Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-01-1335 The Board of Appeals held their regular ~eeting ca M~nday evening, January 13, 1964 at 7:30 P.M. in +~he T~ Building..The following sera,ers ~ere present and voting.' Daniel T. 0'Leafy, Chairman; William ~orton, Secretary; John J. Shields, Arthur Drum~ and Assoc. ~em. Robert J. Burke, who eat in place of ~en~y Lund. Associate M~ber Alfred Boeg~4- was also present. 1. HEARING: Derm4e D. Evangelos. Seoretary Hortcm read the legal notice in the appeal of Den-Cs D. Evengelos who requested a variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.32 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the divisica of a parcel of land into three lots; as per attached plan, ca the premises located at the west side of Waverly Road, from the corner of ~argate Street to ~he corner of ~*ax Strcst. Mr. & Mrs. Evangelos were present to explai~ they ~ted the deed ~ up to date since the origtmal lots no l~ger applied under the present zoning. There were no abutters present and there was no oppositien. Mr. Morton made a ~ction to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Burke the motien and the vote was ~s. 2. HEARING:' Frederick W. Phelan. Secretary Morton read the legal notice in the appeal of Frederick W. Phelan, who requested a variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots, as per attached plan, on the premises located at the sou+~b side of Prospect Street, 400 feet distant from the corner of Furber Avenue, known as 48 Prospect Street. Mr. Phelan and his son-in-law were present and explained that they did not __hevo the necessary plans, that Atty. Donald Smith was handling the case and that he may have tb.m~ The Board adjourned the hearing until 9=00 P.~ so that the petiticaer would have. time to contact, the Attorney. The meeting then adjourned to the Fire Station for the next hearing, since there were over 75 people present. 3. ~.A~ING: Fred Findlen. Seoretary NeTton read the legal notice in the appeal of, ~ Findlen, who requested a variation of Seo. 6, P~ra. 6.32 of the Zo-~-~ By. Law so as to permit the use of a lot containing 233,000 sq. feet w~_ve or less, but which lot does not have sufficient frontage on a public way, on the premises, located at the west side of Osgood Street; 200 feet distant fro~ the corner of Chadwick Street, known as 812 Osgood Street. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioner. Atty. Ralph E. Finok represented a large number of the abutters present, who are opposed to the petition, and said the legal notice was not sufficient according to law. Atty. Willis e~plained that the notice is all right since all they are asking for is a variance for the frontage. It is not necessary to ~peoi~ the usage since the Zo-~E By-Law provides for Rest ~°a~s ~n Residential areas. Atty. Finck said that in 1961 the Board of Appeals at a previous hearing for this parcel of lend, put on a stipulation in their decision that only a ~ family dwe~4-g is allowed. Chairman 0'Leafy read the decision made by the Board of Appeals on April 2~, 1961, in order to clarii~r the s~tuation to the people present. Hr. Finek requested that the petition be di~w~.ssed. l~abers Shields $~_d Burke said the Board should proceed with the hearing. Atty. Finck questioaed wh~ Atty. oZelest ~as present. Atty. Willis said that he will not speak, he is Just present. Atty. Will.t. then proceeded to ex~lA~m the pe.ti+~ioner's request. Be said after a two year's ~aiting period, another hearing can be held on a parcel of land. In 1961 · they were merely granted a variance with respect to the fr=mt lot line. (Be read a portion of a letter from Atty. Salisbury referring to specific sections of the law.) We are now before you on a new petition, under a new owmer, to see whethe_r or not he is entitled to a variance. Atty. Finck said t~s particular decision was put on to ]~w~t the use of this parti- cular property to s~_-~le f~lies, now you want to come in for a 100-bed Nursing home. Atty. l~illie says this ia no violation cf the Zoning By-Law. The law says a rest hc~e is allowed in a residence district. We are here for a variance ca the front lot line and the Board will hear it on these merits and can either deny