; and it was immaterial limited to nonconforming buildings used Where there has been no use of prem- 363 Mass 767,298 NE2d 153.
whether the new structure was deemed a primarily for agriculture, horticulture or 5
separate building or. an enlagement of floriculture, and it does not authorize the
r 1
the old building. Inspector r Bldg. v alteration of nonconforming buildings, CASE NOTES UNDER FORMER§5A
Murphy (1946) 320 Mass 207, 68 NE2d generally. Maynard v Tomyl (1964) 347 The instant section was referred to, for Board of Appeals (1960) 341 Mass 99, t '
918. Mass 397, 198 NE2d 291. comparison purposes, in a case involving 167 NE2d 315.
A new building, to replace a smaller Where, prior to the adoption of a zon- the construction of a zoning ordinance The instant section as amended
platform, at a piggery the operation of ing amendment, a barn had been used for containing exceptions similar to those through 1961 refers to building on cer-
t
which as conducted before the adoption the doing of "some automobile repair contained in the instant section, in which ! '
tain nonconforming lots, not to altera-
of the by-law was valid as a nonconform- work",the construction of a large cement it was determined that a proviso relating tions of nonconforming lots, not to alter-
ing use, was at least a "reconstruction, block garage was such an expansion as to separate ownership, similar to that set ations of nonconforming buildings or al- i
extension or structural change" within not to be within the nonconforming ex- forth at the end of the instant section, terations to create nonconformity. Ac- 1 Y,
the instant section. Connors v Burlington emption of the instant section. Stow v was not clearly enough expressed to be cordingly, the owner of a building which .
1950 325 Mass 494,91 NE2d 212. Pugsley (1965 349 Mass 329, 207 NE2d applicable to the facts before the court. ►
( ) Y )908 Clarke v Board of Appeals (1959) 338 is nonconforming because of a zoning
;
The replacement or modification of regulation as to lot size has no right to
every insubstantial shed or auxiliary out- The instant section extends its protec- Mass 473, 155 NE2d 754. g
add a second story to the building. May-
building, used in connection with a non- tion to nonconforming buildings, that is, Purpose of the instant section is to nard v Tomyl (1964) 347 Mass 397, 198
conforming use,is not required, as matter buildings erected prior to the enactment prevent, in circumstances to which it ap-
of law, to be regarded as action with of the zoning bylaw and it does not plies, oppressive application of zoning NE2d 291.
respect to a structure subject to regula- extend to new buildings erected after that amendments. Gem Properties, Inc. v Owner is entitled to build on lot under }
272 , 273 € :,
HORT"
O� r .o iAtiO
N p '
rr
,SSACNUS1'
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Date: -r,3030) Cyd
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
the Board of Appeals .
Kindly submit $ for the following:
� �J
Filing Fee $ �,
Postage $ �J'a
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and
may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main
Street , North Andover , Mass . 01845.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Audrey W. Taylor, Clerk
S
OFFICE(617)438.6868 RESIDENCE(508)664-2302
JAMES R. SENIOR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
91 MONTVALE AVENUE
FACSIMILE(617)438-3942 STONEHAM,MASSACHUSETTS 02180
1
NORTH d�,,�.%'�'�Z
Town of North Andover oNORTH
J C! I f
OFFICE OF o?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p
146 Main Street �, '°,;.,,:••` 5
KENNETH R.MAHONY North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 9SS"�M�S�t
Director (508) 688-9533
Any appeal shall be filed BOARD OF APPEALS
within (20) days after the NOTICE OF DECISION
date of filing of this
Notice in the Office of Property: 129 Main Street
the Town Clerk.
One Twentv Nine Main Street Realty Trust Date: 9-21-95
1 Applehill Road Petition# :047 -95
Natick , MA 01760 Date of Hearing: 9-12-95, 9-19-95
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, September 12, 1995
which was continued and discussed under advisement on September 19, 1995. The
applicant, One Twenty Nine Main Street Realty Trust petitioned as a Party Aggrieved as a
result of a decision issued by the Building Inspector.
The following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Robert Ford, Walter
Soule, Scott Karpinski, and Joseph Faris.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on 8.23.95 and 8.30.95 and all
abutters were notified by regular mail.
Motion by Rober Ford to deny the petition of the Party Aggrieved and uphold the
Building Inspector's decision as outlined in his letter addressed to the applicant dated
August 17, 1995 on the grounds that evidence shows that the use of the basement portion
of the building was discontinued for more than two years (Section 9.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw) and must now conform to the current 1995 zoning regulations, seconded by
Joseph Faris.
Vote: 4-1. Voting in favor: William Sullivan, Robert Ford, Joseph Faris and Scott
Karpinski. Voting against: Walter Soule.
BOARD OF APPEALS,
William Sullivan, Chairman � �'
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Julie Parrino D.Robert Nicetua Michael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen BradleY Colwell
� E
II
Town of North Andoverp0RTH
OFFICE OF 3�oy`. •D 1�ooc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES A
146 Main Street 7 QDA�TED-SPP\`��
KENNETH R.MAHONY North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 "VSAGNUSEt
Director (508)688-9533
Notice 1s herebygiven that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the Senior
Citizen's Center located at the rear of Town Hall Building, 120 Main Street, North
Andover on Tuesday the 12th day of September 1995 at 7:30 o'clock to all parties
interested in the appeal of One Twenty Nine Main Street Realty Trust as a Party
Aggrieved as a result of a decision issued by the Building Inspector.
Said premise is located at 129 Main Street , which is in the General Business Zoning
District. Plans are available for review at the Office of Community Development &
Services, Town Hall Annex, 146 Main Street.
By the Order of the Board of Appeals
William J. Sullivan, Chairman
LEGAL 180TIM
Publish in the North Andover Citizen on $.23.95 and 8.30.95 IM...
HEaJWiG
nonce is herebygiven 01101 1118 11:1.
ew at`Ap
pwilt hold public limit at Ore Senior
Otizeri s Center located at Me rear at Town
t-Wli BwiidiM 120 Again street„M M Ando-
ver Tuesday Um 12day of septeniber
1496 at 7:30 orctoclt to am partes interest-
ed in the appeal of One T Nme ktain
Street Realty Trust as a Party as
a result of decision issued by the Building
Inspector-
Said premise is located at 124 Thin Street
which is irn the General Business'Zoning
District Plans are available for review at the
Office of Community Development dr Ser-
vices,.Town ball.AnneX146 Main StreeL_
By order of the Board a1 Appeals
William.J-Sullivan,Chairman
North Andover Citizen 8/23&8/30195
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
Julie Parrino D.Robert Nicetta Michael Howard Sandra Stair Kathleen Bradley Colwell
i DISTINCTIVE WINDOW & DOOR ENTRIES, INC. 318
21 CUMMINGS PARK, STE. 262
1 WOBURN, A 01801 — 53-307/113
i
rnv roTHE ., —r`
L19�J
/�'
ORDER )FC'�"L C/ (/�
DOLLARS
Np WOB RN 3
WOBURN, 8011
J MEM �L •��r G ! �� v1 �' / \
':011303 7i�.= HE
- - --
E 037 6611
— 03 &6c
i y nr ti r r
z � f�r�
�� � , ��
oN�y^
M'
1 .rte
F
AW
i` I,� I
1�
i
1
� I
i
MIL !
t:
.ow"
.,
,,
�' r
7 _
f r
f
.__ �w
/ � hl 1
N
r
C
..
,� � �
i
.�.;� � � �
J
.. ...
ice'' -�-�___–1 �--
�J I.
�s' � � � '�
— �
s "5 _
'—..
y �^--`
1 �� _:* .'
' '
,� tt11II
_= 1
..._-
�=
Y�+3,
:S.,v�.��a .,. '.'s" �'�'�:� .max
i,
r• 11F
r
A
. .
