Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-29 Decision Repetitive Petition-Denied AMIN fflfl T 0 W X 0 I+ N 0 R T I31 it N D 0 V T: it nASSACAUSETTS 443 M Yj f } + k4k �q ll 11 be filed vVitilin ( 0) days aft'st the date of filing of this Notice Irj the office of tho TIDI' in Clerk. NOTICE OF UECiSION 1990 )ale . . . ;ltuie : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petition of . . Mr., Donald Johnston , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >'ref7]iS{'. affected . . . 1717#Turnpike SLreetF . (Route 114) , . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ftefer3riiig to the above petitioli for -I Fpecial p( t-init from th(c /F. +r 3 the�y North Andover Zoning Bylaw - Section 10.6 � Repetitive Petition of . . i + • • + 4 4 # # # . • i + • . + i - • • + • . . i . . i • , • a . . . . . . i . . a so as to V ermit + + t p. petitioner ��c� re.-ppj'J.Liup. thq }Y�Ultiijuj Bot3rp. Pf oppva�$ . . . . . . + for trecor�siderst4 of.a , '£eva ously, donied.Lxetition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After a public; hearing give,, on the nbc)ve clixte, t1le €'1ar)lliljVt . +IMPETITIVE PETITION . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1 rd upon the 1,011owfilg LT{JE3dilioli" : CC: Dircetor of Public. Works i3ourd of Public wurkr. 0191rway Lurvoyor D Alding inspector Board of Health Sigiied Conrervat-ion Comma:lion 15ses^ors George Perna, Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Police- Chief Jolun Simons, Clerk Fire Chief Applicant / rile . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interested Parties. John Draper Jack Crt7h-wr[ . F . . . . . , . . . . MMH MH TOWN OF NORTH ANT) OVb AIASSACH US E T T S CRItk t.�i4ll3R Any appeal shall he f fled 'tC{Ht1`' within ( ) days after the .date of filing Of this Notice NOTICE of DECISION In the f€*ce of the Town Clerk .Tune 29, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]fat of itearin petitlUnof I- 1,ald.Johns�`°n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affe Led . . . 1717 Turnplk.e St..reet (jRuute 1141 . * * i . . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a special permiE from [ke re ts of t1le „ggrth Andover Zonin 8XIaws�.� Section 8;3 .: .site ,Plan Review . . . . . . , . . . . + + . . . . . . . , . . . . + . S(:j au to 'f131t F c conraruct-igq of ya +two stork* wood*frame iConven�,ient, store. . . . . . • . . . . . . # . . r . . . + + . , + 1 , . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After a publio hearing givers oil the 41bove date , the Plamling Board voted DENY SITE PLAN REVIEW t0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r .ti10 . . + i , . + . . + , + . , d , . , . , , 1 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . based upon the, following cu3iditicalls cc, Director of Public WoKks Boatd of Public Works Highway Surveyor er_orge Perna, Jr. , Chairman Building Inbpector • . . . . • • . . — . 1 . . . . . . • • • • . • • • • • Conservation Commission John Simons, Clerk -Board of Health • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Assessors Erich Mftzsche Police Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Chief ' Sohn I3r�3rlC}� Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer Jack Graham File Intef'ested Parties �3E.11 SIi1lJl X T7,- Wn'f! 01-FECES ()F! Town of 120 N111ill SIWICI NORTH ANDOVER 1%1,,.1 s,,u(l i Is 0 1645 NI(nih Andover CONSERVATION I fRATAI 1 DIVV�101N 0F rS081 GS;�-6483 PLANNINO PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KAREN H-P- NELSON, DIHE(:TOH June 29 , 1990 Mr. Daniel Long, Town Cle-ik , Town Hall 120 Main StrccL North Andover, MR OJ845 Re : juhnsan Country :More , Turnpike Street , Site Plan Review RepaLitive Petition Dear Mr . Long : The North lknduvi:r Planning Board h e.I d a 1)U I-)I i C 11 r i n q on January 18 , 1950, in the Town Hall , Selectmen ' s Meeting Room, t1poll the application of Donald Johnston , mm BostnB street, Nuruh Andover, MA, requesting Site Plan approval under Section 8 3 01 the North Andover Zoning Maw. The following members were PrnwentT George Perna, Jr, Chairman , John Simons , Clerk , Erich Nitzoahe and John Dvaper. Jack Graham was absent . The petitioner is requesting Site Plan approval !or the, construction