or grant it. Tt is a simple issue. Me~ber Shields suggested that the hearing should proceed and consider later the merits, etc. Member Morton agreed. Atty. Finck asked Atty. Willis if he had any proof that Hr. Findlen was the owner of the property. Atty. ~]lis said he had none with h~n, but he could cheek the Assessorts records. Atty. Willis then made a request that Member Burke' disquali~ h,m-elf frc~ sitting on this particular hearing as a member of the Board, since he was an agent of Es~,~e Homes and sold homes to the peeple on Colgate Drive. Hr. Burke diSq,,-l~fied h~self. Assoc. Member. Al*red Boegliu sat in his plane. Atty. ~illis then proceeded saying he represented Mr. Fred Findle= wBo purchased this land at a time when there was outstanding a variance granted by this Board in April,. 1961, to ~illiam S~--, with respect to the frontage requirement on this parcel. Bad acted on another parcel o~ned by S. Lo,esso, that had stw~ar frontage, but with no ~tation as to single f~m~ly dwelling. There are 73 fee~ on 0sgood Street amd 70 feet on Colgate Drive. The petitioner ~nts to provide a tax-pe~dueing piece of property. The house on the pro~y now is in a state of dis-repair. This is a type of development that would be in the best interests of the tram. They anticipate spending $500,000 on this building. There is a sincere smd honest need in this town for convalescent hc~es, they are needed greatly. This is a type of operation that w~ll cause no more concern th~ a single family dwelling. It v~l provide a need the town can use. The ~,~1~ Inspector fiztt told Hr. Findlen that a rest hc~e is allowed and then later discovered that it was ~w~ted to a single family residence. The petitioner had already hecc~e greatly involved f~na~cially. It would produce a substantial hardship. January/3, 196~ - Cont. It WOuld not be detrimental to the people, but would benefit rhea. A similar operet~on is located not very far frc~ this parcel. Ail abutters are aware of it. The building would be placed in the center of the lot. There would be substantial approach in both ways, adequate protection for all concer~ed. Colgate Drive would be used very little. Osgood Street is the more direct approach. There is a hardship with conditions especially affecting this parcel. There is no other land available to provide for more frontage on the street. This ~ll provide a~ increase in taxes which is needed greatly in North Andover. Atty. Ralph Finok spoke, representing a large ~-w~er of abutters in the area. ltq can't understand how these people have the audacity to bring such a plan to this Board. Noth~8 is shown on the plans for a nursing h~ae. This beard should d~ss this petitio~ since there is no plan sho~n8 what they are going to do. ~e sti~_l feels that the notice is inadequate. Shenn asked that this parcel be restricted to a residence. People relied on that decision and Bought houses and continue to live there. A rest home here is not for the best interests for the town of North A~dover. The Board made its decision to restrict a single residence and shottld stick to this decision. There are alot of children in this area. A lO0-bed nursing home is s~m~areto a lO0-bed hospital. We don't know where the park~8 facilities are going to be. There is nothing to show any facilities on the property. He th~ the property is still under an option arrangement; there is no show of ownership as to Mr. Findlen. The people have put in their ]~fe savings to live in this area. There is no existence of any hardship to the petitioner. Under the C~neral Laws, this Board should grant variances very sparingly. The Board is bound by their previous decision. They should de~ the variance this time. M~. Torrisi, an abutter, questioned the width of the entrances. Atty. ~illis said the entire area contained 133,000 sq. ft. more or less. Mr. O'Leary, Chairman, asked if any one was in favor; if anyone was against the petition. Mrs. Bush, 58 Colgate ~ive, said it Would not be a benefit to the neighborhood.. She works in a hospital and ~nows how much traffic would be coming in and out. The most norman approach ~odld be on Colgate Drive. There are no sidewalks and there are alot of ~hildren in the neighborhood. Mrs. Ortho Lincoln, 814 