Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 9 ROCK ROAD 4/30/2018 (2)W z BOARD OF AFFMS ` OPLICATION FILINGS DATA 70 C7 . \V KC4 r Leg' al Nai4Ce " rN a . WORTHgwANOOFVEA'' - BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE it '` "` -• -' �°� n December 17, 1982 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town Building, North Andover, on Monday evening, January 10, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. to all parties in- terested in the appeal of ALAN J. - ETHUN AND WILLIAM E. LEVER requesting a review of a decision made by the Building Inspector and appropriate action to cor- rect,. restrain, and disallow the use of a residence as a dental of - five on the premises located at 9 Rock Road. By Order of the Board of Ap- peals. Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman Publish N.A. Citizen: December 23 and 30, 1982 F28-1361 December 17, 1982 Notice is herc`Sy given that tae Board of Appeals will give a heating at the Town Building, North Andover, on Monday evening, January 10, 1913 at 7:30 p.m. to all :parties interested in the appeal of «!.. N J. ET!IUN AND QTLLIAV E. LEVE" requesting a review 00 of :a ;recision made by Ve lull ding 'nspector and appropriate action FDto correct., restrain, and disallow the use of resieence as a dental oVice on the premises locates! at 9 Boca: !goad. "y Oder of the "pard of Appeals Cy: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman Publish: NOrth Andover Citizen: Seccmher 23 and 30, 1982 Send hill to: .'flan J. Ethun & 2ock Road North ,'Andover, Mass. 01545 IMN lmm�i uu vnrnIWm In a .r MRGfvxa DENTIST y/ i e� .J. ij i+i i iii i tt. RFC:fD DIN,: E . l.OtdG NOR T k., '.;,!DOVER JAN 31 f 52 PM '83 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Any appeal shall be filed within (20) days after the date of filing of this Notice in the Office of the Town Clerk. Date ...January 2 ,..19,83.. . Petition No.....3 -.'.8 3 ...... _ .... . Date of Hearing..Janua.xy, .1Q,. _x.983 Petition of ... ..................................... Premises affected ...9 . R c) . Road .......................... . ............................ . Referring to the above petition for a review. of ..a. decision made by the Building Inspector and appropriate action to .. correct, restrain, and disallow the use of a residence as a dental office 9V4S>ft>pemjit in . a.cco.rdance..with. .Section. .4..12.2 ..(.4) ..of..the. North .Andover Zoning By Law. ........................................................................................ After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to ... DENY ... the request of the petitionersgt�elx��t)xec�ildar€g��r�r�ag Signed Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman ........................................... Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk Raymond A. viyenzio, Esq, Walter F. Soule ...................................... Maurice S. Foulc?s ........................... Board of Appeals • AORTH REC- DA CR i@.iso � •°, • JAn 31 1 52 'SSA���Stt TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk Town Office Building North Andover, Mass. 01845 Dear Mr. Long: Any appeal shall be filed within (20) days after the date of filing of this Notice In the Office of the Town Clerk. . January 28, 1983 Alan Ethun and William Lever Premises Affected: 9 Rock Road Petition No. 3-183 The Board. of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday evening, January 10, 1983 upon the application of Alan Ethun and William Lever. The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on December 23 and 30, 1982, and all abutters were notified by regular mail. The following members were present at the public Nearing: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairmanc Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; Raymond A. Vivenzio,.Esq.; Walter F. Soule.; and Maurice S. Foulds. The Board rendered their decision at a Special Meeting held on Tuesday evening, January 18, 1983 with members Serio, Trepanier, Vivenzio, Soule, and Foulds again present and voting. The petitioners seek a review of a decision made by the Building Inspector and appropriate action.to correct, restrain, and disallow the use of a residence as a dental office in accordance with Section 4..122 (4) of the Zoning By Law on the premi.ses located at 9 Rock Rd. The petitioners, along with several residents of Rock Road, Tolland Road, Berkeley Road, and Foss Road, being the Trafalgar Estates Sub- division, testified that on