Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-02-08 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
3,1 �M Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Members Associate Members Roan R.Faigen, Chair Michael T.Lis Alexandria A.Jacobs,Esq., Vice-Chair Steven R.Seide Allan Cuscia, Clerk Frank J.Killilea Ellen P.McIntyre Zoning Enforcement Officer D.Paul Koch,Jr.,Esq. low Paul G.Hutchins MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: 'Tuesday, February 08, 2022 Time of Meeting: 7:30 p.m.. Location of Meeting: Town Hall, 120 Main Street,North Andover, MA 01845 and Remote Signature: Jennfer(Batters6y Town Clerk Date Stamp: 1. Call to Order called at 7:31 pan. Members Present: Ronn R. Faigen, Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq. (via remote participation), Allan. Cuscia, D. Paul Koch,Jr. (Acting Chair for 34 Wentworth Avenue), Ellen 1). McIntyre (via remote participation), Michael T'. Lis, Steven R. Seide, and. Frank.J. Killilea Staff Present: Jennifer Battersby Gavel given to: Ronn R. Faigen Pledge of Allegiance Chair reads the Supplemental Hybrid Legal Notice into the record. D. Paul Koch, Jr. is Acting Chair for 34 Wentworth Avenue matters. 2. Acceptance of Minutes Motion made by A. Cuscia to accept the January 11, 2022 meeting minutes. Seconded by Frank J. Killilea, S. Seide voted yes. E. McIntyre voted yes. P. Koch voted yes. A. Cuscia voted yes. M. Lis voted yes. F. Killilea voted yes. A. Jacobs voted yes. The motion to approve is unanimous. 3. Continued Public hearing of 34 Wenihvorth Avenue The petition of Jonathan Grasso for property at 34 Wenihvorth Avenue(Map 067.0, Parcel 0002), North Andover, MA 01845 in the R-4 Zoning District. The Applicant is requesting a.Finding pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 1.95-7.8 Exceptions in the R-4 Zoning District for the purpose of overturning the Building Inspector's Denial dated October 14, 2001; specifically,Applicant seeks a Finding from"Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws for the application of Section 195-7.8 Exceptions to the requirements of Section 195-7.1 Lot Area, Section 195-7.2 Street Frontage, Section 195-7.3 Yards (setbacks), and Table 2: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for the purpose of overturning the Building Inspector's Denial and allowing the construction of a new 23' x 35' single family residence on a vacant lot. Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours ill advance of a meeting cxcludiue Satiu•days,Sundays,and legal holidays. Please licep in mind the Town Cleric's bourn of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure that posting is made in an adequate amount of tine. A listing of topics the Chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at a meeting are to be listed oil the Agenda. Note: Matters nnav be called out of order and not its they appear in the Agenda. Page 1 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS P. Koch is Acting Chair. A. Jacobs is recused. P. Koch summarizes his discussions with Town Counsel. The materials that Applicant has offered do not show a case law that is directly on point to support a lot size under 5,000 sf and less than 50 ft. of frontage. Therefore the Bylaw would be upheld. The decisions that the board makes need to be defensible at a minimum. Applicants and abutters have the right to appeal a Zoning Board of Appeals decision, A rejection is defensible. An approval would be indefensible. E. McIntyre stated that Applicant's response wasn't received by the deadline and therefore, is unacceptable and she would not consider it. M. Lis thinks the grandfathering rule is straightforward. S. Seide is in alignment with the discussions. A. Cuscia fully agrees with Town Counsel. P. Koch reminds the Board that only a simple majority is required for the finding. Stephanie Kiefer, Esq. and Jonathan Grasso are at the table on behalf of the Applicant and disagrees with Acting Chair's opinion. Motion made by A. Cuscia to close public comment. Seconded by S. Seide. P. Koch voted yes. E. McIntyre voted yes. A. Cuscia voted yes. S. Seide voted yes. M. Lis voted yes. The vote to close is unanimous 5-0. The Board deliberates. Motion made by A. Cuscia to approve Applicant's request for a Finding. Seconded by F. Killilea. E. McIntyre voted no. P. Koch voted no. S. Seide voted no. M. Lis voted no. A. Cuscia voted no. The vote to approve was DENIED 5-0. The following plans and exhibits were submitted with the application or referenced at the public hearing: 1)Notice of Appeal from Building Inspector Denial Decision, Dated October 14, 2021 prepared by Stephanie A. Kiefer, Esq. dated November 11, 2021, containing eleven (11)pages; 2) Plan of Land prepared by Williams & Sparages dated May 7, 2021,revised August 18, 2021 containing one (1) page; 3) Drawings/floor plans/elevations of proposed building dated August 18, 2021 containing six (6)pages; 4) Highland View Park(subdivision plan) by R.W. Seamans dated March 1906 recorded at the Essex (North) Registry of Deeds Book 230, Page 600 containing one (1) page; 5) Deed dated July, 