Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-09-15Ttieaday - September 15, 1964 Regular Meeting & Hearings The Board of Appeals held their regular meeting on Tuesday evening, September 15, 1964, due to the Labor Day holiday, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Building. The follo~ring members were present and voting: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman; Arthur D~,J~,.~,~.nnd, Henry E. Lurid, John J. Shields and Associate Member Howard Gilman, who sat in place of Willism Morton. 1. HEARING: Robina Knapp: Mr. O~Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Robina E. Knapp who requested a variation of Sec. 7, Para. 7.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit an addition to an existing building for business or professional use on the premises located at the north side of Main Street; 164.30 feet distant from the corner of Water Street and known as ~150 Main Street, North Andover. Mrs. Knapp spoke on her own bebs1 f and shoed a sketch of the proposed addition, Lincoln Giles is the Architect. She spoke to the abutters and they all were in favor of the addition and said it would be an improvement. She said the addition would comprise stores or offices and that there would be new businesses of a kind that are not now on the street. Mr. O'Leary said Mr. Finneran contacted h~m and that he ~as wholeheartedly in favor. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Russell, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Finneran arrived after the hearing had been held, but were in favor. Mr. Gil~n made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. CATHERINE STOEHR: Atty. John J. Willis appeared on behalf of the Stoehr petition. The hearing was held on August 10th but had been tabled until this evening in order that the Board and Atty. Willis and Mrs. Stoehr could meet again to try and amend the plans to m~ke a more favorable division. Atty. Willis said he talked with Mrs. Stoehr ~nd she agreed to allow 150 frontage on Salem Street and wants sufficient space so that a 50-ft. street could get into the 16 acre lot. Everything ~uld then comply in every ~espect except as to area. A variance will only be needed on the area. Mr. Shields made a ~tion to GRANT the variance subject to the proper plans being submitted. Mr. Gilman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. This variance is granted for the following reasons: 1. That the subject premises are located in the Rural Residential zone as defined by by By-Law which requires a street frontage of 150 feet and a lot area of 44,000 sq. ft. (Sec. 6.33). 2. That the applicant acqt~ired a parcel of land containing 0.365 acres on or about the year of 1948 and also acquired a second parcel of land abutting the aforementioned parcel which has an area of 16.2 acres, more or less. 3. The acquisition of both parcels of land was made prior to the adoption of the present zoning regulations. 4. That the applicant has provided an amendment to the 0.365 acre parcel by adding an additional 30' x 140' parcel, making a total of 0.455 acres, more or less, and thus allowing sufficient egress to the larger parcel of land which lays to the southwest of the Salem Street frontage. September 15, 1964 - Cont. 5. By reason of the l~mtted street frontage and unus,~l shape of the larger parcel at the Salem Street frontage line and having a distance of approximately 140 feet, it has become obvious that to provide proper access to the interior acreage in compliance with the current zoning requirements for subdivision and/or street development, that a provision of not less than 50 ft. retention becomes mandatory. 6. That a careful analyses and study of the peculiar shape of the larger parcel and with a view of reasonable land planning procedure coupled with practical judgment for the future end-use of the larger parcel, this Board in its decision to grant said ~ variance, found that no derogation to the ~w~ediate neighborhood or the town of North Andover would be substantial; but that if the Board insisted upon the m~,wrm of l:~:,O00 sq. ft. which could jeopardize the future use of the larger parcel which ulti- mately could be a derogation to the town of North Andover and that the larger parcells end-use would be considerably limited. 7. The Board further considered that should this petition be denied, a substantial and serious hardship would be resultant to the petitioner. 8. Since the amended lot of 0.455 acres possesses the required 150 ft. street frontage, no observable zoning non-conformity would appear to any passer-by or to any adjacent land o~ner. 2. HEARING: Leon_-~d J. Manning: 7:45 P.M. Chairm~ O'Lea~y read the legal notice in the appeal of Leonard J. Manning who re- quested a variation of Sec. 4, Para. 4.04 & 4.05 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit alterations to an emisting building to provide office and store space and living quarters on the premises located at the north side of N~ Street known as 128 Main Street, North Andover. Mr. Manning spoke on his own behalf. He showed his plans and explained that ha wants to remodel the existing building to provide a store and office on the first floor, two offices of two rooms each on the second floor, and two apartments, each having two rooms on the second floor and three on the third. Mrs. KBmpp was recorded in favor of this special permission. She said it would greatly improve the building and the street. There was no opposition. Mr. Shields said they were not proper plans, no windows were shown, no ventilation, etc. He questioned the Engineer's stamp. Mr. Manning said he contacted the Building Inspector, who suggested this type of plans and recommended John Greenwood to draw them up. ~,~. Bootman is going to do the plumbing. Ail town requirements will be adhered to. Mr. 0'Leafy noted that the legal notice gave thea~dress as 155 Main St. Mr. Manning said that was an error on his part that it should have been 128 Main St. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. O~lman said that if the plans are properly stamped the Board will~ be willing to go along. He's not going to change the building. Mr. Shields said maybe the plans are all right and he may not have to get new ones. September 15, 1964 - Cont. 3. HFARING: New England Telephone '& Telephone Co. A letter was received from the N. E. Tel. & Tel. Co. asking for permission to withdraw their petition without prejudice. It is possible they may apply again at a later date. Mr. Shields made a motion to al/ow them permission to withdraw their petition. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. GILBERT REA RENEWAL: A letter was received from the Building Inspector saying he had inspected the operations of the Gilbert Rea earth removal and that he recommended the renewal of their permit. Mr. 0~Leary said Mr. Rea had called h~ earlier and was quite upset because so, one about his trucks goiSg over Johnson and Rea Streets. Last Nay we said his own trucks could go over these streets, hers been in that business for a great number of years. Russell Donnelly of the Police Dept. called Mr. 0~Leary about the trucks and was told ~a~the Board ~ad decided, which was O.K. with the Police Dept.as long as the Board 0.K.'d it. Mr. 0'LearytoldMr. Rea it was all right for htE to use his own trucks. Mr. Drummond made a motion to renew the earth removal permit for one year. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The same resti~ction will apply. Mr. Shields said the intent and purpose of the permit was for volume moving. He has never seen the larger trucks going on the wrong roads. SIMON L.CAPONETTE: Mr. OtLeary explained thetha other members of the Board about how Caponette went to Town Counsel upon learning that his petition had been denied. This was before the decision had been signed. He then contacted his own attorney and was advised to request withdrawal of his petition without prejudice. When Mr. 0'Leary came to sign the decision and saw the request for withdrawal, he immediately phone Arnold Salisbury and was advised that the Board could take such action since the dec~ision had not been signed and officially stamped and filed by the Town Clerk. He said the Board will now consider whether it can be withdrawn. Mr. Morton said the hearings were held and it was voted to deny the petition and it should stand denied. Mr. Shields said if we allowed him to witbSraw it, it would be an illegal act. The vote is in the minutes. All members agreed that the decision should be signed as it was originally voted. Petition DENIED. Mr. Shields then questioned the Chairman's action about contacting Town Counsel. He asked do we go to Town Counsel as a'Board or as the Chs1rman. When do wa know when Town Counsel is contacted and what is said. Mr. O'Leary explained that he contacted Town Counsel on his own on this case because it was something new and it was done in a hurry. Mr. Shields said when Town Counsel is contacted the Board should know. The Board should make dedisions before going to Town Counsel. Mr. O'Leary explained that this was the first occasion that this had happened. September 15, 1964 - Cont. 1. Rohina E. Kuapp: Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance. vote was unanimous. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the The reasons for granting are as follows: 1. There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in question,which do not generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is located. 2. The requested variance will not adversely affect the public good to any substantial · extent, will be in keeping with the neighborhood and will be an asset to the town. 3. The requested variance will not be in substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. 2. Leonard J. F~_~uing: Mr. Shields said the only th~g necessary is a permit. he is adding offices on the second floor. It is a non-conforming use and Mr. Gt~m~n said he didn't tht~k he even had to come in to this Board. Mr. Shields said he was right in coE~ng in to ask for a permit. He is not changing the exterior of the b~ilding, only the use. Mr. Shields made a motion to GRANT the permit £or the rehabilitation of the property to provide offices and residential apartments to be accomplished in substantial con-~ formity to the plans submitted by the petitioner. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion. (No vote taken as yet). Mr. Morton said the plans are more as a courtesy to the Board. These plans do not have to be recorded. Mr. O'Learythinks that the plans should still be signed. Mr. Shields and Mr. Gilman think that all that's necessary is the Town Clerk's stamp. Mr. Gilman made a motion that the Chairm~ sign the plans. Mr. Shields seconded the motion. Mr. Drummond made a motion to amend Mr. Gilman's motion and have the Board sign the plans. The Chairman stepped down and seconded the motion. Mr. Drummond and Mr. O'Leary voted yes. Mr. Gilman, Mr. Shields and Mr. Lurid voted no. The Chairm-~ will sign the plans. Mr. Drummond made a motion to withdraw the original motion of Mr. Shields, because Mr. Shields wanted to change ~he motion. Mr. Gilman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. September 15, 1964 - Cont. Mr. Shields made a motion that the petition be granted and a permit issued for the petitioner to rehabilitate the subject property for a combination of business and residential uses. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was unantmons. This special permission is granted according to the provisions of Sec. 4, Para. 4.04 & 4.05 of the Zoning By-Laws. Ail of the necessary plans were signed for both hearings. Mr. O'Leary then stepped down from being Chairman and designated Mr. Gtl~n to sit in his place. Mr. O'Leary then made a motion that on aL1 future decisions, the Chairman's signature will not be put on until all of the Board members have read the decision and initialed it. He said it is proper procedure for the Board members to see the decisions before they are signed. Mr. Shields said he has often thought the same thing; the members should initial the decisions. Ail of the other members agreed. Mr. Gilman suggested reading the mt~utes of the previous meeting. The Boards have been getting a~y from that procedure. Ail of the members agreed it should be. The Board signed the following bills: N.E. Tel. & Tel. Co. 8.45 Anna Donahue - services 40.00 Mr. Gilman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. vote was unanimous. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the TI~ meeting adJommed at 9:30 P.M. Chairman Clerk