Osgood St., S~s her house faces the driveway that w~uld be coming in to the nursing home. There would be a traffic problem. It would devaluate her property. Mr. Fitzpatrick, 100 Colgate Drive, s~id he feels Atty. Finck could represent all of' the people very well end that he could reply for them. Mr. Robert Burke said this hearing does not concern a rest home. It concerns a variance w~ich they already have. ~ should they have another one? Atty. ~illis ssid it is not the variance they w-a~t. Mr. Finck said he th~nks Mr. B~rke should be heard. Mr. Burke said they are asking for a variance for a right of Atty. Willis said the variance they Have is for a single fam~ ly residence. Member Morton said Mr. Shann asked that it be stipulated fo~ a single family residence. At the time he was having mortgage difficulties. The relief is there and. now further relief is wanted on this same lo~. ~ow ma~y t~m~s does relief Have to be granted on the same parcel of land? January 13, 1964 - Cont. Atty. Willis furthe~ e~olained Shann's difficulties and spoke about the l~d Shann sold to Mr. Lomazzo. Mr. Lomazzo spoke up and said no b~s were involved ~d that the wrong picture was being shu,~. The follo-~ng list of hanes was taken as opposed to The petition: Mr. & Mrs. Mr. & Mrs. Mr. & Mrs. Mr. & Mrs. Mr.&Mrs. Mr. &Mrs. Mr.&Mrs. Angelo Torrisi~ 8§ Colgate Drive Anthony Pellicciene, 95 Colgate Drive C. Richard Pendak, 83 Colgate Drive Joseph C. Keleher, 64 Colgate Drive W. F. Moran, 145 Chadwick St. Francis Kenneally, 67 Colgate Drive John Danahy, 400 Dale St. Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Bash, 58 Colgate Drive Mrs. Albert Rizzio, 112 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs..Albert DeCola, 135 Moody St. Nr. & Mrs. Frank Hilton, 121 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs. Arnold MacCollum, 126 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs. Robert Wilkinson, 107 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs. John R. Daly, 153 Chadwick St. Mr. & Mrs. Leo Donovan, ?6 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs. Dm~iel O'~Connor, 165 Chadwick St. Mr. George Fitzpatrick, 100 Colgate Drive Mr. Daniel Sullivan, 838 Osgood St. Mr. Edward Regan, Jr., 850 Osgood St. Mr. Edwin McCue, 133 Chadwick St. Mr. Alfred Gardener, ?9 Moody St. Mr. Wallace Nicker~n, 100 Moody St. Rev. & Mrs. C. A. Shields, Jr., 14 Colgate Drive Mr. & Mrs. Jsmms McDonald, 25 Colgate Drive Mr. Chester Pendak, 83 Colgate Drive Mrs. Rath Magoon, 51 Moody St. Mr. John Puopolo, 826 Osgood St. Mr. & Mrs. Ortho Lincoln, 814 Osgood St. Dr. & Mrs. Cary Moured, 800 Osgood St. Mr. & Mrs. Salvatore M. Lomazzo, 159 Chadwick St. Mr. Daly explained they are not against a ~ne family residence. ~ey vmmt to keep it a residential area. Atty. Willis said he would like to introduce Atty. S~elest, who is interested in the nursing h~me and is the man who Bas the purchase of the l~nd under option. He can provide a certified copy of the deed in which Fred Findlen is the deeder. He can provide all the proof necessary as to ownership of this land. Atty. Finck said he had no objection to Mr. Szelest. He was concerned about giving a description of something w~thout a plan of it. Mr. Torrisi said Atty. Willis ssid Mr. Czelest wouldntt speak here tonight. Atty. ~illis explained further that They are asking for a variance with respect to lot frontage but without The ~estriction of a single fm~ily dwelling. A rest home is allqwed in a residential area. If we had '125 feet frontage, we would not have to be before this Board. Everyone has strs~ed a little far from the issae in question. 13, 1964- 0ont. The question is whether or not you will grant a variance. We don~t have to submit plans of a building; this Board has nothing to say about that. Th~ Building Inspector will determine the type of construction, etc. If they feel /hat a variance should not be granted, then they should decide that. Atty. Finck said it is still a variance granted by a Zoning Board. A variance does not run with indivldnals; it runs with the land and not with /he owner. The restriction for a single family dwelling is sti.~.