Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-20October 20, 1975 - Monday Regular Meeting The ~ 01~ APPEALS held its regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, October 20, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building. The following members were present and vo~ing: ~ank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Louis Di~Tuscio, James D. Noble, Jr., and Assoc.. Nember, Ralph Joyce, Jr. There were approximately l0 visitors present. PUBLIC HFARINGS: 1. ~ CORPC~ATION - The clerk read the legal notice after which At~. John J. Willis introduced himself as representing Mr. Vale~te. Mr. Willis told the BOARD that he was before them to renew a permit which was renewed on Sept. 16th las~ y~ar with certain conditions which they have fulfilled. The only plan available on this location is the original plan submitted with the original application. He has engaged an engineer- ing firm to draw up a current plan, he said. Mr. Willis stated that Mr. Valente had indicated to him that there is very little construction work going on and Valente has been unable to put anything b~ck into it as far as restoring the pit; it is still ex- cavated and there are some large stones which still r.main there. The Building Inspector had talked to Mr. Willis and ~ated these same things. The l~sic reason for this, said Mr. Willis, is one of economics and we would like to continue the permit as it exists. Nis comment that they do not intend to do anything unless there is a sudden ~pswing in the economy was directed mainly tO%he abutters. Mr. Serio asked about the new Earth Removal By-Law's application to this petition. Mr. Willis stated that he felt it did not apply and that this by-law can't affect a non- conforming use. He then referred to the first sentence of Sec. 5 of Ch. 40A which he thought specifically applied to this circumstance because it is a law that has been made part of our existing by-law. Mr. Frizelle then questioned the applicability of the permit section of the new l~law and cited a court case, Keller vs. Town of Pembrook. Mr. Willis refer%ed that they do ~ have an existing permit that is a~4v different tha~what was in existence at the time the by-law was passed. A length~ discussion ensued which br~,~ght out the fact that cur by-law states that "...all earth removal permits ~sued prior to the effective date of this section, shall remain in effect until their expiration date~ The BOARD felt that this presented a problem and queried about under which section of this by-law it applies. Atty. Willis stated that you cannot change a non-conforming use to the extent that it was in effect at the time the new by-law was passed. Mr. Frizelle asked Mr. Salemme what his interpretation wasan~Mr. S~lem~e stated that since he had heardNr. Willis' ar~ment, he was confused. How much longer does Mr. Valente intend to operate this pit, asked Mr. Serio~ Mr. Willis replied that in light of the BOARD'S decision of last year he has at leas% two more years. I suppose it will be determined by the econ~and need for this type of material. Mr. Noble questioned whether or n~ it was a renewal-~a%whether it has expired. Now, this is a new argument said Mr. Frizelle which takes it c~i(of the area.of renewal and into the area of a continuation. Member Salemme asked if there is any plan for restoring the properly and Mr. Willis e~aborated that because of economics it i~ impossible to restore it the way it should be. It was noted that we hold a $10,000 bond. The BOARD looked over the map and talked with Mr. Valente about what had been done. Mr. Valente said thatthere were really no changes. He is going to maintain a grade of 4 f~. above the water table. Mr. Salemme's opinion October 20, 1975 - cont. about the general state of the area was that it is spotty, there are some areas that could use restoring and that they had not gone within 100 ft. or so of abutters prop- er~y. Mr. Yalente stated that he did not think he could finish it up in two years, Mr. ~h~izelle commented that, in looking through the files, Coohichewick RealtY obtained the first permit. Mr. Willis represented them, also, and this was in June, 1964. Mr. Noble ~uestioned what section of the by-law the BOARD would be operating under, the old section or the new section. Mr. l~rizelle s~id that he thought it would be the cue in existence in 1969. Mr. Noble spoke about the BOARD sitting as a licensing commissio~ such as the one that issues liquor licenses and couldn't see why this differs from those that have to co, form to rules ~or other licenses)that change. Mr. ~rizelle ~tated t~t the difference is in the proper~y rights, ' there is a distinction in the law between a license and a permit. Nmrry Thomas, Boxford St., told the BOARD as a reminder that when he came in with the old by-law last year he (Thomas) and John Willis h~ a verbal dis- oussion regarding this m~tter. Mr. Thomas stated that he was overruled at that time. Mr. Saleratus brought out that it is possible that these conditions were not all enforced such as the slope of the floor. A discussion followed regarding conditions, but no conclusions. A letter from the B~ilding Inspector dated October 2Otb was rea~ and is on file. THEP~E WAS NO OPPOSITION VOICED. Member Noble suggested that the BOARD ought to review all these permits and ~,,,m~rize them in order to have a clearer picture of the matter. Mr. ~rizelle made a motion to ex~end the permit for another year based on the conditions contained in last year's'per- mit and all permits previously issued applying to this parcel of land. Mr. Saleratus seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Frizelle then made a motion to appoint Mr. Noble to reView the file and write the decision. Mr. Saleratus seconded a~d the vote was unanimous. 