or about November 4, 1982, several resi- dents of the subdivision andthe town submitted a complaint to the Building Inspector and requested that the use of 9 Rock Road as a dental office be investigated.'by his department. The Building In- spector's reply to this request, dated November 17, 1982, stated that, following an investigation of the premises, he found no violation of the Zoning By Law. Alan Ethun and William Lever REr Dh,fFi. LONG Premises Affected: 9 Rock Road TO',' Petition No. 3-'83 N0;;1H !"JI January 28, 1983 Page 2 JAN 31 1 52 N 183 The petitioners further testified that the following violations exist at 9 Rock Road: that the owner of the premises, Dr. Robert Franz, is not residing on the premises; that the home occupation is exceeding the allowable twenty five percent (250) of existing gross floor area of the dwelling; that the use is detrimental to the neighborhood due to increased traffic and the fact.that the dentist treats inmates of a local correctional facility; and that the signs located on the premises are not in accordance with the Zoning By Law. Attorney John Cronin, representing Dr. Franz, presented evidence and testified that Dr. Franz does, in fact, reside at 9 Rock Road; that the amount of square footage used for the home occupation does not violate the Zoning By Law; that the sign located on the premises is, in fact, smaller than that allowed by the Zoning By Law; and that the use of 9 Rock Road as a home occupation is in no way detri- mental to the neighborhood due partly to the fact that the property in question as well as the entire subdivision is located near the intersection of two highways. Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, testified that he has in- spected the premises on a number of occasions and has determined that no violation to the Zoning By Law exists at 9 Rock Road. A motion was made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Trepanier to reverse the Building Inspector's decision and annul the permit. The motion failed to carry, with members Vivenzio and Trepanier voting in favor of the motion and members Serio, Soule and Foulds voting in opposition. Therefore, the and the Zoning graph 10.4 (2). petition is denied, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40-A By Law of the Town of North Andover, Section 10, Para - Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman FS/jw cc Petitioners Dr. Robert Franz Building Inspector Parties in Interest rbc r—�•.�*� T�"=>;K NO�i T ".VER COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS fEB 17 12 n PH '83 ESSEX, SS: SUPERIOR COURT EQUITY CIVIL ACTION NO. ALAN ETHUN, PLAINTIFF * ; * VS. * TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING * COMPLAINT. BOARD OF APPEALS, FRANK SERIO,Jr., RICHARD J. TREPANIER, RAYMOND A. * UNDER M.G.L.A. CH. 40A, Sec. 17 VIVENZIO, WALTER F. SOULE, AND MAURICE S. FOULDS., MEMBERS, AND CHARLES FOSTER, BUILDING INSPECTOR The applicant invokes the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sgction 17 and respectfully represents as follows: 1. That the petitioner is Alan Ethun of 9 Rock Road, North Andover, Essex Countv, Massachusetts and is agrieved by a decision of the Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals and herein files this appeal. 2. The respondents are the Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Hall, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts, and Frank Serio, Jr., Richard J. Trepanier, Raymond A. Vivenzio, Walter.F. Soule, Maurice S. Foulds, Members, all of North Andover, Essex County, Massa- chusetts, and Charles Foster, Building Inspector for the Town of North Andover, of North Andover, who made the decision on the petition herein after referred to (see attached, Exhibit A) from which decision this appeal is taken. 3.' Your petitioner filed a petition seeking a ,review of the decision made by the Building Inspector asking the Building Inspector to correct, restrain and disallow the use of a residence as a dental office under the provisions of Sec. 4.122(4) of the North Andovt!r.Zoning By -Laws concerning the use by Dr. Robert Franz of a dwelling at 9 Rock Road, North Andover as a dental office. 4. The respondent Zoning Board of Appeals after publication and due notice sent to abutters and parties interested, held a public hearing on January 10, 1983 and that arguments were presented by the proponents and objectors to the petition. 