Of a tWO :story WOOd fraMC Wiidinq; The promise-, affected is located at 1717 Turnpike Street ( Route L141 , known as Lot 2 and is zoned Gencrai Business . The lot contains 15 , 27� sq. ft . John Simons read the legal notice to open the Pubiiu hOarinq , Letters were received and read from the Board Of Health and the Fire Chief . Christian Huntress , Town Planner , .stated that �.he site ha � received a variance frQm the Zoning Beard of Appeals for set hacks from the lot lines , front, near and side as veil as the size of the let . Erich Nitzsche asked it the proposed was on a let of record . DLivid Bain , representing Donaid Johnston, was prcocnt Wul introducad Peter kichardson of Kaminski & Anzacisten, engineer for the project . The applicant is proposing a wood frame butlding ful� a convanient store . Hr . Bain starved that variances were received f row We Beard of Appeals . The Board of Appeals aEked tLaL the applicant go before the Planning Board for Site Plan approval and reCurn to thow W01 the final plan before a building permit would be issued . Mr . Bain further stated that the parking upaces shown on the origin ol Plar, vhert.- for Compact t;ijrs . The plans have Dees r2vj-.-;cd shoWing parking spaces fur fall size cars . The applicant has to qo back to thu Board of Appeals with the revised Plans . Page 2 : Mr . Bain stated that, originally the Board of hppeals denied the application because information that was requested was not presented. The day after the decision was filr?d a IFst LQY wa-s received by the Board of Appeals from Mass . D . PA . , Di. st.ri.ct, 5 , requesting only one curb-cut:. Peter Richardson stated that revised plans have been Wmitted on the parking area. The original plaas shown tuo entrances. The :Mate did not want two curb-COUS , Only one ent;rtixnte /exit . John Simons stated that the applicant must: petition the Planning Hoard for the reconsideration to coo before t;lre Voninq Board of Aypeals . The Hoard discussed the prucedures on reconsidering a previou&y denied application- The applicant mu5L aL�pear before the Planning Board for reuOnsideration . John Simons read from the Zoning Bylaw, the :section relatiDg to roconsideration . A public hearing and notice must: M published . Erich Nltizsche asked about; drainage . Peter Richardson stated that State catch basins will he used . 'Fite Board told the applicant there will be no uigns on th+� building . Mr Bain told the Doard that the prole 5cd would be z convokient store on the lower level . The second floor will be for We Ottice and living quarters for otje oi: Johnston sons irha will be working in the store . Erich Nitz.sche asked who owncd the property Lit, U-h.t 3 time , tip Hain :stated that it was in an estate . He further stated that he would provide the Board with a copy of the deed . John Simons asked ahat the percentage , on the second floor , that wQvId be used for the residency . Erich Nitzsche stated that the basement, will only be used for storage: . The Board ,asked Christian HuaLre s to check and see if the basement i5 included in the square: footage of the building to gct; the percentage of the living area allowed . Dill Dolan , Firo Chief , spoke on the application before the Hoard. Mcess is needed for the rear of the buiidinq at least; 12 feet. The applicant: W the Vire Chiet will wrrrk twgether on the access to the rear of the building . George Perna emphaoized that the Board does not: want to see �t strip mall . The Board discussed lighting with no flare . Christian Huntress Lold the applicant, that a ctr-Y .s("Ie" ta115t. hq� put in to tie into t hQ sewer that is coming down Route 114 . Page 3 : George Perna Stated that: there might he other issues thaL havt; to be addressed before corning to the Planning Board for Site Flan Review, Those issues Wuld be addressc d by the Zoning hoard of Appeals . Christian Huntress stated that eklOng H0+301 114 the r` ?quired front setback is 100 ' . The first: 50 ' shall be landscape& Erich Nitzschn asked if the applicant has uritt n Permiss iQE1 to tie into the State drainage system. A moti-on wa.q made by john Simuns to t otlti )Lie the t mbLic hearing and direct the Planner to send z letter to the S.kWicant listing the Hoard concerns . The motion was seconded by Juhn E]LaPer and voted UnanimouslY Q these Preccnt . On March 15 , j!)D3 the North AndaV+vr Planning Roard htf Id a regular meeting in the 'Down Hall , ScInot_men ' s Menrinq Room. Ive following members were pre tent; George Perna , Jr. , Chairman , John Simons , Clerk, Erich Nitzsch, and John Draper. . Jack Graham eras absent. A motion way made by Erich Nitzsche to continue the pubiio hearing to the April 5th meeting . The motion was soconded by JOhn Draper and voted ttttart MOUEly by those present;. On Rpri.l 5, 1990 , the Marth Atldover Planninq Board hf�-,Id a regular meeting in the Town Hall , Selectmen ' s Heeting Room . lvtr following members were plea'cnt : George Perna , Jr . , Chairman , goon Simons, Clerk, Erich Nitzsche and John Draper . Jack Graham was absent. John Simons read a ILtter Prop, Christian Huntress , TuW11 Flauner, to the applicant . A legal notice is needed for the repetitive: petition . Aut'orney Davie Baits was present along with Peter Richardson , of: Richard F . Kaminski Associates , and Donald Johnston , LM applicant;. George Perna Gould lute the applicant to ;per: the pr{WORt-atiOR that Christian Huntress cave the Planning Board on Village Commercial Projects and see what is favorable for development i.Et North Andover. The € card does not want t* See strip+ Nalls alOng ISO" 114 . A dis;cu;.si_Qn tarok place on x?edocing the stanWY of Val-king spaces , The Board requested that a legal notice be praPared for the May 17 , 1990 meeting for the Repetitive PetitiunI Page 4 : A motion was mode by Erich NitnLche to accept- an extensiOn 00 May 31 , 1990 and advertise for the first meeting in May, flay 17 , 1950 for the Repetitive Petition . The mut:iGn was seconded by John Draper and voted unanimously by those prevent , On 1-jay 17 , 1990 , the North Andover Planning Board ticid a regular meeting in the Town Hall , Selectmen' s Heetini l ROOc q. The following mcmbers were present : George Perna, Jr. , Chairman, John Simons , Clerk, Erich Nitizsche and :John Draper , .Jack Gr.'ahaw was absent, Christian Huntress explained why this apt}lication was befOre the Board for a- Repetitive Petition . Thu appl.a.cant rec:0-i-Ved a devial from the Zoning Board of Appeals because there wao no curb- cut approval from the State . The day after the denial , a letter was received from the 8tat.e granting the curb-cup. . The appiicant: s-xent fuck before the Zoning Board of APPeals and got the approval . When the applicant cars before: the Planning [Board , the Board asked the applicant to go through the Proper Process , f;ilinq a Repetitive Petition throngh the Planning Board . John Simons read the legal notice to open the public; hearing on the Repetitive Petition . George Perna stated the reason that: t hio was bnLc. ve Lhe Board was to determine it; there was substantial and material changes in the application . David Bain , at:Lorney repro,tinting dr . Johnston , rsPORY on the original deDial J that the being the traffic . the Zoning Board of Appeals asked for input on this matter from talc.+ State . The luttez arrived the day after the LonjRg Board fade their decision . George Perna asked 11r . Bain exactly swat: the material differences vere . Fet:er Richardson , Richard F . IfaNip ski & Associates , stated that the applicant now h0 s d PertTri.t from the Mate . A lengthy discussion took place on the zoning of the parccl . The Board requested a title search be stone on Lot 3 . When was the lot created , before or €tfter the zoning and it: in ueparate ownership. The Board also disQussecl the size of the lot being less than what is required . John Simonn expressed his feelings that theta wa2 nor:- substant:ial or material cohnges . mr . Bain said the S.ha rge was thE� lack of information , which he now has . Thy Board wantu new information , different and WtO{svantial chances . Hr , Bain told the Board he would provide thaU f of them . A motion t-i s. made by John DRaper LO c{antiiiuf, t-3Ee public hearing to June 7 , 1990 . The motion was 5ecottded by Erich Nitzschet and voted unanimously by those prescnt. Page 5 : On the Site plan Review, the Board requunt,ed a il.ytl0ug anti sign Man for the site , The Board could not act further on this