Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-01-1198 January 11, 1%5 Regular ~eting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, January 11, 1965 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Building. The following members were present and voting: Daniel T. 0'Leafy, ChA~.rman; William Morton, SeCretary; Henry E. Lurid, John J. Shields and Arthur Dx,r~ond. 1. HEARING= Joseph Filetti; 7.'30 P.M. Mr. Mortc~ read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Filetti who requested a variation of Sec. 7, Para. 7.3 of the Zo~g By-Law- so as to permit the extension of the building at 91~ Main Street to provide additional kitchen space on the premises located at the south side of ~ Street; approx. 25 feet distant from the corner of First Street and known as No. 91~ Main Street. Mr. Filetti showed his plans and explained that he would like to extend the rear of the building, known as Vales Restaurant, in order to provide additional kitchen space. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. the motion and the vote was ~_-tmous. Mr. Lurid seconded 2. HEARING: Roman& John H. Dilendik; 7~45 P.M. Mr. Morton readthe legal notice in the appeal of Joseph Filettiwhorequested a variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.31 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the subclivisio~ of three 50xlO0 lots into two 75xlOO ft. lots on the premises, located at the westerly side of Glenwood Street end known as lots 58, 59 and 60, Plan of Waverly West Park, recorded No. Essex District Reg. of Deeds as Plan #463. Atty. Ralph E. Finck represented the petitioners, both of whom were present. They wqnt to sub-divide property in order for Mr. Dilendik~s son to erect a home. Making 3 lots into 2 lots would be increasing the size cf the lots and would be more in keeping with the Zoning By-laws. This does not substantially derogate from the intent of the ZoningBy-laws. There is sewerage on the street. Atty. John J. Willis was recorded in favor. There was no opposition to the petition. The plans were dot adequate since a linen copy did not accompany the paper copies. The petitioner said he will provide the proper plans. Mr. Morton made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. WILLIAM A. & SHI~.~! M. DOUCET~: 8:00 P.M. Mr. Norton read the legal notice in the appeal of Wm. & Shirley Dcucette who re- quested a Special Permit and a variation of Sec. 4, Para. 4.11 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit a new heating system, new kitchen on second floor, new bathroom on first floor and rear exit from second floor; as sketch submitted, on the premises located at the west side of Waverly Road, 200 feet distant from the corner of 14sin Street and known as 19-21 Waverly Road. The letter of refusal from the Inspector was resd. Mrs. Doucette was present and shewed the plans to the Board. Stanley Schwalik, who is employed by ~ears, Roebuck & Co., was asked by Mrs. Doucette to speak for Ja~,=~y 11, 1965 - Cont. her and to explain everything to the Board since he had made an est~w~te of the work involved, etc. This apar*.~.nt would mean additional revenue for the petitioner and would aid in keeping up the appearance of the h~w. Atty. John J. Willis was recorded in favor. There were no abutters present and thare was ne opposition. Member Shields asked about the ventilation of. the ba~h en the second floor. Mr. Schwal~ explained that a fan would be installed and that everytMwg ~ll comply with the plumbing regulations. Mr. Morton --de a tactics to take the petition under advisement.. Mr. Dru~ seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4. HEARING: Mason W. X. D~4-~ & Louis H. McAloon; $~15 p.~. Mr. Morton read the legal, notice in the appeal of Mr. D~ & Mr. ~cAloo~ who re- quested a variation of Sec. 6, Para. 6.31 & 6.41 of the Z~_-~-~ ~y-Law so as to permit the subdivision and the sale of a portion of their land on the premises, located at the north side of Third Street; 100 feet distant fr~m the corner of Main Street and known as ~15, 17 & 23 Third Street. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioners and shewed the ~ecessary pla~s. Mr. and Mrs. Do~ning were present. They want to sell a portion ef their ~ack land to St. Michael's Church. Mr. Do~ning & Mr. l~Aloo~ have no f~her use for the back la~d a~d the church can use it for the school and as a parking area for the church. This area is to he used for a parking area and any future needs as to the school. There is no need of a variance with respect to Mr. Do~-~s land. ~r. McAlocas~s ~ is zoned for business and business requires 25,000 sq. ft, so that it needs a variance as to area en that lot. The church will fence it in to keep the children in ~he school yard. They wanted the Board to act on the petition so that there would be me future problem. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition. Mr. Dru~ond made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr, Lund seconded the motion and the vote was una~. 