� � � - �
..
+� �a �
'�•
o..�- � � j •�.
�� ���z - r
.. �-'T�
P
I:::
•r�•
_'
1 `4 N �i
z_ar' � .
._
I
F�
.a i PARKING
. ,rio a V- 4
\
=--
fir'
I� ,,
,eft .e. �
'' _ � � �. _ i _- � I
� . ,a ��, ,, -�
�_
•� 4 I ,+y
'T�.
�_� _
t
x
I(l 1
a
�t
5'
i
r ��4• 'S"
`1`� r� �u � _ i,
�„�� �-�;
. ._. ,.
: _ - -
.Kik � �i` �
� --
� "�' .�`J
,--
as
aR,_
.a V�._ .., . ..
t -
_ .; / YO DRIVE WAY
:. �Y DRIVE WAY
MY HOUSE IS 19 SECOND . YOUR DRIVE WAY IS THE PRIVATE
RUNS FROM SCHOOL ST. THROUGH
THE REAR OF THE POST OFFICE,
CHINA WOKG AND RUNS OUT ONTO
SECOND ST. MY DRIVE WAY RUMS
PARALLEL WITH YOURS.
129 MAIN STREET TRUST
CIO MR. EI.LIOT GOLDSTEEN
P.O. BOX 8180
RTICK, MA. 01760
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I am writing this letter not only on my behalf, but on the behalf of all of my
neighbors which have to endure the outrageous amounts of traffic entering and
exiting your private way on a daily basis and have put up with it for years. They
hay a called the police and have always been told, they need to catch the people
leaving in this fashion, but unless the Police Department can afford to have an otriicer
sitting out here 24 hours a day, they will never see un Thing.
I firmly believe that if you lived here, you would be writing the same letter
to the owner or manager of the property. We have to endure such things as youth
gathering back Dere and playing their music at all hours of the day and night, we
have to put up with the teens leaving this private way on two wheels rather than four
and God knows at what speed. ( this problem is not only the kids ! )With my
driveway being parallel to yours, I take not only my life but the lives of my children,
in my hands every time T enter or exit my driveway. Because of all the trees, bushes
and shrubs that are so overgrown on your private way, if I don't hear these cars
corning, I am afraid that one day someone in my family is going to get hurt.
The reason listed above is the same reason why some pedestrian is going to
get !tilled and it will then cost you or the owner of this private way a lot more than
what I am about to ask you:
In speaking with many people who have to pass by this danger zone, we
have come to the conclusion short of fighting to have this private way totally shut
down to tratiic, eve reel that if a couple of speed bumps were installer:, that %yuuld
force cars to slow down way before they get to the top of the hill and if'you
contracted with a landscaping company or someone to maintain the trees and
shrubbery, this way 1 can certainly see leaving my driveway and pedestrians can see
what's coming prior to seconds 0r Uiese cars almost hitting them.
The two solutions t have listed would be the most cost effecti;'e for the owner
of the property. Fighting to get the private way totally shut off from traffic would
end up and not only cost the owner because he would be losing money as it relates
to the businesses, for I'm sure he or she must be charging for the use of the private
way, and the businesses would be losing money as well for they would be losing
their parking spaces for their customers.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this letter and I hope to
be hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Pat Savers
19 Second Street
No. Andover, Ma. 01845
Tel. ( 508 ) 691-5587
F;EGe
JVGE ERADi-,, .y1
TOWN o1-EK
NORTH AtIDOVER
AUG Z2 1I 14 155
Received by Town Clerk:
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE /�
�} - &4Address / � '`e P? `
Applicant a/ �,
Tel. No. J G6
1. Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section
Paragraph and Table of the Zoning Bylaws.
b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph
of the Zoning Bylaws.
c) As a Par�tyAggrved., for review of a decision made by
the Bui n ie
g Inspector or other authority.
2 . a) Premises affected are land and building(s) i.oA1a('
numbered /n2? - AW Z11i1/N 5�1' Street.
b) Premises affected are property with frontage on the
North ( ) South ( ) East ( ) West ( ) side of aNT�i v N
Mciv _701 Street. 9' )� e p.
Street, and known as No.
Street. �2
C) Premises affected are in Zoning District � c> and the
(L,„�oj premises affected have an area of -2,:46C) square feet
: ,wand frontage of �/� feet. T� 93
3 . Ownership:
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all
names) : t�7 LL> o T' 6aLD;S7e1N, / A'PRte#iJ_L
G,4A'e &,,&/?R I., �L) ld 6 /-M/ X-1, I-111Yc/fn Si e/� A4/ .
Date of Purchase Previous Owner ,&4 y&�. NeR44^,
b) 1. If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest
in the premises:
Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other
2 . Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit
r- po 1 TANG nt PenRl 4 92Nf/Lr_> 66LDS. 'P' )l
required.
xtsTIN1
4 . Size of proposed building: a front; feet deep;
S-1'
Height <<I 5 stories; ( feet.
a) Approximate date of erection:
b) occupancy or use of each floor:60"K/N D c"VO L5
C) Type of construction: 6 LO r- /� 3 A 1? ) e K
5. Has there been a previous appeal, under zoning, on these
premises? ` 'e S. If so, when? U/( Y
6. Description of relief sought on this petition. Please explain
in detail below. (If requesting a variance or special permit
Please fill out the attatched table. )
o1r/ Xll9ysr 1 `1, 1 92S The_ 13veI-D ,-q !q DfA,--
DQiyc � b 7tJ (f rp oN j3r7►e � �
90M) ( N9 (?,�TA M.I I TO e Al D 1>G. ZX 1'+
1�� R'T 7 o N vo-u -
a--� s LED Tv 02c O c c o P l e D 'e y P/S 71"O-)Il f
JA) IM p o-eJ I :i76 oR F-NTA Iff S ;4
7. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book'2°93 Page
Land Court Certificate No. Book Page
w� T e principal points upon which I base my application are as
ollows: (must be stated in detail)
15 IA.) /Ve C o/FOA .*4 C e_ fAI1 Tf/ NvRT!--1 4AID,00W ,/J Y I-'Z&OS F09
0S , -2--os C
A/�E11,A/� rS i.V ��c-e s S 0 F R��t t>!r2 e-�`-(PLATS S?�T�D SIV N / A16aef/l �Y LOW-) -
'TyeAe e ivl f-4- de i✓o S7 R v Tva t e�tJ c�N S A A& 4 414 -1 ALL Re su0 IA- 10A7 S
!�✓/L L e a/�-f f L� ��L� S/�TI S�y 5 7'�� /9 y,� L C� r o._L C u.DC S .
I agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and
incidental expenses*
Signaturg of Pe ition r(s)
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
ZONING DISTRICT: G- /3 , 0--Y /14 A l N <�,, /V&,? T19 -,PN b v e/� I�' �-
Required Setback Existing Setback Relief
or Area or Area Requested
Lot Dimension
Area
Street Frontage
Front Setback
Side Setback(s)
Rear Setback
Special Permit Request: �l/l� �Q Al d !/� T a 7-11e '�a CMN/Y7'
IM e,19 ./ 1-9 IF P1 S T 'A1 ,C /dam tci/ cDoc�;
/V/� P 0'9j? E/V'7--n e S !W C /1/-/G U A/7- S?P
%S / Np/ Ca7'e D l IV 7-11-P- 01- 1 e- P
.5� Al7-s ^u a-Te &y Gam' 199 7-
A 'To7--19L- o ,7= --7/ o6 59 9='T, 7-1�(f 63 /9 L a Al
OF THe 4Ae-/9 iv/GL /CeMa !n/
Applicant MUST provide labels for mailing if there are
twenty or more abutters. ZBA
LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST PAGE-1 OF 1
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS
MAP IPARCEL NAME
1
129 Main Street Realty 1129 131 Main Streetr North Andover
30
Trust
One Applehill Road, Natick MA 01760
AB L'TTERS
ADDRESS
MAP PARCEL NAME
156 Neck Road, Ward Hill MAO 83
29 37 Sherrill Lent '
29 36 Richard Lent '
1: 56 Neck Road Ward Hill ,
120 Main Street Nort 01845
2 34 Town Offices & Fireui. e E-2 01845
29 48 San Lau Realty1109-123 Main North
30 3 Louis J. Kmiec , Jr. 11001 Turnpike Street 845
30 2 Louis J. Kmiec Jr. 845
NOTE: Parcel 3 & 2 are owned b Fr e ' slCourtouse
30 41 Ruby Manor Realt Tru i
Vincent & Donna Lee Rubinl 625 Great Pon Andover , 845
30 38 Vincent J &
Landers 40 Court Street - Andover, PqA 04:845
018
37 Joan M. Mawson
i 27 Second Street 5
22 School 5
30 36 Paul R
30 4 Paul R. & Ju 20 School 5
CERTIFIED BY: DATE:
:assessor' s Office Page 7 of 8
Page 3 of 4
Town of North Andover ,O oT:,h
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEI-T A'vD SERVICES °
1.16 Main Street
- KENIv'FM R.4fAHONY North Andover, Massacauserts 01845
Direcwr (508) 688-9533
August 17, 1995
129 Ma' n Street Real -_r
1 Applehill Road
Natick, MA 10760
Dear Sir .
Please be advised :__a_ vcur az"__caticn _cr a Building Permit
for 129 Main Street .as coon den-- edz the fc-lowing reason (s) .
u The bui lding site == defic __c in terms cf area, front and
s'_de setbacks, and recuired cff- _ _ec parking. Section 9 . 1, Non-
Ccnfcrming uses states c__c _ccW_n_
"Anv non-confor.„inc ^c, �=ucture , or use as defined
herein, which lawfully exiSzed a:: time of passage of the
avnlicable provision cf .__is or �n�% for by-law, or anv amendment
t hereto may be continued __ sect c c._e provisions of this By-Law.
Any lawfully non-conf.._...___ our _ �____ cr structure and any lawfully
nen-conforming use of or _-a__d may be ccn_i nued in the same
kind and manner and tc c__e same e_{.enc as at "-e time it became
lawfully non-conform'__, _*-=_ each ..,..__dings or use shall not at any
time be changed, ex ended or en=arced exce_ct for a purpose
rermitted in the zoning dicc__�c ___ w_-ich such ouilding or use is
siituated, or except ..._v -:av '-e -cermizted by a Special Permit or
ot_ierwise by the Nor---'-. --dcver Bcard c_ Appeals . Pre-existing non-
ccnfcrminc structures c_ uses, however, may be extended or altered,
provided that no suc^ exzens_c._ or alteration stall be permitted
unless there is a findinc 'zv t_e _cares of Appeals that such change,
extension or alteraticr_ ___a=_ ncc �= s, ant aliv more detrimental
thar. the existing nen-ccr_z=zi_, nc _se to the ne_g:~lborhood."
Tenant history of 129 Mai_^_ Stree_ indicates the basement area
has been vacant for a crcxi:rately six (6) to rine (9) years . This
represents a period of more czar_ twc (2) years of discontinued use
in a non-conforming structure as described in Section 9 .4 of the
Zoning By-Law.
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUII DiG 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9533
Julie Pu rico D.Rabat tiweua wed Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell
` August 17, 1995 page 2
According to Section 8 .1, Off-Street Parking, of the Zoning
By-Law, an additional four (4) parking spaces must be provided for
the proposed partial renovation of the basement area. This must be
shown on a site plan as parking is very critical at this particular
location.
If you desire, you may aggrieve this decision within thirty
(30) days to the North Andover Board of Appeals .
Yours truly,
D. Robert Nicetta,
Building Commissioner
DRN:gb
i
I
SPECIALIZING IN ENERGY CONSERVATION
PRODUCTS FOR HOME AND INDUSTRY
COMMERCIAL STORE FRONTS
PRIME REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND DOORS,
STORM WINDOWS,STORM DOORS,PATIO DOORS, I
INSIDE STORMS,GARDEN WINDOWS,SKYLITES,
PORCH ENCLOSURES,SIDING,ROOFING,GUTTERS
a�Z 0-00 l,'�AX i INK" ,
GINO ZAFFINI 129 MAIN STREET
PRESIDENT N.ANDOVER,MA.
508=685-5441 01845
ding woisnD
6
SHWOH HAIIDNIisIQ
DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS
AND
DOOR ENTRIES, INC.
1 Energy Conservation Products
26 Years Experience
AMENDMENT NECE.IVEU
pAHIEL LONG
Any appeal sha!I be filed °` ,�; T�wt, CIENK
KpFtE11 �•NUOVER
9
Wit;:in (20' rays 71i1or the36
yil.� ' V
date of fl.': of ti:is Notice . tom: aFR 13
in the Office of the Lown ���'-^::.` :•`t
Clerk. 9SSAC iUSEt
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
129 Main Street Realty Trust * Petition: 1150-89
1 Applehill Road
*
Natick, MA 01760 * DECISION
******************************
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989 upon
the application of 129 Main Street Realty Trust, Elliot Goldstein & Jane C. DiPerri,
trustees requesting a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 9, Paragraph 9.1
and 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw and as a Party Aggreived of the Building Inspector for
building and occupancy permits, so as to renovate and occupy the basement area of
the premises located at 129-131 Main Street. The following members were present and
voting: Alfred Frizelle, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William
Sullivan, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on March 25 and March 26,
1989 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin., the Board voted, unanimously,
that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 S11OULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO T11IS
BUILDING and that a building and occupancy permit should be issued to this petitioner.
The Board finds that the Building Inspectors decision was incorrect since the lot and
structure preexisted the changes to the Zoning ByLaw-and the lot and structure are
therefore grandfathered. More specifically, any interior changes in the building may
be performed so long as the exterior shape of the building is not affected. The Zoning
ByLaw provisions requiring site plan review and off-street parking places are inapplicable.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1989.
BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION" 'o" ERM
MANirr NO. 2*
FOR IT TO BUILD NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. PAC
MAP K40. 1 LOT NO0 AT..51elqS-�IROOK PAGE
ZONE G
I--SUCiv. �0r- N
-- - ) 14AE
� 3 B --
LO Aa
OF 00 '�Jl-
OW AIA4* 5_r, t4Npp/eW, Mc, F v- s
N E R 54A 141, eN �L- NO ITis
-
'5r '-y
._
OWNER'S ADDRESS
f
ARCHIILLTS NAME S'lc 214D 3RD —�-
-- -- !1 N/C pF-r -�C J
DISTANCE TO NEAREST BUILD %L,
:JIS TA NCE FROM -,I RUE F r,'r
DISTANCE, FROM LOT LINES SIDE 1;
ARE. OF LOT FF<0Npr4,"t HEIGH' L'� FOt.NDA710N THI--;KNES-F
UILDING NEW SIZE OF -OOTiNG
IS BUILDING ADDITION MATER.AlL OF CHIMNEY
Iti 13UILDING ALTERATION 4L I IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND-- -- -__ _ pp _7,r _ _ I ---
WILLBUILPOING CONFORM To RFQJIRLMCNTS OF CL>OE IS BUJI.OING CONNECTED TO TOWN WATER
BOARD OF APPEAL.; ACTION. IF A%Y IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN SEWER
NATURAL GAS LINE
c CONNECTED TO
3 PROPERTY INFORMATION
LA-40 COST
SEE BOTH SIDES
EST. BLDG. COST
PAGE I FILL OUT SECTIONS 1 3 isT. BLDG. COST PER 80. PT.