2. SCO~ PROPERTIES, INC. - Mr. John Turtle represented Scott Properties and stated that about the middle of September they efltered into a Purchase and Sale agreement on what they thought was a buildable lot. The lot has just slightly less than 3 acres and 124 feet of frontage. He advised the BOARD that on the plan they were shown there was no notation tb~t it would not be a buildable lot. They later checked the plan as recorded at the Registry of Deeds and found that there was a notation on it that Lot 2 in North Andover would not be a buildable lot. Mr. Turtle said he did not want to blame anyone, but that they are stuck with the land. Mr. I~,~u, an abutter, stated that he purchased his property about 3 years ago and on the plan he has the notation referred to above is noted. Ne felt that the land was left as a right of way. The NOAPJ) was told that George Chongris has title to the property at present and that this land was cut off and made useless by the Conservation Commission of Andover. They made this a green belt. Mr. ~izelle asked Mr. Turtle if he didn't purchase a~ his peril knowing what he knew because on the Purchase and Bale agreement it was stated that the plan was recorded at the Registry. Turtle said that he has never had the occasion in the past to go ,to the Registry if he had a plan signed by Boards and a registered engineer. We are asking for a small variance on frontage and it will not adversely affect the area, he said. We are just going to build one house where we could build two, the land lies in two towns and it could be, technically and physically, subdivided. There is no sther access. This is a unique situation, stated Mr. Turtle, and mentioned that they would suffer the loss of the amount of the contract. October 20, 1975 - cont. The letter from the Building Inspector dated October 20th was read and is on file and the letter from the Planning Board was also read. Mr. Dunn voiced concern about the ri~k of having a house plopped within ~,:feet of his property line. Mr. Turtle stated that he will build on the part that opens up(as shown on the plan), if it makes any difference. Mr. F~izelle made a motion to take the matter under advisement and Mr. S~lemme seconded. ~e vote was unanimous. Mr. Eugene StouzSnski inquired about who to see regarding the filling in of Wetlands. The BOARD advised him to see the Building Inspector. WEBBER'S OF NORTH ANDOVER: The BOARD allowed withdrawal without prejudice of the original application. Messers. Salemme, Serio, ~rizelle and Joyce voting on this decision. A motion was made by Mr. ~rizelle to GRANT the variance requested in each of the applications dated Aug- ust 17, 1975 which pertained to Sec. 6.2, 6.3 and Table 2. Mr. S~lemme seconded and the vote was ,m~uimous. CHRISTOPHER ADAMS: The Chairman read the letter from the Building Zmspec~or dated Octo- ber 20th; the letter is on file in the office. The BOARD will view the site in %he first part of Nay. WATSON GRAVELPIT: BOARD to view the site on Saturday, October 25th at 10:30 A.M. The secretary will notify Jay Willis. AMENDMENT TO BOARD OF APPEALS RULES AND REGULATIONS: Art. II, Sec. 3 - a motion was made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Salemme that the plans accompanying applica- tions for vmriances and special permits shall be submitted 14 days prior to the hearing date; if the plans are not received by this time, the application will not be considered and re-application shall be necessary. The vote on the motion was unanimous. This change is to be effective immediately. RULES AND REGULATIONS: A motion was made by Mr. Salemme to form a committee to review the BOARD'S t~ules & Regs. Mr. Noble seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Joyce, Mr. Noble and Mr. Salemme were appointed to serve on this committee. SCOTT PROPERTIES - (the 5 regular members) Mr. Frizelle made a motion to DENY the v~riance and Mr. Di~ruscio seconded. During a short discussion, the reason for denial was given as the fact that the petitioner does not meet the requirements of Sec. 9.5 of the By-Law. When he purchased the property, said Frizelle, he either knew or should have known the requirements for frontage. If it was fraud he does have a remedy and would not have to pay the $10,000. The burden of truth is on him. The BOARD felt that we should not grant a v~riance to the detriment of the Town. The vote on the motion was unanimous. MISCELLANEOUS NA~2~S: Letter from Arnold Salisbury Re Archdiocese was read by the Chairmmn and is on file. Christmas Memo Re Party at Butcher Boy on Dec. 9th was read by the Chairman. October 20, 1975 - cont. The BOARD members directed ~he seoretary %o send an enrollmen% for Phillip Arsenault's (former Board member) mother who was recently deceased. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Ch~irman