5. At the conclusion of the meeting, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals took under advisement your petitioner's petition for review. Thereafter by decision dated January 28, 1983 and received by the Town Clerk for the Town of North Andover on January 31, 1983, the respondents denied your petitioner's request. 6. The decision of the respondents Zoning Board of Appeals made no specific findings of fact but rather reviewed the testimony of various parties including the arguments of counsel and upon Motion made and seconded by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, voted to deny the request that the decision of the Building Inspector be revoked and the permit granted annu 1 ed . 7. Your petitioner urges that the failure of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals make specific findings of fact precluded them from making the ultimate decision that the decision of the Building Inspector with regard to the issuance of a permit should not have been revoked. 8. Your petitioner further states that the decision of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals.refusing to reverse the Building Inspector's decision and annul the permit exceeded the power of the Zoning Board of Appeals in that it was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Zoning By -Laws and State Statute. 9. That the respondent Board did not take into consideration the particular circumstances attendant to the petitioner's request nor did the Board take into consideration the specific requirements of the Zoning By -Laws in the alleged violations thereof. WHEREFORE your Petitioner prays: 1. That the findings and rulings of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of North Andover refusing to reverse the Building Inspector'. Decision and annul the permit be set aside. 2. That the decision of the Building Inspector relative to the granting of the permit as set forth in the petition and decision be reversed and the permit annuled. 3. And for such further and other rel'ef t t this Court ay hm meet and just. � z N �, Alan Ethyx,_, By His atto Michael James P orahm R9 Main Sti�- North Andover, MA 01845 Tel. 689-0800 I p 1 v yCPGt iia \ ,� 1 �` ►^•'1•��Tore �1 6 i 0 1 iii 'xa4P ! ay I ,� �I tE r. 1 'Aat tits X'�r �,jqa /13ryi' � kta�t y,••.� ! ,+! 3>,1 F � f i a*� � F� r � iV v, c3.,.''r..?rs I�Y iaj �' 4" ! A•al .�i't�,<ya ��I `a t I�t�� � ; t�M I rl}` Ili wy PJ >� e 6 d ti r� S ��` .t 5� r F, f 3 .� �. 1 i �h?y `• r y. i .�c � �� y� d a• 1 1 Y %tf �i re rl 1 --•.�- -moi I W" If w ^/- wi NORTH sACMUs t� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS TO Frank Serio and Ray Vivenzio FROM Jean V7hite SUBJECT: Petition of Ethun and. Lever - 9 Rock Road DATE January 26, 1983 I am enclosing a copy of the decision I drafted for the above captioned petition. I will hold the original until I hear from both of you. Please remember that the original must be filed with the Town Clerk by Tuesday, February 1, 1983. I will also draft the decisions for Hurrell, Bradley, and Rollins Cablevision as soon as I can and forward them to you for approval. V 10 IN•� �e `i' ,. MmKi I,; Wd "ORT# °secs ved by Town Clerk: - o Gate: REyE(YED TOWIV OF WORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS «; DANIEL ITIMBOARD. OF APPEALS `^ Ti me : TDAO i..FR EE�� 1Ss�cMu`- "' `mOV'N-'W'oti ce : T.hi s appl i cati on must -be typewri tten- 0fiCJffl RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDI14ANCE A p p l i c a n t See attached A d d r e s s See attached w � 1. Application is hereby made kgs) fio'ns0sst arisulcgs sfPon sth:essisegssi,ees tsssmfs6e3rtd,omssssssssd),wna p;h.;�.> , s ds�Ts � afssthessZ-und sbyae6aww. 00� f"r- s as 63P emirbe I s Ror m4st;3 s avdorsSczo0iEms 44 0 §qnaph ®lsthe (c) As a party aggrieved, for review of a-'decis on r'rrade "by the -Bui lding Inspector or other authority. 2. (a) Premises affected are land x and building(s) x numbered located in area known as TrafalMar Street. Estates including Rock Road. (b) Premises affected are property with frontage on -the. North (x ) South (x ) East ( x) West ( ) s i d e - o fi _-'Aook,- low Rid ; Tolland, Ingalls Street, and known as No. See petitions filedStreet. �Oerkc ey Zanson Roads and St wens, acy, Union Ando -ver- Streb- s. & Raleigh.: Tavern & (c) remises aTfected are >rn Zoning District- Rl and the premises affected have an area of various square fe=et and. frontage of, various square feet. 3. Ownership (a) Jame and address of owner (if joint ownership,, -give all names): Robert Franz 9 Rock Road, North Andover