petition until We Repetitive Petition has been addressed , A motion was made by Erich Nit z5c he Lo cont:iiiu(c the public hearing and adept an extension to June 30 , 1990 , The muciun war; seconded by John Mons and voted unanimously by Lho.se present , Th, Board was given a draft decision to review. The Chairman , George Perna further added that the 5wa.zd will look at; lardxQapinq and lighting for the site . On Jude 7 , 1990 the North Andovi'r Plannila€l Buatd heid a regular meeting its the Town Hall , Selectmen ' s Meeting Rc}vw3 The following members were present : George Perna, Jr . , Chairman , Johrt Simons, Clara, Erich Nrtzscho and John Draper. Jack Graham Was absent . David Bain, attorney for the applicant, gave staff a Hemovandum of Law, Copies were made available for the Planning Board to review. The Board had asked the applicanL to address We toning Bt. old of Appeals concerns ,so that; the Board could lire. ;3k. b stranLitial err material ahanges in the application , A lengthy discussion took plawc on .subutatitlol ond MaInIrria E changes . Also di8cussed was the possibility of entering the site from the adjacarrt property, whore the gas station is lonaLed . The Board asked Mr. Bain to list the issues trioaL t_ht Toning Board of Appeals had in their decision and after each issue , tell the Board how the issues were addressed . Michael Greasy, an attorney, stated that the only factor in the denial was that the Board had not heard from the Mass , D . U , N . for a curb-cut . A lie ated di.scUssioer took Mace on whaLhey chore Was substantial or material changes in this applicatiun . Some of the Board members feat that there was substantial change to the plans . The request from the Board was to list those changes . The deadline for Lhe Site Plan Reviou is June .did , 1990 . A izioLion was grade by John Draper to cont:iriue tart: puhl �c hee Lring On the site plan review and repetitive petition w June 21 , 1990 The motitis was seconded by John ,`11nuns and voted unanimously by thQwe prevent . On June 21 , 1990 , the Planning Board did not meet due Lo t,W lack of a quorum. The meeting was rescheduled for June 2B , 1990 . Page Q On June 2B, 1990 th3 , North Andover Plannl�lct Board held a regular meeting in the '1`OWR Ball , Selectmen ' s Meeting Root . The following members were presento George Perna, SFr. , Chairman , WWI Simons , Clerk, Erich Nitzsche , John Draper and Jack Graham. John Simons i`ead a lette)' from Christian ltrontress, Tuwkl Planner, to Mr . Sain - A letter Was received from Mr . Bazxl answnr-ing the concetns of the Board . George Parnia asked what the setback was from Lhe frytreet. C11,ris Huntress stated the setback was 52 . 5 feet . Thy Board reviewed the letter from Mr , Bain . VY; Chairman asked for commentz . John Simons stated that the only issue in the reason for denial from the Board of Appeals that had been addressed or that there was a change in was the first reason . The Board of Appeals not, has input: ±ram the State . There were no other changes in the application before the Board . George Perna asked Chris if there was anything he wanted La add . Chris stated that he had drafted decisions for which ever way the Board voted to vote . George Perna asked Fir , Dain if there wasio pGssibilit;y of connecting to the abutting prGperttY , mch an! a roadway . Erich Nitzsche suggested a walkway. The Board 32evie4,ed the old plans in compar]-;.,;:air to A50 VOW plans . Mr. Bain stated that the uri.ginal Plans hsd an ersk.rance and an exit.. The nev plans shooed one curb-cut. A notion was made by Erica Nitzsche to ciasrl Lhe public hearing on the Repetitive Petition , The motion was seconded by John SiNons and voted unanimou8ly by the board. A second Motion wau made by Erich Nitzsche Lairt the Board find that there has been substantial chaages in the Site Plan and that, the Board vote to approve the reconsideration . There was nu second . John Simons offered another notion that the Board votes mnfavorable action on the Repetitive Petition in this matter , relating to Johnston CoQntry Store Application for Repetitive Pc LiLUrk . The motion was seconded by John Draper . John Simons withdrew his motion and John Draper withdrew his second . Jack Graham secondca