'AGE .7. PILL OUT SECTIONS I - 12 EST. "LOG. COIILT PER R00#4
SEP-#C RERMIT NO.
ELECTRIC MIETEPS MUST BE ON OUTSIDE OF BUILDING
4 APPROVED BY
ATTACHED GARAGES MUST CONFORM TO STATE FIRE REGULATIONS
PLANS MUST SE FILED AND APPROVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR
DAT
BUILDING INSPXCT
-KV-o--R--E-o-7GENT
sjd19ArURE OF OWNE;m;�dR TH jz
F E E: 7,2 003(S-
OWNER TEL 9
617
PERMIT GRANTED
CONTR.TEL.# Sa 6 8S'--S'1 q
CON rR LIC
---------------4 "j/z-k/
H.1 C.# -42p_ 0 OL A/0 A0
aLt COR AcS PON D Iq ct Sof o UL 1) 131tYDE PA C E-
/-I c— . 3i
F—kp, p"'7
N I,A /L F—0 1 ,29 MAIAI 6-rlZec7- 1?e-qi4 3191-716
0 L)15 7//v ac -r/9 c zw D.4 w
011 r " 0 , 6OX- 37-6
^' - V% - ,,- e. - A A A
BUILDING RECORD
_ OCCUPANCY' Y T�
_ FAM l+ u'IS THIS SEC
MUST SNOW EXA:' DIMENSIONS OF I_O" ^ � 1tSTANC_F FROM
!_FAM. v 1 u' vt' _-` LOT LINES AND EXACT DSMENS 0NS OF SU'I.G"v-1.
'MENTS `i d.r%+� F'ORC1if=S LA
RAGES, [TC. St3PER!MF'USGD 'I H,5 REPLACES PL,: Pt_Ah
CONSTRULTION
FOUNDATION Et IN TERICR FINISH j (S
'.aETF
_RETE B: xOR STONE _ r A.i._- 17-1
— I
JJ
i7,NF1-,
BASEMENT li
_;Lla- --- - jI(J' j,N H M r AvFA
_it .__�/�- 'iN ATTIC- APPA _...
3 M 1 _ F Jt F A,-I
et
WAILS MOORS �j
A -,- Qp
SLUING _ _ _•1 cot,. I`E- �7M QC'
'D SHINGLES -�I 'nGr�
ALT SIDf_NG t+APL-,
STOS SIDING
SIDWC_ 4S-H ' ..E--
CO ON MASONRv •-- 11 ,-- - --'-_+ _
CO ON FRAME
-
{ ON MASONRr -•�" nT*IC SIRS g Fli SOF.
C ORCINDER_BIt -�I____ _ g4Y/� ( //TIC,,I�AI—
TE ON MASONR' �� WIRING •r E�f S T��f �T cEr•y'
IE ON FRAME J T
ROOF 1 }{� PLUMBING I
9A-4 .J
SH[C� C-CISfi
1AlT SHINGL1.. _;AVA191
)D SHINGE< KI_"Eh .- N"_ __ �•/C�ST FG
acoFinlc�_- -- _� ,.—'?rcRN-tr.<I�nE� j i IST/N4��G�ND�r VM
'- -' -- — ail_ 'F r'ni•c --_:J�. ��^ /
FRAMING T ! HEATING
JD J01'T v.m�r ' r �cr.A �[•-• I
------ - ED r,,3 A.�_T F,kNw
BER BMS h COL' _ StEArt
a BMS. 6 COLS �' L �Rr•
OD RAFTERS - - - i q �1NG 'r�tT",4c _
RAra A..
GAS 1
NO. Of ROOMS
T 2nd
3!d iit`O HEATING ---
pC� i`�� —
��Y`��.cf�J d I�d,,c',
��'•. PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 08/7.8/95 PAGE 7.1
PARO'EI_ ID: 210/029.0-0037-0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000
\J f
*W:** PARCEL LAST UPDATED : 10/ 4/94 y
PAR--ADD-NO-1 130-132 OWNER--NAME-2. SHERRII.1_ 1_ENTINI OWNER-CITY WARD HILL.
}
PAR--ADD--S'T•-1 MAIN STREET OWNER--ADDR--1. 56 NECK ROAD OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER•-NAME--1 LENTINI, RICHARD OWNER-ADDR-2 OWNER-ZIP 01 30
LJ
0
O
O
b
P
c
1
*PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL. LISTING 08/18/95 PAGE 10
PARCEL ID: 210/!729.0-Q0.3G--pn(0.0 SALE BATE: OCM,
C **** PARCEL.. LAST UPDATED : 1.0/ 4/94 j
1
PAR-ADD--NO-1 136-138 OWNER-NAME-2 OWNER-CITY WARD HIt_L
S
PAR-ADL-ST-1. MAIN STREET OWNER-ADDR-1. 56 NECK ROAD OWNER-STATE MA
^ OWER--NAME--1 LENTINI. RICHARD OWNER-ADDR-2 OWNER-LIP 01030
,J
}
,J
f
Q
1
� t
r
*PARC1_IST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING RAGE 9 S
PARCEL ID: 21.0/029.0-0034-,0000.0 SALE GATE: 0000
r
*** PARCEL LAST UPDATED 2/25/93
r
PAR-ADO-NO-t. 120 OWNER-NAME-2 TOWN OFFICES & FIRE OWNER-CITY NORTH ANDOVER !i
FAR--ADD--ST-1 MAIN STREET STATION OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER--NAME-1 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVE OWNER-ADDR-•l. 120 MAIN STREET OWNER-ZIP 01845
1
R OWN ER--ACTOR--2
O 4
1
O 11
O
*PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 08/18/95 PAGE 8
PARCEL. 10: 21.0/029.0-0048--0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000 !
l
J �
:* PARCEL. LAST UPDATED : 2/2::2/95
1
I
PAR-ADD-NO--1 109 OWNER-ADDR-1 109--123 MAIN STREET OWNER-STATE MA j
FEAR--ADO-ST-1 MAIN STREET SUITE E2 OWNER-ZIP 01845 �
OWNER-NAME-1 SAN LAU REALTY OWNER-ADDR-2
OWNER-NAME-•2 OWNER--CITY NORTH ANDOVER
l�
FF 1
lj
}
f f
r
C1
J
*PARC_LIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 08/18/9.5 PAGE 7
PARCEL, ICI: 210/030.0-0003-0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000
O
*** PARCEL LAST UPDATED 8/22/94 �
O PAR-Ar0-NO-1 .11-13 OWNER-NAME-2LOUIS J KMIEC, JR. T OWNER--CITY NORTH ANDOVER
PAR-ADD-ST-••1. SECOND STREET R OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER-NAME-1 FRYE'S COtMlRTHFlUSE RE OWNER--ADDR--1 1001 TURNPIKE STREET OWNER-ZIP 01845 �
ALTY TRUST OWNER-A1:7DR-2
I
f
C�
r�
*PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS C)OR PARCEL. LISTING 08/7.£`^,/95 PAGE 6
r
r
PARCEL.. ID: 210/030.0-0002--0000,0 SALE OATS: 0000
O �
1
*:** PARCEL. L..AST UPDATED : 10/ 5/94 !
ti
PAR-•ALJO-NO--1 .137-139--14 OWNER-NAME-2 LOUIS J KMIEC, JR, T OWNER-CITY NORTH ANDOVER
PAR-ADD-ST-1 MAIN STREET R OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER--NAME-1 FRYE'S COURTHOUSE RE OWNER-ADDR-1 707 TURNPIKE STREET OWNER-ZIP 01645
ALTY TRUST OWNER--ADDR-2
(1 �
i
4
C� r
C�
Ca �
}
O
U
:xPA{1CC.ISl'* MASSACHUSETTS DGR PARCEC, C.ISTZNt7 O:✓I8/95 PAGE 5
i
PARCEL. ID: 210/030,0-0041--0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000
\J f
x *
PARCEL, I.-AST UPDATED 3.0/ 5/94 !