1918 recorded at the Essex North Registry of Deeds, Book 395, Page 553, containing two (2) pages; 6) Statement in Support of Issuance of Building Permit as of Right prepared by Applicant, undated, containing thirty-four (34) pages; 7) Building Commissioner's letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 14, 2021, containing two (2) pages; 8) Memorandum from Stephanie Kiefer, Esq. to North Andover Zoning Board dated January 11, 2021, containing two (2) pages; 9) Memorandum from Suzanne P. Egan,North Andover Town Counsel, to Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 06, 2022, containing four(4) pages; 10) Memorandum from ZI3A Minutes for February 8,2022 Page 2 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Stephanie Kiefer, Esq. to North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 31, 2022, containing three (3) pages; and 11) Several letters and photographs from members of the community opposing the Application. 4. Continued Public Hearing of 34 Wentworth Avenue The petition of.Jonathan Grasso for property at 34 Wenhvorth Avenue (Map 067.0, Parcel 0002), North Andover, MA 01845 in the R-4 Zoning District, The Applicant is requesting Variances pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 195-7.1 Lot Area, Section 195-7.2 Street Frontage, Section 195-7.3 Yards(setbacks),and Section 195-7.8 Exceptions in the R-4 Zoning District. The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 195-7.1 Lot Area, Table 2: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for lot area in the R-4 Zoning District for the purpose of constructing a new 23' x 35' single family home; specifically,Applicant has requested a lot area needing a relief variance of 7,953 square feet(lot area proposed is 4,547 square feet and lot area required per Table 2 is 12,500). The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 195-7.2 Street Frontage, Table 2: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for street frontage in the R- 4 Zoning District for the purpose of constructing a new 23' x 35' single family home; specifically, Applicant has requested street frontage needing a relief variance of 52.5 feet (street frontage proposed is 47.5 feet and street frontage required per Table 2 is 100 feet). The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 195-7.3 Yards (setbacks), Table 2: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for one side setback in the R-4 Zoning District for the purpose of constructing a new 23' x 35' single family home; specifically, Applicant has requested a left side setback needing a relief variance of 2.8 feet (left side setback proposed is 12.2 feet and side setback required per Table 2 is 15 feet). The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, Section 195-7.3 Yards (setbacks), Table 2: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for one side setback in the R-4 Zoning District for the purpose of constructing a new 23' x 35' single family home; specifically, Applicant has requested a right side setback needing a relief variance of 2.7 feet (right side setback proposed is 12.3 feet and side setback required per Table 2 is 15 feet). P. Koch is Acting Chair. A. Jacobs is recused. Stephanie Kiefer,Esq, states that Applicant is seeking to construct a modest single family home. North Andover Bylaw provides two standards. The pre-zoning laws are subject to Table 2. 34 Wentworth predates zoning laws. Applicant is seeking variances for frontage and lot size. Atty. Kiefer discusses when the lot and Highland View Park subdivision were initially developed and states that the majority of frontages tended to be under 50 ft. and a majority of the lots created under the 1906 plan were under 5,000 sf. ZBA and Planning decisions from 1983 were similar in nature and were approved by the ZBA. 51 Brightwood Avenue's owner sought variances to divide the parcel pursuant to an A&R plan to create a 4,076 sf lot. 78A Mutates for February 8,2022 Page 3 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The LaFrance's hardship is financial. The family has owned this lot since 1918 and has always paid the taxes. J. Grasso shows map of neighborhood showing all the houses that have similar lots stating a vast majority of the lots subdivision do not have enough lot area. He breaks down the specific lot sizes and setbacks. Feels the design is modest and keeps with the integrity of the neighborhood and will add value. Atty. Kiefer adds that Mr. Grasso has maintained 30 ft. of side setbacks which is more than pre-zoning laws specify. E. McIntyre asks if Applicant has come before ZBA to seek variances in the past. Atty. Kiefer states another applicant had sought variances many years ago which had no regard for even the pre-zoning setback requirements. M. Lis asks the building inspector if the property had been 500 ft. larger and 3 ft. wider would the applicant need to be here. P. Hutchins states if it falls under the exemptions of 5,000, then no. P. Koch reads from the bylaw that applicants can only qualify for an exception if applicant satisfies "all" of the requirements of Section 195-7.8 