Date of purchase Aug. or Sept. 182 -.Previous. Ow nerq & Elaine Stillman (b) If applicant is not owner, check his i me-re"st 'i n the prem'i ses : Prospective Purchaser Lesee 'x Other (explain) see letter ' or file with Board of Appeals 4. Size of proposed building: N/A front; N/A feet deep; and/or Bldg. Insp. Height: NA stories; N/A feet. (a) Approximate date of erection: N/A (b) Occupancy or use of each floor: (c) Type of construction: 5. Size of existing building: __ feet front; _ feet deep; Height: 2 stories; 2000 to feet. 2100 Sq. (a) Approximate date of erection:_ 1980 (b) Occupancy or use of each floor : Dental office - lst floor, Garage - storage of dental supplies and equipment, 2nd floor --unknown (c) Type of construction: Frame 6. Has there been app , previous:a eal under zoning, on these premises? No If so, when? 7. Description of relief sought on this petition We ask you to institute the appropriat action to correct, restrain and disallow the use of said residence as a dental office therebv enforciiig Zon#g By Laws of N. Andover and protect the residential nature of the neighborhood. - in accor ace with Sect. 4.121 (4), 4.122 and .123 ' 11 1 8. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book - 0025 Page or Land"Court Certificate No. Book Page (Available in Assessor's Office) - I The principal points uponwhich I' -.base ,my application . (Must be stated in detail) are as follows; si ------ 11� iuUre znan � °b2 not to exceed 1000 sq. feet devoted to such use.' No stock, commodities or products occupying space beyond these limits e)display of goods or wares visible from street, f) Premises shall not be rendered objectionable or detrimental to residential character of the neighborhood_ due to appearance, disturbance etc. or any other way become objectionable. Sect. 6:5 a) orie sign not t— excee one sq. � oo an sec clearly secondary. Home occupa ion mus be ,av for icing in newspaper and incidental expenses* j Petitioner's signature API'L T ATION FORM dtion for action by the Board shall be'made on a form Board. These forms shall be furnished by the clerk Any communiiati on purporting to be an application call treated as mere notice of intention to seek relief until uQ forma it is made on the official application form. All in - 'led for by the form shall be furnished by the applicant 1 in the ai,: , therein prescribed. on shall be submitted with a list of "Parties in i st shal 1 i ncl ijde the petitioner, abutters ,. owners y I%posite on any public or to the abutters within,thre.e hundred efeeteof the et orwaro ert petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable P P y i':,+..i thstandi ng that the land of any such owner is located the r town, the Planning Board of the city or town, and ^f every abutting city or town. "dll be submitted with an appli-cation charge, cost of ?5.00, In addition, the petitioner shall be respon- °� dny 1 cos .`s involved in brinSin the' rd. Silk: -,.sts steal V i ncl ude mai 1 i n and Petition before �'- -.ecesso, .;y limited to 'the -se, g publication, but LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST Na, e Address i Names available in Assessor's/Building Inspector's Office.. ' (List will be furnished upon request). (Use -idditi-onal sheets if necessary) NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GAS INSPECTOR November 17, 1982 Dear TEL. 688-8102 I have investigated your complaint regarding the premises located at 9 Rock Road, North Andover, and find that there is no zoning violation. Dr. Franz is conducting his dental practice in his dwelling at this location. Such use is allowed under Section 1.122 (4) of the North Andover Zoning By—Law as a home occupation. My last two inspections of the premises showed that: 1. Dr. Franz and his wife reside at the premises. 2. The use is carried on within the principal building. 3. No exterior alterations were made to the residential building. 4. Less than 25% of the gross area of the dwelling unit is being used in connection with the dental practice. 5. There is no display of goods or wares visible from the street. 6. The use of the premises by Dr. Franz is not, in my opinion, detrimental to the other residential uses in the area. In conclusion, my investigation shows that the use of the premises by Dr. Franz meets all the requirements of the Zoning By—Law for a home occupation. Very truly yours, CHARLES H. FOSTER e t,A,,-O,,.L• 1-4 INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHF : adf G1D ��� �� _ U� (RE�b��D �il�.