Erich motion to approve the reconsideration , The Chairman asked for Ft vote . Erich Mitzsch, and Jack Graham voted in favor of r'econsidcring the application . ;Juhn Simons and John Draper opposed the reconsideration. The Chairman Wited in l;=Lvor r)i. reconsideration . The motion did not carry. The application atvion for Repetitive Petition wau denied. A motion 1-7�is macte I)y Erich Nitzsche to tJrdze the: I)W)lic hearing on the Site Plan Review for Johnston Country Store , The motion was seconded by John Simons and ' voto-d unanimotl:31y 9.)Y the Board . Page 7r Christian Huntress , gown Planner , agave Lhe Boaf d members copies of a draft decision for denial on the Site Plan Review for Johnston Country store , The Board reviewed the decision . John Simons .t,kfvd that number 2 of the Outstanding ls suf s Statffd that, the proposed does not c:onl:oritt to Ut Zoning Bylaw requirements more specifically 'Fable 2 and stated the reasons . A motion was nude by John Simons to dory the Site Plan Review for Johnston Country Store for the reasons del3.ntated iti t_hr: written decision plus as amended by verbal conver saLion , adding that the application does not conform to Zoning . The motion was seconded by John Draper . Ueonge Perna stated that there were very few reasons why a Site Plaa Review can be denied. Site Plan Review is a roview and shoNd be oonditioned . In this case tLe appiivant: has not received the necessary variances approved because of LU Repetitive Fetitwion being denied . € n that , the Chairman asked for a vote . The Board voted unanimously to deity the Site Plan Review. At~t coked are the reasons for that denial . Sincerely , PLANNING BOARD rl Georg+�Parna , Jt-. , Chairman co : Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Building Inspector Board of Pealth ConxeKvation Commission Assessors Police Chief Fire Chief Applicant Engineer �'iie JOHNSTON COUNTRY STORE 1717 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MA. SITE €'LADS REVIEW I}ENIALF SECTXON 8.3 OF THE NOEVrff ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW, The. Planning Board makes the following findings regarding this Site Plan Review Application as required by section 8 . 3 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use and site design for this lot are not appropriate, due to it' s location in Town. . Adequate vehicular and pedestrian access into the surrounding site. has not been provided. 3 . Adegiaate and appropriate facilities have not be provided for the proper operation of the proposers use. 4 . 'The applicant has failed to receive approval from the Planningl Board under section 10 . 8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. This approval is necessary in order for the applir-ant to amply for a reconsideration to the Zonilig Boai7d of Appeals . The ZBA originall.y denied the variance requested by this applicant on April 11, 1989 . Finally, upon reaching the above findings, the Planning Board denies this Site Plan review application based upon the following outstanding issues: OUTSTANDING ISSUES: 1. The applicant has failed receive approval from the Planning Board for a recon5ideration to the Zoning Board of Appeals, as stated in Section 10 . 8 of the Forth Andover Zoning Bylaw. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the applicant' s original request for a variance on April 11, 1389 . Section 10.8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw reads as follows: When 1) the Planning Board denies an application for; a Special Permit! or ) tote Board of Appeals denies a petition or a variance, no application on the. same -ratter may be heard and acted favorably upon for a two ( ) year period unless the following conditions are met: In the case of 1) agave, four (4 ) of the five ( 5) members of the Planning Board find that there are specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and describes sQe.h changes in the recmrds of its proceedings, and only after a public hearing at whiQh consent will be considered and after notice is given to the parties in interest. In the case of ) above, the Zoning Board of Appeals may not act~ favorably upon a, petition which has been previously denied within a two (2) year period of time unless