PAR--ADD—NO--1 1'33 OWNER—NAME-2 `dSCENTE DONNA—L.EE OWNER—CITY NORTH ANDOVER �
PAR--ADC}—ST—:L MAIN STREET RUPaIN, TR OWNER—STATE MA
ff OWNER—NAME--1 RUBY MANOR RE.AI_TY TR OWNER—MMR-1 525 GREAT POND ROAD OWNER—ZIP 01845
l UST OWNER—ADDR-2
7
`f
1
1
V
f, 1
V
V
�• *PARCL.IST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL, LISTING 00/18/95 PAGE 4 �
I
PARCEL ID: 210/030,0-0038-0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000
O
*� PARCEL. LAST UPDATED : 10/ 5/94
}
O PAR--ADD--NO-1 2:7 OWNER-NAME-2 SHEILA M I_ANDERS OWNFR-CITY NORTH ANDOVER
FAR-ADD-.ST-•1 SCHOOL., STREET OWNER-ADDR-1. 40 COURT STREET OWNER-STATE MA
OWNFR-NAME-1 L..ANDFRS. VINCENT 7 OWNER--ADDR-2 OWNER-ZIP 018,45
C
`J +
r
O
r
CU
O
t
l� ,
& *PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 08/18/95 PAGE 3
PARCEL ID: 210/030.0--0037•-0000,0 SALE DATE: 0000 y
O (�
** PARCEL LAST UPDATED 5/22/95
O PAR-ADD-NQ--1 .2.7 OWNER-NAME-2 OWNER-CITY NORTH ANDOVER
PAR-ADD-ST-•1 SECOND STREET OWNER-ADDR--1 2.7 SECOND STREET OWNER-STATE MA
O OWNER--NAME--1 MAWSON. JOAN M OWNER--ADDR--2 OWNER--ZIP 01845 y
O �
i
A
1 {
i
C
O '
O
V
XPARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 00/18/95 PAGE 2
1
PARCEL ID: 210/030.0-0036-0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000
O
* * PARCEL. LAST UPDATED : 8/22/94
Q PAR-ADD-NO--1 19-25 OWNER-NAME-•2 •TUNE G THORNTON OWNFR--CITY NORTH ANDOVER 1
PAR-•ADD--ST-..1 SECOND STREET OWNER-ADDR-•1 22 SCHOOL STREET OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER-NAME•-1 THORNTON, PAUL, R OWNER-ADDR--2 OWNER--ZTP 01845
O �
z
O
O
O
/ f
V
lJ l!
/ f
V
f
*PARCLIST* MASSACHUSETTS DOR PARCEL LISTING 08/18/95 PAGE 1
PARCEL ID: 210/030.0-0004-0000.0 SALE DATE: 0000 i
1
** * PARCEL.. LAST UPDATED : 8/7.2/94 t
\J
PAR-ADD-NQ-1 18-24 OWNER-NAME-2 JUNE G THORNTON OWNER-CITY NORTH ANDOVER �
PAR-ADD-.ST...I SCHOOL.. STREET OWNER--ADDR-1 20 SCHOOL. STREET OWNER-STATE MA
OWNER-NAME--1 THORNTON. PAUL.. R OWNER-ADDR-2 OWNER-ZIP 01845 I
J
O
O �
Q
Whether your project SELECTED COMMERCIAL
is large or small ANDThe Best
g INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
our vast experience
can assure you of Archdiocese of Cambridge Builders and Developers
a quality job. Doors and Windows
Bess Point Housing, Nahant
General Contracting
Residential Billerica School Department Commercial Store Fronts
Commercial Brookline Mental Hospital
Industrial Statement
Boston College
Licensed And Insured 1
Cathedral Housing, South Boston
Electric Boat Ship Yard, CT. Qualifications
v /
Fort Devens . 1 1
Hancock Air Force Base
Distinctive Homes Services
Builders and Developers Harbor Point Housing, South Boston
Division of
Distinctive Windows Old North Church (Christ Church) /
& Door Entries Inc. �
Saint Michaels Church, No. Andover
One of our major suppliers is: vine Brook Mall, Burlington Distinctive Homes
Wellsley College Builders
• + Completed By: and
Developers
Division of
Brunswick Enclosure Co. Inc. Distinctive Windows
Specializing in
and its various suppliers and associates & Door Entries Inc.
Commercial Store Fronts
GENERAL SERVICES PROVIDED FINANCIAL
SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL OFFERED
LICENSED AND INSURED
Commercial Funding
• Residential Funding
Distinctive Homes Distinctive Homes • Competitive Rates
Builders and Developers
Division of North Andover Office
Distinctive Windows 129 Main Street • Municipal Financing.
North Andover, MA. 01845
& Door Entries Inc. TEL. (508) 685-5441
We Buy Raw Land Borrow amounts for your project
Residential & Commercial whether large or small.
Amounts from
SERVICES $ 5,000 up to $ 50,000,000.00
• Commercial Store Fronts 0 General Contracting Call the Pro' s
• Porch Enclosures • New Homes
• Windows / All types • Bathrooms & Kitchens
Exterior Storms, Interior Storms New Construction or Remodeling /
Garden Units • Framing Specialists
• Doors / Replacement, Storm & Patio • Panelizing Pre Cut Custom Walls
Distinctive Homes
• Carpentry, Masonry, Painting Exterior and Interior Partitions Distinctive Windows
& Door Entries Inc.
Call our team of Professionals todayNorth Andover Office
129 Main Street
for a no roour obli ation written estimate of project. North Andover, MA. 01845
g y P ,l TEL. (508) 685-5441
5
Qq
I
Z,$b
/ 1 .
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
May 17,1990
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will
give a hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,
on Tuesday evening the 12th day of June 1990,at
7:30 o'clock,to all parties Interested in the appeal of
129 Main SL Realty Trust requesting a variation of
Sec.8,Parag.8.1 and Table 2of the Zoning By Law
i so as to permit the existing six (6)on-site parking
spaces to suffice for the chiange In use on this
existing lot and building.Six(6)spaces should be
ample because the majority of business will be
either delivery, walk-in, In tc:tn or pick-up on the
premises,located at 129 Main Street.
By Order of the
Board of Appeals
Frank Serio,Jr.,Chairman
NAC:5/23 6 5/30/90
AL t
C•
HU
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
• ,;Id ' . . .Ma.y 17 . 19.90 '
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,North Andover,on L Tuesday
. . . . .evening . . . . . the .12th day of . . June .
� III
19: .go, at 7 3 A'clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
. . . .129 Main St.- Realty Trust . . . .
requesting a variation of Sec.. . ppar 8.1 of the Zoning
andableg
By Law so as to permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the existing six (6) on-site parking spaces to
. . . . . . . . .
b suffice for the change in use on this existing
lot- and building: - Six _(6) spaces should be -ample
because the majority of business will be either
a .. delivery, walk-in, in town or pick-up.