� �'�� o� � ���� lL� r �, i � �� `�� .. - .��, `-��,�.� /,�u,� �-��'�--ate ,��'� ���-�? �- f�c-�c.�ir...e.-ate `� .�%�--�— �-z�.� ,�`—��� �-� -- - � �� .�-� .�-� ��.� ,� � .e—�..� �' ���r.�-zv � fie% ���� - �' � i��rP-�'J - �l / �e�� GLS.-�- � �--��i' .�� � A �_Z� JIA�) Ae7 pORTF1 O L FO. A 1SSACMUS�t TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS January 10, 1983 Board of Appeals Town Office Building North Andover, Mass. 01845 Re: Petition No. 3-183 - Ethun and Lever Rock Road Dear Members: Mrs. Elizabeth Elliot, 1 Berkeley Road, called the Board of Appeals office today and stated that someone from Rock Road had placed a request in her mailbox asking that she speak in favor of their petition at tonight's public hearing. Mrs. Elliot cannot attend the public hearing tonight and asked to go on record as being opposed to the request of the residents of Rock Road, being Petition No. 3-'83,.in which petitioners Alan Ethun and William Lever are requesting "a review of a de- cision of the Building Inspector and appropriate action to correct, restrain, and disallow the use of a residence as a dental office on the premises located at 9 Rock Road." Mrs. Elliot further stated that she does not feel that there is a traffic problem in the neighborhood and has no opposition to the use of 9 Rock Road as a dental office,:particularly by Dr. Robert Franz. Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS Jean E. White, ` Secretary jw December 14, 1982 Town Office Building 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 9 Rock Road North Andover, MA Gentlemen: We hereby file an application for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in Zoning By -Laws. We would appreciate copies of documents and papers constituting the records of the case in appeal. The Building Inspector is required under the Zoning By -Laws to provide this information to the Board of Appeals. Please forward these reports to us at least two weeks prior to January 10, 1983 meeting. Thank you for your cooperation and the resolution of this matter., e No. 9 Rock Road Suggested Questions for the North Andover Board of zoning Appeals to address during January 10, 1983 Hearing Concerning The Use of The Above Premises SECTION A. 1. Why didn't the appellants, Mr. Ethu n and Mr. Lever, receive copies of Mr. Foster's notes and recordings concerning his inspections of No. 9 Rock Road as they had requested? 2. What floor area of business usage -did Mr—Foster measure? What is the total square footage,of the premises as measured by Mr. Foster? 3. On what date or dates did Mr. Foster inspect the premises? Would Mr. Foster please describe the extent of his inspections? 4. Did Mr. Foster have any discussions with Mr. Franz concerning Mr. Franz's. intended 'use of the premises prior to Mr. Franz's purchase? If so, what representations were made to Mr. Foster? 5. Did Mr. Foster issue a permit for the signs erected and posted by Mr. Franz? If so, when? 6. Does Mr. Foster have copies of the revised floor plan for the premises? 7. What was building permit issued for? Were premises inspected after work was. completed? 8. Is it customary to have a residential home in North Andover without a living room or a dining room? 9. Can appellants have a copy of the building permit and revised plans? January 10, 1983 14 a 2. 10. Wouldn't Mr. Foster agree that it is customary for residential homes in neighborhoods like Rock Road to have a living room and a dining room? SECTION B. 1. When did Mr. Franz buy the house located at 9 Rock Road? 2. When did Mr. Franz commence business at 9 Rock Road? 3. Did Mr. Franz have any communications with any member of the Town of North Andover government regarding his intended use of the premises prior to such date? 4. How many patients does Mr. Franz treat? 5. How many staff are employed on the premises? 6. Does Mr. Franz plan to expand his practice? Does Mr. Franz intend to bring in additional dentists, dental hygentists, etc.? 7. How many cars does Mr. or Mrs. Franz own or lease? What type, year and model are they? 8. At what address are such cars registered? 9. Where is Mr. Franz and/or his wife registered to vote? (Bridlepath or Rock Road?) 10. What address is shown on his/her driver's license? 11. Does Mr. Franz treat any inmates of any penal or correction facilities? 12. What are names of such penal or correction facilities? 13. Has he installed extensive shelving in the garage such that the garage can no longer be used for the storage of vehicles? 