5. BEARING: John J. Willis; 8=30 P.M. Since it was not yet 8=30 P.M., Mr. Shields made a motion to proceed with the haar~-S and if az~one comes in after 8.'30 for this particular hearing, it ~l~ be re-epeaed. The other Board members agreed to proceed under the circumstances. Mr. Morton read the legal notice in .the appeal ef John J. Willis who requested a special permit and a variation of Sec. 4, Para. 4.11 (a) of the Z~-g By-Law so as to permit the conversion ef ~_-_ existing duplex house into four apartments, on the prem4ees, located at the w~st side of Main Street; 300 feet distant from the corner of Water Street and known as ~179-18l ~ Street. Atty. John J. Willis spoke on his o~n behalf and presented his plans ~e the Board. He said he anticipates purchasing the property just as soe~ as it is legally possible. - He has an agreement with the Adm~strators of the estate to p~rchase it. He wants to renovate the house to provide for four apartments. The let does not have 100 feet 100 January 11, 1965 - Cont. frontage but it has in excess of the required area. There is adequate space in the rear for parking facilities. It is an old house and he ~ have to provide complete ~ew pl~bing, heating, electricity, etc. He has three apartments already spleen for so that there is a great need for apartments iu North Andover. ~ember Shields questioned the egress on the top floor. Atty. Willis said that there will be stairs at the back from the window. Mr. Shields questions it as t~ fire safety. Atty. Willis said he doesn't think that it is the Boardls problem. It ~ts the re- quirements of two exits. ~ou have to consider economics too, as ~ell as technicilities. A portion of the back yard ~l be used for a hot-topped park~-~ area and drive~ay. The old garage will be taken down. Any other factors other than the area is up to the Building Inspector. He checked with the neighbors in the area and no one was opposed. Mr. Morton made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Lund seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 1. Joseph Filetti: Hr. _Luad ~ade a motion to GRANT the variance, Mr. Mortoa seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The reasons, are as follows: a. That the property under discussion is currently utilized as a restaurant serving many inhabitants of North Andover and that the proposed addition would create a more desirable expanded atmosphere and have greater compliance with the applicable re~- lations governing the end use of the existing building. b. That the side yard set-backs are not inconsistent with those now existing by many p~operties in the immediate neighborhood and area. c. That to deny the petition would result in severe financial h$~dship to the peti- tioner and restrict the up-grading and use of the present b-~lding in serving the citizens of North Andover. d. Th,t the granting of this petition wi].l not he in derogation to .the immediate neighborhood. 2. Re,an & Joh~ H. D~lendik= Mr. Shields ~ade a motion to GRANT the petition. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, subject to the presentation of proper plans. The vote was unanimous. The reasons a~e as follows= a. That lots with dwellings erected thereon in the i~ediatc area vary from 5,000 sq. ft. upwards. B. That the sub-divisic~ of land as proposed, is a more desirable method of dividing than an alternative method currently provided By our zoning regulations. January 11, 1965 - Cont. 10! c. That the existin~ dwelling now located on lot 60 and part of lot 59 to be known as lot B, will have the necessary side yard set-backs. d. That the proposed sub-division will be the highest, and Best land planning for end use. e. That the approval of the proposed sub-division will not he in derogation to.the immediate neighborhood. f. To deny. this petition would result in financial hardship and the reasonable end use of the petitioner's property. ' 3. ~m. & Shirley Doucette: Mr. Dm~=-ond_made a motion to GRANT the special permit. motion and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Morton seconded the The submitted detailed plan of the proposed conversion, upon e~mt-ation, indicated ne non-compliance with the provisions of the Zoning By-Law, the State Sanitary Cede, or Chapt. 143 of the General Laws pertaining to public safety. A copy of the decision is to be supplied to the Building Inspector and the Board of Health, the Town agencies responsible for compliance of dwelling units as provided in Section 4.7 of the Zoning By-~aws, the Building Code, the Sanitary Code and to public safety. 