four (4) of the five (5) -members of the Zoning Board of Appeals find that there are specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the changes in the recox'ds of AE5 proceedings and only after- a public hearing, held by the Planning board, at which consent to allow the petitioners to re-petition the Zoning Beard of Appeals will be considered and after notice is given to parties in inter-eE�;t and only with four (4) of the five (5) members of the Planning Board voting to grant consent. " The applicant has not; received the four (4) votes of the Planning Board necessary is grant the reconsideration to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and this application is hereby denied. . The prapesed, project is in violation of the setback requirements as found in table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw. More specifically the proposed structure is located 9 . 5 feet from the rear property line and 52 . 5 feet away from the front~ property line. The required set backF> for these two lot lines are 40 Feet'. and 100 feet respectively. Further, the -minimum lot size found in Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw for the General Business zone is 25, 000 square feet. The applicant is proposing construction on a lot with only 15, 275 square feat, this is in clear violation of the general purpose and intent of the north Andover Zoning Bylaw. _ The Following plans were presented to the Planting Board for review of this application and shall be considered as part of this denial : Plans Entitled: DEFINITIVE SITE PLAN OF LAND IN NORTH ANDOVER, MA. ITRET 1-4 Prepared for: DONALD F. JOIIA SIrON JOHNSTON COUNTRY STORE Prepared by: RI HARD F. KAMINSKI & ASSOC. , INC. 00 SUTTON STREET, NORTH A DOVER, FAA. 01845 Date: SHEETS 1-3 , 10 4 89 Revised: SHEET 4 , 5 14 90 Revised: Scale: lit = 20 ' oc: Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Building Inspector Board of 2@altt Assessors Conservation Commissi2 Police Chief Fire chief Applicant Engineer File i JODNSTON COUNTRY STORE 1711 TURNPIKE STREET NORM ANDUVER, MA. REPETITIVE PETITION FOR RECOISID];;1.2A41IM BEFORE THE NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BOARD OF AMEALS AS DIG'TATED BY SECTION IMB OF THE x+1C1RTH ;4 ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW, This application to the Planning Board for reconsideration to the Zoning Board of Appeals is nearby denied. The reason for aenial is that the: applicant has ±ailed to show specific and material changes to the original site plan which was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 11, 1989 . Section 10. 8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw roads as follows; When 1) the Planning Board denies an application for a Special Permit; or 2) the Board of Appeals denies a petition or a variant-e, no application on the Sane matter may be heard and acted favorably upon for a two (2) year period unless the following conditions are met: In the case of 1) above, four (4) of the f ive (5) inenbers of the Planning Board find that there are specific and material change 2s in the conditions upon which tl)e pirevioiis unfavorable action was based, and describes such changes in the rccords of M proceedings, and only after a public hearing at which consent will be considered and after notice is given to the panic: in interest In tho case of 2) above, the Zoning Board of Appeals may not act favorably upon a petition which has been previously denied within a two (2 ) year period of time unless four (4) of the five ( ) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals find that there are specific and material changes in the condiLion8 upon which the changes in the records of its proceedings and only after a public hearing, hold by the Planning Board, at which consent to allow the petitioners to re--petition the Zoning card of Appeals will be considered and after rj0t3-cEh is givers to parties in Merest and only with four: (4) of the five (5) members of the Planning Board voting to grant consent. '' The applicant has not received the faux' (4) votes of the Planning Beard necessary to grant the reconsideration to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and this application A hereby denied.