. . . . . .
on the premises, located at. - .129 Main Street .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Ord of the oi � real*-!
eL
Fran Serio, Jr. , Chairma
�4/
Publish in N. A. Citizen on May 23 and May 30, 1990
Bill to: 129 Main St. Realty Trust Co. , P. 0. Box 8180,
Natick, MA 01769
7
' i
REO`.iVEti
of NORrH,� ��wN LONG
GLERY
ERK
o� ., oop ppRT�i AfigOVpER a
15 2 59
�r the
Vuli:';li! I '
tice
sSACHus
date c
' �; �-;� i.o. �i,:n ,
in the office of the f0 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
Clerk. — MASSACHUSETTS
BARD OF APPEALS
*
129 Main St. Realty Trust * petition #115-89
129 Main Street
*
N. Andover, MA 01845 ** DECISION
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, June 12,
1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room upon the application of
129 Main Street Realty Trust requesting a variance from the requirements
of Section 8, Paragraph 8.1 and Table 2 of the Zoning ByLaw so as to
permit the existing six (6) on-site parking spaces to suffice for the
change in use on this existing lot and building, on the premises located
at 129 Main Street. The following members were present and voting:
Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman, William Sullivan, Vice-chairman, Walter Soule,
Raymond Vivenzio and Anna O'Connor.
The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on May 23, 1990
and May 30, 1990 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Sodtle and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, the Board
voted to GRANT the variance as requested. The vote was as follows:
In favor - Mr. Serio, Mr. Soule, Mr. Vivenzio and Ms. O'Connor. Mr.
Sullivan was opposed to this request.
The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section
10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw and that the granting of this
variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood nor derogate from the
t ' intent and purposes of the Zoning Bylaw.
Dated this 14th day of June, 1990.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Frank Serio,,OJr.
Chairman
/awt
ii
�Nutrrh�� R�Of.1VE0 Q G
diedTO��AIjDpVER
hall be i•., isss ,� 01R 0
a�Peai s vs af'ceC the ����.u9��r ,� 59 �M'9
► H
any 7��i c1Notic DUH 5
within lii`,in
01 t;�ise Town. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
date 01 o{ th MASSACHUSETTS
in the oilice
Cie�k BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
129 Realty Trust
129 Main Street Date . . . . . .June. -14,. .1990. . . . . . . .
N. Andover, MA 01845 115 89
Petition No.. . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing. . . . .June 12, 1990
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petition of 129 Main Street Realty.Trust . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected . .129.Main .S tree t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of tt Section. 8... . . . . .
Paragraph 8.1 and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw
. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit . -the -existing- six.(6) -on-s-ite -parking -spaces. -to •suff•i•ce •€or• the -change
in use on this existing lot .and building. Six (6) spaces should be ample
• . because• the -major-i-ty -of- business- w-i-ll -be. either•deliveryf •wa•l-k-in in -town
and pick-up of food.
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to .GRANT the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a
permit to . . 129. Maiia. Stx.e.et .Realt.y. .Trust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Signed ��,,,�-� 7 (�
Frank Serio, Jr. , Chairman
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
William Sullivan, Vice-chairman(OPPOSED)
. . . . . . . . . .Walter• •Soule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .Raymond• •Viv,enzio. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Anna- O'Connor. . . . . . • . . • • . . • .
Board of Appeals
` Received by Town Clerk:
t
TOWN .OF NOR'ri1 ANDOVF:I1, MASSACIIUSETTS
1 BOARD .OF APPEALS6L:If
4 7.
! APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant_ 129 Main Street Realty Tr49Ar(e'g, P 0 Box 8180, Natick, MA 01769
1. Application is hereby made:
a) For a variance from the requirements of Section 8 Paragraph
and Table ' 8.1of the Zoning By Laws .
as
b) For a Special Permit under SectionParagraph--of the Zoning
By Laws. ^•^� �,
rn
c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the = n
Building Inspector or other authority. �?
i 413 rn
2. a) Premises affected are land_X__and building(s) g _numbered 1291
1 Main Street Street . m7'`
b) Premises affected are property wit=h frontage on tlw North
. O
South ( ) East ( ) West (X) side ofMain-Street
Street, and known as No. Street.
c) Premises affected are in Zoning District GB, an(j the. premises
affected have an area of 161641 square [ret-and froiit.ivi,� of
". 187 feet.
3. Ownership
a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all names ):
—129 Main Stt�jd't Realty Trust Co. _—
Date of Purchase Dec 86 —_Previous Owner Mr_ Wi ran
b)'. If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in the premises:
Prospective Purchaser Lesce Other (explain)
4i'4 Size of proposed building: existingront;_ feet dccl);
" .Height stories; _—_feet.
a) Approximate date of erection:_ N/A --_-
b) Occupancy or use of each floor:`___-__--_
c.) Type of 'construction:
1
5. Size of existing building: feet irocrt;_ _feet rlc:cp:
! Height --stories;_ feet.
a) Approximate date of erection:pjsi
b) Occupancy or use of eacli floor:____—_ —
c) Type of -----construction: —__ —_—_— _
G. Has there been a previous appeal, under zoning, on tl,cse 1)remis. s7
y- --- If so, when?_- (]p
es
77
c t.,!. Description of relief sought on !this petition !':to allow the existinc*[ oil
r �'.`i:� • site parking spaces to suffice for the change in use on this existing.Aot &. bldg.
Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book E'age
Land.Court Certificate No. [look 2093 Pnge 59
I
f-
_—_
he principal points upon which I base my apiAication are follows:
must be,stated in detail)
The building• is •existing and 6 spaces should,be amo e_because the majority
mousiness wwieither 'del i verT, walk
•
-The tables sh jum nrpfor edominately.
agree to pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and incidental
' xpensep*
i
• r_r—.I__ 1
---- Signature -- etitiol er(sj
be made on a form approved
:very application for action by the hoard sh,t1L
y.• the Board. These forms shall be furnished by the Clerk upon real ire.
ny. communication purporting to be an application shall. he treated as mere
otice of intention to seek relief until such time as it is made on the ,
fficiat application form. ALL information cal Led •for I>y thn form shall
e furnished by the applicant in the manner I�hercin. l�rc`ccc-ri► .' I• 1
i�
very-application shall be submitted with :r List of "t'ar. Cic In directly
hich list shall •include .the petitioner, abutters , owners of Land ddrectly
pposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the .
butters ;within' three hundred feet (300' ) of tlrc property line of theme
etitioner' as they appear . on the most recent apill icaIll e tax Li::t,
otwithstanding that the land of any such owncr is located ill another city ;c
:[ town, the Planning Board.of the city or town,. and the E'lanning Board of
very abutting city or town.
Every application shall be submitted with an application r_harye cost in :11
he amount' of $25.00. In addition, the petit_ioncr shall he responsible
or any• and all costs involved in bringing the petition lretor.e the Iioard ,,.,,;--'�I1
or illy- and
shall include inailing and ublicatiorr, but are not necessarily,. ,O
imited to these. ";'h►�?
r:t
very h
application sall be submitted with a Plan of land approved by the
pard: No petition will be brought before tine board unless said Plan has
een submitted. copies of the Board's requirements regar.dinq plans arc '
ttached'hereto or are available from the Board of Appeals upon request. I
LISP OF PARTIES Ill Ifl'L'EREST
Name
Address
• , .
use additional sheets if' necessary)
LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST
i!
MAP # PARCEL # NAME ADDRESS
j30 1 129 Main St Realty Trust, P O Box 8180 Natick, MA 0_1_7_69
130 2 Miec REalty Trust, 1001 Turnpike St., North Andover, 01845
30 3 Frye's courthouse REa ty Trust, 1001 Turnpike St., N. An over
32 Charles usn A bullock, 177 W. bare Htll Road, F 0 box5,
, MA
30 4 Paul R. Suneg Thornton School St., North Andover, MA
29 48 San Lau R.T., 109 Main St., North Andover
29 36 Richard Sherrill Lentini J.J., 56 Neck Rd, Haverhill, MA 01830
29 Malcom orwo , ,
29 34 Town of N. A. 120 Main St., North Andover, MA 0 8 5 .. �. /a
I _
�a tis
COY
f
• HORTp
N P
t ►
♦ � ,i r
r +b+,n.•''`,Cis
1 .
C Li
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Date.
6r/ 767
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
Ids,
the Board of Appeals .