Exceptions, which this application does not. M. Lis feels the Board has some discretion. P. Koch states that the Board has to base the hardship on soil, shape, topography, and financial can be allowed. Leslie LaFrance Vermitas is the owner's cousin and speaks about financial hardships the owners had growing up as reasons why the lot was not built upon. Barri Ann Fitzgibbons, 25 Wentworth Ave. is seeking clarification on verbiage at the last meetings regarding a pre-existing structure on the lot. Specifically,the 1983 variance that Applicant is comparing 34 Wentworth Ave. to had a house on the lot and 34 Wentworth does not, therefore is it null and void? P. Koch states perhaps she is speaking of a "pre-existing, non-conforming lot" and refers question to building commissioner. P. Hutchins states that it does and states the lot the Applicant referred to was a split lot. B. Fitzgibbons disagrees that the proposed house is in keeping with the look and feel of the neighborhood and believes if these variances are approved, it will open a Pandora's Box. She also speaks to the financial hardship Applicant claims to have stating it should not be the neighborhood's responsibility to pay(by decreasing value of their homes) and says it doesn't meet a hardship regarding soil, shape, topography. Patrick LaFrance speaks of his another paying taxes all those years in the hope that one of the sons could build a house one day. Feels the intent of the original neighborhood layout(plan) appears to have been for 5,000 sf lots. States the hardships are financial and shape. ZBA Minutes for February 8,2022 Page 4 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS John Desmond, 25 Highland View Ave, is a direct rear abutter of the Property and built his house in 2013. States the Applicant could have purchased that lot any time prior to 2013 and increased his lot size. Atty. Kiefer doesn't think a Pandora's Box will open, stating that title has merged to those lots in the neighborhood that have combined over the years and there is not an ability to unmerge the title. States the property canoe through in inheritance and therefore Applicant did not have the decision making ability. Applicant has tried to minimize the request for variances and has requested a modest dwelling. J. Grasso states that the proposed house will not be an eyesore. The house will be brand new and fit with the neighborhood which has only 3 out of 22 units in full compliance with zoning laws. Atty, Kiefer asks the Board if there is anything else that could be done to consider the house to be more favorable. P. Koch says the drawings are a little thin regarding aesthetics but does not think that new mock-ups would advance the cause, in his opinion, as he is stuck on the numbers. Atty. Kiefer reiterates that the Applicant believes the proposal does merit variance relief and summarizes the reasons why as stated above. Motion made by M. Lis to close the public comment. Seconded by A. Cuscia, E. McIntyre voted yes. P. Koch voted yes. A. Cuscia voted yes. S. Seide voted yes. M. Lis voted yes. The vote to close is unanimous 5-0. The Board deliberates. Motion made by A. Cuscia to approve the variances. M. Lis voted yes. S. Seide voted no. E. McIntyre voted no, A. Cuscia voted no. P. Koch voted no. The vote to approve is DENIED 4-1. The following plans and exhibits were submitted with the application or referenced at the public hearing: 1) Supporting Statement--34 Wentworth Avenue(Lot 110)prepared by Applicant,undated,containing four (4) pages; 2) Plan of Land prepared by Williams & Sparages dated May 7, 2021, revised August 18, 2021 containing one(1)page; 3)Elevation Drawings, Floor Plans, and Framing Plans dated August 18,2021, containing eight(8)pages; 5)Highland View Park(subdivision plan)by R.W. Seamans dated March 1906 recorded at the Essex (North) Registry of Deeds Book 230, Page 600 containing one (1) page; 6) Deed dated July, 1918 recorded at the Essex North Registry of Deeds, Book 395, Page 553, containing two (2)pages; 7) Several letters and photographs from members of the community opposing the Application; and 8) Petition to Deny the Variances Needed to Build on 34 Wentworth Ave, North Andover, MA, undated, with fifty-four(54) signatures, containing five (5) pages. 5. New Public Hearing of 419 Andover Street The petition of Convenient MD Urgent Care for property at 419 Andover Street (Map 024.0, Parcel 0039), North Andover, MA 01845 in the GB Zoning District. The Applicant is requesting Variances pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195-6.6D Permitted Signs/Business and Industrial Districts: accessory signs in the GB Zoning District ZBA Minutes for February 8,2022 Page 5 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195.6-61) for the purpose of installing a new sign; specifically, Applicant has requested to install a sign (001) needing a relief variance of 10 1.8 sf(the proposed square footage is 177.2 and the allowed square footage is 75.4). The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195-6.61) for the purpose of installing a new sign; specifically, Applicant