14. Is the garage used for storage of dental supplies, etc.? ,4 January 10, 1983 i E Oe 3. 15. What alterations have been made to the premises since Mr. Franz purchased it? Do they include plumbing alterations of any type? 16. What did the building permit for the office alterations cover? 17. What portion of the kitchen does Mr. Franz use in his dental practice? Where does Mr. Franz wash his hands, etc. between patients? Where are dental tools, utensils, etc. sterilized and stored? 18. Is the living room of the No. 9 Rock Road used as a waiting room for Mr. Franz's patients? 19. Where does Mr. Franz physically maintain and store his business records and files? 20. How many dental chairs does Mr. Franz have in the house or in the garage? Does Mr. Franz plan to expand? 21. Does Mr. Franz perform any form of anesthesia on the premises? If so, by what mean? Is this in compliance with local and. state health and safety laws? 22. Where are the bathroom facilities located for use by patients and/or employees? 23. Where does Mr. Franz store his office supplies? 24. How many nights has Mr. Franz slept at 9 Rock Road since the date of purchase? 25. How many nights has Mrs. Franz's wife slept at 9 Rock Road since the date of purchase? 26. When did Mr. Franz-put.his_residence on Bridlepath up for sale? What is the asking price? Has this house been appraised? What is the assessed value for tax purposes? January 10, 1983 4. 27. How many buyers have looked at Bridlepath residence? Have any offers been made on the Bridlepath residence? If so, how much? 28. Where is Mr. Franz's residential phone listing? (Bridlepath or Rock Road) 29. Where is Mr. Franz's business phone listing? (Bridlepath or Rock Road) 30. Does Mr. Franz have a son in dental school? 31. Has Mr. Franz's son graduated from dental school? 32. When did or will Mr. Franz's son graduate from dental school? 33. Isn't it likely that Mr. Franz's son will be employed at this location and/or will own and run the business at this location? 34. Has Mr. Franz purchased, or in the process of purchasing any other property in North Andover or adjoining towns? If so, what.does Mr. Franz intend to use this property for? SECTION C. 1. Is the.Board aware of any prior rulings, including court cases, on the definition of a home occupation? If so, please explain their application to this matter? 2. What experience does the Board have on questions of primary and secondary residences? Could the Board cite some example s in this area? 3. Does the Board believe Mr. Franz is making a good faith effort to sell his Bridlepath residence? 4. Is it not true that all home occupations in North Andover, such January 10, 1983 a J 5. as a dental practice, are usually located on heavily traveled streets rather than in a new residential subdivision limited to single family dwellings. 5. Based on the information filed with the building permit and given at this hearing, would not the Board agree that the . present design and use of the 1st floor of No. 9 Rock Road is not customary in a building for residential use? January 10, 1983 the��� REALTORU agency 4 PUNCHARD AVE. ANDOVER, MASS. 01810 (617) 475-5100 REALTORS January 7, 1983 To whom it may concern:' As the exclusive listing broker contracted by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Franz, to sell their property at 245 Bridle Path, North Andover, Massachusetts, I verify that Dr. and Mrs. Franz are not living in the aforesaid property. I have been in and out of the property several times over the past couple of months, the house has no heat, the plumbing has been winterized (water drained and anti -freeze in the toilets and traps). There is no food in the refrigerator and there is a minimum of furniture in the house. (there is no furniture in the master bedroom) : NUItIYt E:IRtUeB QER tl.Q '. Sincerely yours, < s q'a 4rZ'_ Sally Factor, agent Howe Real Estate Agency, Inc. Howe Real Estate Agency, Inc. e I --- O nJO�bJ0gy1 S i ,C \ o Ln do NN a �WA G6 cq J � Ix - � � I y X 11f tilt, jp 4 o 00 GO U C6 T- QJ c�S " k 61 o 7 Q b Q M O Q O I 6.=.AM Re: Robert Franz D.M.D. Board of Appeals, Town of No. Andover, Main Street,No. Andover, Ma.. Dear Sirs, Mr.& Mrs. Robert 0. Leyland 312 Turnpike Street, No . Andover, Ma. 01 845 This is to relate our experience over the past twenty-five (25) years with the number of clients's cars we have seen in Dr. Franz's driveway upon arriving for and leaving after our appointment at his office. We have been there at various times of the day for dental services and have seen either one or two cars,rarel.y three,including our own. Miy husband has been his client for twenty-five yrs. -.my son and I for(4) four yrs.. There has always been a fine professional atmosphere there. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Robert and Virginia Leyland Iv C IT I z E kL�Our CAo-!,LcA-lnr\o,- c- C4 Ro!;:k—RA W A -p c, Cl CA A f -C tjt Vi Q V—\ E g 4J" An k (2C-+-� J A�C Au- �G.A Y'o-Q- t D (31--\ou(A V�C2 't pk� u\ a)> P a 4g —ol to 9-Wu4 o na i- O�kIL—g rz e 1-C, 14, our �6ck i -6,,-A�JOCA Q k c V -,C) o J X2 c )-6LA-Lb�� 4c -kA (3 YNJ C. C) v a -V AA AL -4�� . -� �� ki C� ku -k codlu��,or, -4\ck-,4 )4 L � yam_ 4 � - 4i (0) f U �A AA ;c-A-t-thlipAl o) �D-\I-JAUJ \r, 0,00 CA- 01) �j vp� D\Q, Lkr\ IQ Lk)-,, C) n jo R- I CCA k �-At� Au V�/ cXV-vD - ,V-. q .j ELIZABETH T. ELLIOT E d ONE BERKELEY ROAD NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 January 10, 1983 To The North Andover Board of Snpeals, The "Reminder" of tonight's meeting left in my mail box today re-Il.y stirred up my anger. I refused to sign an original "petition" until I could learn more of Dr. Franz' side of the story. Apparently he has the necessary ap- proval from our Building Inspector which should stop all objections. I walk and ride by Dr. Franzipropertyalmost daily and never see any heavy traffico near his property; the road is a very wide one. (There are many really heavy truck's still using the roads in connection with continuing building of houses in the area.) This appeal gives off an image of eclusiue-- ness: The wort ItTeighb2rhood has a meaning, from the dictionary, df "Friendly relations; neighboroli- ness. What has become of the respected sassing: „Live ' and le t Live! ? V am in favor of Dr. Franz having his office in his new hom'ee I am con- findent he is capable of solving any traffic problem that might 4�-A*remotely arise. (g,- Z, �r T I (fR Z � t s Legal Notice TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE December 17, 1982 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town Building, North Andover, on Monday evening, January 10, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. to all parties in- terested in the appeal of ALAN J. ETHUN AND WILLIAM E. LEVER requesting a review of a decision made by the Building Inspector and appropriate action to cor- rect, restrain, and disallow the use of a residence as a dental of- fice on the premises located at 9 Rock Road., By Order of the Board of Ap- peals. Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman Publish N.A. Citizen: December 23 and 30, 1982 F28-1361 /ou,rt C ff cz� (--nFf to A� 1 i ��, f � _ _. ---.._. � .__.__ __.._ _._. ........ .._ _ �_. ___ ._.. .. ___ I I i Garage = 22'x21'3" = 467.5 ( not included) Downstairs 26'x27'= 702 sq.ft. Miain house 13'4"x21'3"=283.26 sq.ft. family room Upstairs 26'x27'= 702 sq.ft. Main house 18'10"x 21'4"= 401.76sq.ft. Rm. over garage Total House= 2089.02 sq. ft. Office 11'x13°6" 8. =445 sq.ft.--operatory & desk area 19'x13°6"=256.5 sq.ft. minus 15 sq.ft. for hall closet closet is 2x7'6" total 241. sq.ft. waiting room Total Office 390 sq. ft. Office is 18.66% of total house Inc" Pio � �9 oa �? MICHAEL JAMES GORHAM Attorney admitted to practice in Mass. and N.H. March 4, 1983 Clerk Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals Frank Serio, Jr. Richard J. Trepanier, Raymond A. Vivenzio, Walter F. Soule, and Maurice S. Foulds and Members and Charles Foster, Building Inspector; Daniel Long, Town Clerk, Town of North Andover Take notice that the enclosed Complaint has been filed with the Essex County Superior Court on February 17, 1983 and your attention is directed to MGLA Ch. 40A, S. 17 with respect to your obligations to respond to said Complaint. This notice is sent to you as required by law. MJG/fnr Very,truly yours, Michael Jame Gorham N.H. Office: 1 Main Street Hampstead, N.H. (603) 329-6000 Mass. Office: 89 Main Street North Andover, Ma. • (617) 689-0800 Mailing address: P.O. Box 168 • Hampstead, N.H. 03841 December 6, 1982 Town of North Andover Board of Appeals 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: North Andover Board of Appeals We are in receipt of the letter from Charles H. Foster, Inspector of Buildings dated November 17, 1982. This letter was received on November 20, 1982. We do not agree with the findings outlined in Mr. Foster's letter. Based on section 4.122 (4) of the North Andover Zoning By-laws and other