II
Kindly submit $ &--e) for the following: f
Filing Fee $
I
Postage 4 $ �� a-D 0
r1
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and }
I
' II
may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main
1
Street , North Andover , Mass . 01845.
I
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
I
Audrey W. Taylor, Clerk
II,
Iti
0 '
C��
�y
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF
NORTH ANDOVEi f
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE
March 23,1989
Notice is hereby given
that the Board of Appeals TOWN OF I'
will give a hearing at the NORTH ANDOVER
Town Building, North An- I.IASSACHUSETTS dover on Tuesday the 11 BOARD OF APPEALS
day of April 1989 at 7:30 NOTICE
o'clock to all parties inter- March 23,1989
ested in the appeal of 129 Notice is hereby given
Main Street Realty Trust re- that the Board of Appeals
questing a Special Permit v:ilf g've a hearing at the
under Sec. 9.1 and 9.2 of Town E;uj'ding. North An.
the Zoning By Law so as to dover on Tuesday the 11
permit renovation and occu- day of April 1989 at 7:30
pancy of the basement area o'clock Io all parties inter.
and appeal as a party ag- estod in the appeal of 129
grieved of the building in- hlairr Stmef Really'rrust re-
spector for building and oc- geestino 2 Special Permit
cupancy permits on the ur=ler Sec 9.1 and 9.2 of
premises, located at 129- 'he 7ening By Law so as to
131 Main Street, North An- permit rellovation and occu-
dover,Massachusetts. I:ancy cif the basement area
By Order of the and appeal as a r lrty ag-
Board of Appeals grieved of the building in-
E-T—March 25,1989 - 'spector for building and oc-
cupancy permits.. on the
premises, located a, 129-
131 Main Street, North An-
clover.Massachusetts.
By Order of the
Board of Appeals
F-T--March 25,1989
�i MSI"i
f: 1866 _X
�ltNu�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE f
M.azc.h . 23 . . . . . .19.8 9
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Budding,North Andover,on. .Tuesday
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the . 1.1 . day of . . .April. . . .. . . . . . . . .
19 89 , at7.:.39'clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of
129 .Main .Street .Realty. Trust. . . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, Special Permit U d r
requesting a vYiNKSOW-of Sec.. 9e
.•. .. . . . 9.•. . . . .. .of the Zoning
By Law so as to permit. . Renovation . and. occupancy. of
the .basement . area. _and ,appeal . ?kr? . a. ,party, . .
aggrieved .of . the, building, inspector. .for. . .
build.ing. .and .pcoupancy. permits. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . .
on the premises,located at. . 1,29 7.713 i. .Mai,n. Street. . . . .
j North .Andovr, . Massachus.ettS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Order of the Board of Appeals
� r
i
1
r
AMENDMENT
RECE.IVtU l,'
Any apec slia!l be filed of NooTM ,
pIWN CLERK
'• "o ppRT11 C,tjUOVER
. o
CO), clays 7fl or the
36 aM 69
date of li.s;,� of ti,is Notice -� aFfl I9
in the Office of the down o:� ty
Clerk. y 9SS'aCHU5E,
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
129 Main Street Realty Trust
Petition: 1150-89
1 Applehill Road
*
Natick, MA 01760 * DECISION
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989 upon
the application of 129 Main Street Realty Trust, Elliot Goldstein & Jane C. DiPerri,
trustees requesting a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 9, Paragraph 9.1
and 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw and as a Party Aggreived of the Building Inspector for
building and occupancy permits, so as to renovate and occupy the basement area of
the premises located at 129-131 Main Street. The following members were present and
voting: Alfred Frizelle, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William
Sullivan, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on March 25 and March 26,
1989 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously,
that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS
BUILDING and that a,,building Aj! _qaccup !RyH perm t should kbe tissued to this petitioner.
The Board finds that the Building Inspectors decision was incorrect since the lot and
structure preexisted the changes to the Zoning ByLaw and the lot and structure are
therefore grandfathered. More specifically, any interior changes in the building may
be performed so long as the exterior shape of -the building is not affected. The Zoning
ByLaw provisions requiring site plan review and off-street parking places are inapplicable.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1989.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Al red Frizel e e
Vice Chairman
/awt
LAPR2 6 f a�-1" 2-7-9 5 /0:
t ° AMENDMENT RECE.IVEO
OANIFL LONG
Any appeal sha!I be filed °F " 7;qti° TOWN CLERK
µORTil t,NOOVER
wit • (20) c!a �s -g er the °
..
:in p I it 36 AM '89
date of of t;;is Notice
in the Office of the Town �,'-��; ;`; :• �
Clerk. 9SSq�F�SE�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
129 Main Street Realty Trust * Petition: #50-89
1 Applehill Road
*
Natick, MA 01760 * DECISION
******************************
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989 upon
the application of 129 Main Street Realty Trust, Elliot Goldstein & Jane C. DiPerri,
trustees requesting a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 9, Paragraph 9.1
and 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw and as a Party Aggreived of the Building Inspector for .
building and occupancy permits, so as to renovate and occupy the basement area of
the premises located at 129-131 Main Street. The following members were present and
voting: Alfred Frizelle, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William
Sullivan, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on March 25 and March 26,
1989 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously,
that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS
BUILDING and that a building and occupancy permit should be issued to this petitioner.
The Board finds that the Building Inspectors decision was incorrect since the lot and
structure preexisted the changes to the Zoning ByLaw and the lot and structure are
therefore grandfathered. More specifically, any interior changes in the building may
be performed so long as the exterior shape of the building is not affected. The Zoning
ByLaw provisions requiring site plan review and off-street parking places are inapplicable.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1989.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Al red Frizel e e
Vice Chairman
/awt
1 NORTH 9�
cttco +ate 0
13
w ie
SA CFHU`�E�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
129 Main Street Realty Trust * Petition: 4I50-89
1 Applehill Road
*
Natick, MA 01760 * DECISION
******************************
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989 upon
the application of 129 Main Street Realty Trust, Elliot Goldstein & Jane C. DiPerri,
trustees requesting a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 9, Paragraph 9.1
and 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw and as a Party Aggreived of the Building Inspector for
building and occupancy permits, so as to renovate and occupy the basement area of
the premises located at 129-131 Main Street. The following members were present and
voting: Alfred Frizelle, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William
Sullivan, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on March 25 and March 26,
1989 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously,
that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS
BUILDING and that a building and occupancy permit should be issued to this petitioner.
The Board finds that the petitiAenex-haG catisfi_Pd the prnv�isions� ect�-on-1.9�
Parag-r-apti-1-0-,-3-.of *hP 7.�.n�g By3.-air-aid—t-tie-gr-®trt3-ng
�!d€r-oga-t-e-�r-om-tkae
Dated this 19th day of April, 1989.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Alfred Frizelle
Chairman
/awt �J�-LCA 2�c ✓J < G'L�GVYI -tt/� .� �`'`� '` �i iL�' c -u/ G1`cmc C�e�^-Z
j �zl
7 / .
/I�•c�C � 9" ,�J ��vr,�' �l'0 �;S���a-___�z ,�F.Z �.�-�2-v+�'/JLi�
,.
o�•Nor;•h1�
< O. IL n
CHU
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD Of APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
129 Main St. Realty Trust
1 Applehill Road Date -Apri-1 •19; 1989. • • • • • • • • •
Natick, MA 01760 50 89
Petition No.. . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Date of Hearing. .Apr i 1. 11, .T9§9. .
Petition of . . .129, XAa n .$t,. Realty, Trust„ ,Elliot .Goldstein.&,Jane ,E. .DiPerri, • trustees
Premises affected . . .129-131. Kain.Stre.e.t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referringqjt
to the above petition for a rom m
p #��i�from a requirements of W.S e e t:Lon .9, . . . . .
Paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 of the Zoning ByLaw
. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit . . ..renovation and, occupancy. of. .the,bas.ement.area and.app.eal . .as. a .
Party .Aggreived of the Building Inspector for building and occupancy permits
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted . . . . . . . . . . . :Xthw
THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S LETTER DATED 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS
BUILDING. • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a
permit to 129.MainStreet. Realty. Trust. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Signed
Alfred. Frizelle, . .'-` c-g. .Chairman
William. $ul.Divan. . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . .
Au$ustine. XIgkerson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anna .O'Connor . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Louis Riss.in . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Appeals
of NowrHa
3 . `� Town Of 120 Nl1�iin Street
Of I LCP.ti c7► n North Andover.
\1'I'1=A►_ti ,%; NORTH ANDOVER M%]SSildluStItS 01845
('(?N tik3F2\',-\TION
SS�cHusE` DIVISION OF (fi l 7)685.4775
HEAL -H
1'I.i\NN►Nc; PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KAREN H.P. NELSON, DIRECTOR
April 10, 1989
John J. Willis , Jr . , Esq .
160 Pleasant Street
North Andover , MA
Re : 129 Main Street
Dear Mr. Willis :
To confirm my opinion regarding your request for plans on
129 Main Street property, please be advised that you will
have to show the location of the required parking spaces .
If the plans require in excess of 10 spaces , you will have
to submit to Site Plan Review, Sec . 8 .3 of the Zoning
By-Law.
Yours truly,
�1 (Q:r�2 I��z
D. Robert Nicetta ,
Building Inspector
DRN:gb
cc : Board of Appeals
Dir . , DPCD
�ORTN
O� .o 1ti0
°t
O L
a r
,ssACHUS�t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Date: �� (�
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice for your application before
the Board of Appeals .
Kindly submit C-o for the following:
Filing Fee $
Postage $ _ I-V �
Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and
may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main
Street, North Andover , Mass . 01845.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Audrey Taylor, Clerk
ti
Robert J. Batal Bldrs. (con'd) Page 4
Mr. Batal said that the Fire and Police Departments have no problem with these
plans. Mr. Frizelle asked if any one was in favor of this petition, and Mr. W.
Mitton from the Trustee of Reservations spoke about meeting with the applicant
and then read a letter to the Board(see file) . The agreement is that they want
rn the items stressed in the letter to be a part of the decision should it be granted.
The petitioner has not objections to this. Mr. Dunn stated that Mr. Batal is a
`(v local man but has been living in Virginia and will be returning to this area for this
\ project. He emphasized the beauty of the waterfall and the pond that is there will not
\ be touched, so there will be two ponds on the site. Mr. Batal thanked the Board for
its attention. Petitioner asked if there is a time limit on the variance and for how
long. The project would take about four or five years to be completed. Normally a
variance is good for one year(40.A) with a one year extension possible. The petitioer
wants the Board to put in the decision that the variance in the first phase(10 bldgs)
started in the first year providing the Building Permit has been issued in the first
year.
Mr. Frizelle asked if amyone was opposed to this petition and Mrs. Fink said that she
thought that 104 units on 27 acres is a very crowded purchase and wants this petition
continued so she can do more research.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously,
to CONTINUE this hearing to our May 9th meeting(Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule, O'Connor
and Rissin) .
129 Main Street Realty - Special Permit &
Party Aggreived - 129 Main Street
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney J. Willis, Jr. spoke for the petitioner.
Upper level of this site is occupied by Dunkin Donut, Pet store, and Post Office. He
stated that a plan had been filed with the Building Inspector to use the downstairs of
the building and the permit was refused. It is a 16,000 sq. ft. plus lot and need
25,000 sq. ft. There are ten (10) parking spaces on the lot now and feel that this is
enough(see 9.1 of the bylaws) The petitioner only wants to change the rooms downstairs
as far as size. Do not feel that a site review is needed for this type of change in
the building. It meets the building codes.
The Building Inspector said the basement area would need ten (10) parking spaces and
Attorney Willis did not feel that this is true. Attorney Willis said that only cosmetic
changes will be done on the inside of the building and there will not be any expansion
of the building, only a different tenant. The same doors will be used as have been
before and it will not deter from the neighborhood. The parking spaces in the back of
the Town Building can be used by the public at any time. The peitioner wants to be
able to use this building to -its potential. If the Board feels that we are not grand-
fathered in, then we will have to go to the Planning Board for a site review.
Attorney Willis read from the Zoning ByLaw about non-conforming uses of the building
and the parking requirements for this. There is no other space to put additional
parking. The assessor carries this basement space as useable and the taxes are figured
on this. Mr. Nicetta stated that the culprit is the parking and they would be
extending the non-conforming use and adding more businesses and believe one plan
shows two units but no details on their use. Without knowing what the businesses
would be, we have to figure fifteen (15) spaces for this petitioner. The businesses
that were in there were a frame shop, insurance agency, dance school and theoffice
Of Ridgewood Cemetery. Mr. Nicetta said that a Special Permit was needed for a non-
conforming use and read the bylaw to the meeting. He then showed the plans to the
Board. Attorney Willis stated that this will not be used any more than it was before
and it has been used since the 1950's for this purpose. He feels that if the petitioner
wants to change the interior of this building you can do it without any Special Permit.
and feel that it is ok and that the building predated the traffic problem in the
downtOwn and do not feel that a site plan review is needed from the Planning Board.
• 129 Main St. Realty Trust(con'd) Page 5
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted,unanimously,
that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS
BUILDING and that a building and occupancy permit should be issued to this petitioner.
The Board finds that the Building inspectors decision was incorrect since the lot and
structure preexisted the changes to the Zoning ByLaw and the lot and structure are
therefore grandfathered. More specifically, any interior changes in the building may
be performed so long as ,the exterior shape of the building is not affected. The
Zoning ByLaw provisions requiring site plan review and off-street parking places
are inapplicable. (Frizzele, Sullivan, Nickerson, O'Connor and Rissin) .
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chestnut Green at
N. A. Condo Trust - Variance - 565 Turnpike St.
The Special Permit request was withdrawn without prejudice.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted,
unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. The State DPW had no objections
to this variance according to Attorney J. Willis, Jr. and the North Andover Building
Inspector, Robert Nicetta. (Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, O'Connor and Rissin) .
DECISIONS
John C. Vajkic - Variance & Special Permit - Lot 6, Kara Lane
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted,
unanimously, to DENY the variance and Special Permit as requested. The Board finds
that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.3
and 10.4 of the Zoning bylaws and the granting of this variance and Special Permit
would adversely affect the neighborhood and derogate from the intent and purpose of
the Zoning ByLaws. (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule) .
Donald Johnston - Variance - 1717 Turnpike Street
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Frizelle, the Board voted to
GRANT the variances subject to the following conditions:
1. Only one way in and out of the site.
2. The State agrees to this one way in and out.
3. The Board of Appeals see the revised plans before the building
permit is issued.
The vote was as follows: In favor: Mr. Serio, Mr. Frizelle and Mr. Soule
Opposed: Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Sullivan
therefore the petition was DENIED.
The Board did not hear anything from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works
and felt that the premises would be too close to the highway. The Board finds that
the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Seciton 10, Paragraph 10.4
Of the Zoning Bylaws and the granting of this variance would derogate from the intent
and purposes of the Zoning ByLaw and would adversely affect the neighborhood(Serio,
Frizelle, Soule, Nickerson and Sullivan) .
Ron�A. Merino - Variance - 164 Sutton St
Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr.Sullivan, the Board voted to
grant the variances as requested. The vote of the Board is as follows: In favor;
Mr. Frizelle and Mr. Sullivan and opposed; Mr. Serio, Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Soule,