~ there. It was p~t in a restricted residential area. What rights do the abutters have? /hey bought the land, built and settled here and were happy when a single family dwelling was to be. Now three years later, s~eone comes in, not from t~w~, to build a nursing home. This board has a duty to these people to keep a single family residence in the area. Heag~t~ wants to bring attention to the Board that he objects to the notice in the paper. Mr. ~hields m_~_de a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the ~ote was unanimous. This hearing ended at 9:15 P.M. On motion of Mr. Shields, the Board had a 15 minute recess. Word was received that the ~plans for the Phelan hearing could not be available for this evening. The hearing will be postponed until the following Monday at 7:30 P.M., Jan. 20th. 4. H~t~E: M. & S. Building & Const~ction Co. Secretary Morton read the legal notice in the appeal of M. & S. Building & Constr~ction Co. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 4, Para. 4.4~ of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the premises located at 100-102 Sutton Street, to be used for the purpose of a restaurant on the premises, located at ~he north side of Sutton Street; ~00 feet distant from the corner of Main Street and known as No. 100-102 Sutton Street. Atty. John ~illis represented the petitioner. Member Shields disqualified himself from sitting on this hearing. Atty. ~illis explat~d that the buil~ug at 100-102 Sutton St. is the building where Mr. Shields operated his appliance and display area. This is in an Industrial Zone. Under the Zoning By-Law a Site Plan Review is necessary. The building is a converted 2-story house. He intends to re-locate the parking area to the rear. There will be a drive-ws~ do~ both aides of the building to the pro- posed parking area. Mr. & Mrs. Lawl~ee said they don't want cars parking on their property, which abuts directly. Unless they want to buy ~heir property. Mr. Shields asked them if it w~s for sale. They waid it was. Atty. Willis said that the area on the side will probably be planted or something, so that nobody will go onto Lavallee's property. Mr. Shields said the Board can stipulate a fence or shrubbery. Mr. & Mrs. Lavallee said the only solution was to buy their property. Chairman OtLeary asked what the restaurant consisted ~f. Atty. Willis said it would occupy the first floor. What is there now, will be out within 2 months. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Norton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4O January 13, 1964 - Cent. 5. HEAP~: Lloyd D. Bauchman, Jr. This hearing began at 9:40 P.M. Secretary Morton read the legal notice in the appeal of Lloyd D. B~chman, Jr. who requested a variation of Sec. 7, Para. 7.23 of the Zoning By-Laws so as to permit a two-stall garage, of concrete blocks, and carport roof, on the premises located at the south side of Water Street; at the co~ner of Wiley Court. Mr. Bauchman showed the Board his building Dermit and explained tha% he went ahead and b,,tlt the garage. He rebntlt it on his ~rese~t foundation. The size of the building is the same as the existing garage. He put up c~ent blocks so that it increased the size of the garage. He didn't have the necessary plans with him. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton secanded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ~. Burke made a motion to~,."' ~'.~'~ the variance. Mr. M~ton seconded the mobion ~nd the vote was unanimous. The four re~sons for granting will apply. 2. Frederick W. Phe!~n: This hearing is postponed until Monday, January ~Oth. 3. Fred Findlen: Mr. Shields made a motion to D~,~Y the wriance bec~se 1. ~ methods of relief have not been e~hausted. 2. The applicant will suffer no substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. 3. The purchase of this property was made will full knowledge of the variance already on it. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4. M. & S. Building ,~% Construction Co. Mr. B~rke made a motic~ to G?~MT the special permit. and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Morton seconded the motion 5. Lloyd C. Bauchmann, Jr. Mr. S~ields made a motion to G~;T the variance subject to receipt of proper plans. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M i ' - Chsirman Clerk