pertinent sections of town law, we continue to believe that the premises located at 9 Rock Road is being used as a business in violation of the applicable zoning laws. Please investigate this matter and provide us with a copy of your written report regarding this matter. We continue to be very con- cerned that the town does it's duty to protect the residential nature of our neighborhood. Sincerely, NOW 0 CJI COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS: ALAN ETHUN , PLAINTIFF * VS. * TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FRANK SERIO,,Jr., RICHARD.J. TREPANIER, RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO,.WALTER F. SOULE, AND MAURICE S. FOULDS, MEMBERS, AND CHARLES FOSTER, BUILDING INSPECTOR SUPERIOR COURT EQUITY CIVIL ACTION NO..?d, `7V COMPLAINT UNDER M.G.L.A. CH. 40A, Sec. 17 The applicant invokes the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17 and respectfully represents as follows: 1. That the petitioner is Alan Ethun of 9 Rock Road, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts and is agrieved by a decision of the Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals and herein files this appeal. 2. The respondents are the Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Hall, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts, and Frank Serio,. Jr., Richard J. Trepanier, Raymond A. Vivenzio, Walter F. Soule, Maurice S. Foulds, Members, all of north Andover, Essex County, Massa- chusetts, and Charles Foster, Building Inspector for the.Town of North Andover, of North Andover, who made the decision on the petition herein. after referred to (see attached, Exhibit A) from which decision this appeal is taken. 3. Your petitioner filed a petition seeking a'review of the decisijn made by the Building Inspector asking the Building Inspector to correct, restrain and disallow the use of a residence as a dental office under the provisions of Sec. 4.122(4) of the North Andover Zoning By -Laws concerning the use by Dr. Robert Franz of a dwelling at 9 Rock Road, North Andover as a dental office. 4. The respondent Zoning Board of Appeals after publication and due notice sent to abutters and parties interested, held a public hearing on January 10, 1983 and that arguments were presented by the proponents and objectors to the petition. 5. At the conclusion of the meeting, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals took under advisement your petitioner's petition for review. Thereafter by decision dated January 28, 1983 and received by the Town Clerk for the Town of North Andover on January 31, 1983, the respondents denied your petitioner's request. i XY ,,e . �il.. 6. The decision of the respondents Zoning Board of Appeals made no specific findings of fact but rather reviewed the testimony of various parties including the arguments of counsel and upon Motion made and seconded by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, voted to deny the request that the decision of the Building Inspector be revoked and the permit granted annuled. 7. Your petitioner urges that the failure of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals make specific findings of fact precluded them from making the ultimate decision that the decision of the Building Inspector with regard to the issuance of a permit should not have been revoked. 8. Your petitioner further states that the decision of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals refusing to reverse the Building Inspector's decision and annul the permit exceeded the power of the Zoning Board of Appeals in that it was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Zoning By -Laws and State Statute. 9. That the respondent Board did not take into consideration the particular circumstances attendant to the petitioner's request nor did the Board take into consideration the specific requirements of the Zoning By -Laws in the alleged violations thereof. WHEREFORE your Petitioner prays: 1. That the findings and rulings of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of North Andover refusing to reverse the Building Inspector'; Decision and annul the permit be set aside. 2. That the decision of the Building Inspector relative to the granting of the permit as set forth in the petition and decision be reversed and the permit annuled. 1 3: And for such further and other rel'ef that this Court ay meet and just. Alan Ether By His a(ttorne Michael James Porahm 89 Main Str North Andover, MA 01845 Tel. 689-0800