has requested to install a sign (002) needing a relief variance of 38.3 sf(the proposed square footage is 177.2 and the allowed square footage is 138.9). Rick Byers, Esq. and Dave Sanderson of Convenient MD Urgent Care are at the table. Clerk reads legal notice into the record. Atty. Byers states the new building is located at 419 Andover Street which is where the former Ethan Allen building was. Applicant is seeking relief variances for the size of two signs. Atty. Byers reads Zoning Bylaw, Section 195-6.61) into the record and summarizes the relief sought as stated above. Shows slides with signage design, size and placement with and without the variance. Without the variances, the sign will be difficult to see from the street. Discussions continue regarding necessity of an urgent care facility in the area. E. McIntyre asks if they own the other urgent care on Rte. 114 stating that sign is not as large. P. Koch confirms E. McIntyre's point is that patients seem to be able to find the urgent care in the Burton's plaza location with a far more modestly sized sign. D. Sanderson states many of the patients are coming from 20 plus miles away and there are other buildings blocking the urgent care facility so it is important for the sign to be seen easily. Atty. Byers adds that some of the patients are under a high degree of distress which will make it more likely for them to miss the signage. Most patients are not familiar with the area. S. Seide asks where the other locations are. F. KiIlilea feels like most people won't be wandering around looking for a sign as most people use Waze or GPS. D. Sanderson states when people are under distress it is easy to miss signage. It is a busy intersection and if passed,there is no simple U-turn to make. M. Lis asks what Applicant's hours are. 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. Discussions continue regarding size and finding a possible middle ground. R. Faigen asks why the building looks taller than 12 to 13 feet. D. Sanderson states that the red roof is approximately 47 ft. The bottom of roofline is 35 ft. The interior ceiling heights range between 8 and 15 ft. so Applicant took an average of the interior for the calculation of signage. ZBA Minutes for February 8,2©22 Page 6 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS A. Jacobs asks if Applicant plans to put signage closer to the road. D. Sanderson states there are no plans to as an individual tenant. There's a sign which acts more like a directory and lists all the businesses in the complex. Discussions continue regarding size of signage and the difference in the size with the variance and without. R. Faigen asks about competition for other urgent care. Applicant states they can't speak for the other urgent care. R. Byers states the hardship is not soil, shape or topography but that the patients find the urgent care facility easily for safety. E. McIntyre asks if applicant created their own hardship by creating the building so large. Applicant states that they misinterpreted the Bylaw and thought the 10% was measured from the exterior, not the interior height. P. Koch feels the Applicant built the building so tall in order to accommodate a large sign. Don Borenstein, Esq. states the gables and architectural features are popular with developers and that most municipalities require gables. It is mostly to provide architectural interest to the buildings. R. Faigen asks if the Applicant has evidence that patients will miss the building if the sign is smaller and meets the zoning laws. Applicant states they do not. Nick Hoder, 9 Rock Road is concerned about the sign on the east side of the building ("P02") as it can be seen from his back yard and several others neighbors on Rock Road. He would like the Board to make a decision to keep the sign as small as possible. Mr. Hoder is also concerned with the illumination and asks how long the sign will remain lit at night. P. Koch asks for clarification regarding which sign is "P01" and which sign is "P02". Route 114 is POI and Andover Street is P02. A. Cuscia asks how long exterior lights will remain on. Applicant states no later than 9:45 p.m. Lights will be on approximately 7:30 a.m. —9:45 p.m. S. Seide feels the presentation is anecdotal and is looking for hard data. Applicant states it is from experience that they feel a larger sign is necessary. Board discusses allowing one business variance signage over another. P. Koch states it is not precedential. The Board deliberates. ZBA Minutes for February 8,2022 Page 7 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Motion made by A.Cuscia to continue until March 8, 2022. Seconded by S. Seide. E. McIntyre voted yes. P. Koch voted yes. A. Cuscia voted yes. A. Jacobs voted yes. R. Faigen voted yes. The vote to continue is unanimous 5-0. 6. Adjournment Motion made by A. Cuscia to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by M. Lis. E. McIntyre voted yes. P. Koch voted yes. A, Cuscia voted yes. A. Jacobs voted yes. R. Faigen voted yes. The vote to adjourn is unanimous 5-0. ZBA Minutes for rebmary=8,2022 Page 8 of 8