4. Dow-t-~ & McAloon$ The Board considered all pertinent factors pertaining to the subject petition and upom motion of Board member Morton, seconded by Mr. Lund, it was ~m~ualy voted to GRANT the petition with the restriction that the petition be so granted so as to provide and restrict tho conveyance of said property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, in conformity for the purposes to which the petition was formally filed. Granting of of the petition was for the following reasons: a. With respect to the property of Mr. Downing, the Board finds that no fundamental ch~e from the lot~ s n~n-conforming size is affected. b. That with respect to the property of Mr. ~cAlonn, that the deletion of 4,285 sq. feet will not materially ch*~e the characteristic or end use of the present lot C. c. That tho granting of this petition w~ not ho in derogation to or adversely affect the lots of the immediate neighborhood. d. That in granting this petition, a greater number of the inhabitants of ~orth Andover will gain ~se of said land. 5. Jolm J. W~llis~ The Board considered the statements of the petitioner, with respect to their authority as outlined By Atty. Willis, wherein their responsibilities and authority were li~ed only to the provisions of the required square feet per dwelling unit and to required set-backs and lot size where the various zoning requirements as outlined in the Zo-~g By-Law of the town of North Andover, Mass. This Board wishes to review their authority, which is set forth in Section 1 of the present Zoning By-Law, particularly on the follow~n~ excerpt of said Section "For the 102 January Il, 1965 - Coat. purposes set forth in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter %GA amd all acts in amend- ment thereof and in addition thereto and under the authority thereof and of the General Laws, Chapter 143 aud an~ other enabline laws, the inspectioa, materials, construction, alteration and repair, height, area, location and use of buildings and structures and the use of land, throughout the Tc~n cf North Andover are hereby regulated as heret~ provided." . It is the opinion of this Board that the provisions of Para. 4.7 does come under +~he requirements of the General Laws, Chapter 143, which pert-~-s te public safety. This Board further contends that under the provisions of Section 4.7~ that Art. 2 of the State Sanitary Code adopted and made a provision of Section 5 of Chapter 111 of the General Laws as .m~nded by Chapter 522 of the Acts of 1959 and by Chapter 172 of the Acts of 1960 are matters of consideration for the Zo~wg Board of Appeals. That said Sanitary Code is a current prevailing law which takes precedence over the mini- mu~ standards of fitness for h~man habitation which was adopted by the to~n of N~rth Andover under the authority of General Laws, Chapter IL1, Section 128-0 and which ca~_ effective June 1, 1959. This Board concludes that in the considering of any petition for the granting of permissive use which creates dwellt-E ,m~ts wi+.hq- the scope of the State Sanitary Code or public safety of the inhabitants of the town of North Andover. That they have a prime responsibility to insure that approval of said permissive use will e~compass all applicable provisions thereof. It was moved by Rt. Shields, that the petition be GRAFTED provided all enabling laws pertinent to said petition be made a requirement for full compliance ~by the petitioner and that the petitioner submit a detailed architectural set of plans to the Building Inspector, outlining the dwelling units proposed and indicating thereon such infor$ mation as will insure adequacy of compliance with the Buil~E Code amd the Sanitary Code. And to more specifically require an acceptable second medium of egress frc~ the second floor dwelling ,m~ts which is hereby designated to be an unobstructed medium of egress and more specifically, a full passage door. That a copy of this decisiom is to be furnished to the Building Inspector and the Board of Health, the town agencies cbewged with insuring compliance with various enabling laws. Mr. Lurid seconded the motion and the vote was SIGNING BILLS: Chairman 0'Leafy expl~t~ed to the Board members that he approved the expenses for the previous month because all bills had to be subaitte.d to the Town Accountant before aom~ today. Rt. ~hields made a motion to empowar the Chairma~n to sign any bills. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was NtI~NO: Chairman 0'Leafy read a letter that was sent to Town Counsel at the re~mest of Atty. Willis regarding the Narino hearing held in December. Town Counsel's interpretation was asked in reference to the following questions: Must a person who ouns two lots fronting on separate streotswhich otherwise would qualify for the exemption from the Zoning Law under the provisions of General Laws, Chapter /JLA, Section SA, join the two lots together so as to more nearly comply with the m~imum lot area requirements of our Zoning Law. In the event that you ruletthat January ll, 1965 - Co~t. 103 they do not need to be Joined together, then the further question: · Must the Board of Appeals upon petition grant a veria~ce so as to allow the construction of a building on each of the lots so laid out. Thus, ~ question is, does the Statute provide that adjoining means side By side or street frontage. Mr. O'Lear~ explained that the Board's decision has alreac~ Been ~ade to deny the Marino petition, but whatever information is received from Town Counsel ~ay be of some help to the Board. The meeting.adjourned at 9:30 AD