HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-29 Correspondence )E E IC:1r or a , 'ONVIZ of 12rI NEi9€f t i;iI('0,I
Nin III Aj1 (1[3�'['!
0)NSF Ii J 1-1ON :- A1t� 5Fk('l tf fti('Es 0€ i45
PLANNING
March 26, 1990
David J. Bain, Jr.
Attorney at Law
36 Lawrence Street
Lawrence, SSA. 01840
Re: Johnston Country Storer
Site Plan Review
Dez xr Mr. Bain,
am writing to inform you tflat 'j'okjn Counsel fja;� confirMed t.1le
Planning Board Is opinion that your clicnt must submit all
application to the Planning board for a public hearing to be held
with regard to this reconsideration of Zoning Buard ' L� denial of
your variance application.
The following three paints Lroift my Corr.esponden .:a to your• Uf ice
date l 19 90 may steal be considered valid and mijst he addressed
at. the Planning Board' s hearing on April 5 , 1990 .
1 . Pursuant to Section 10 . 8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw,
"the Zoning Board of Appeals may not act favorably upon a
petition which has been prey i om y 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 t w.
changes in the records of its proc:eedingr and only auer a
public Bearing , held by the Planning Board , at which
conserit to allow the petitioner to re-petition the Zoning
Board of Appeal will bo t.ortAdered and after notice is
given to parties oC At.erast and cAily wim unir (4 ) of ne.
five (5) members of the Planning Board vuting to carant
Your client 's application to t ho- Zf�riing Doai`d of Appeals was
de-nied on April 11 , 1989 . At a L�ubwequent tiear. .i ncl before the
Zoning Board of Appeals on May 9 , 1989 , your client waq
granted a variance under a reFconsidorat.ion to that board. As
the bylaw states, you are to submit an applicat:iun to the
Planning Board which shows specific and nater.ial changes to
your original denii.] before the Zoning Board of Appeals . This
will help to insure that proper and legal pr•occduray have been
followed in this case.
2 . A co»m@tcial fife Sprinkler Syst�-- n shall be required
throughout the entire structure . The building will also be
required to have its internal fife alarm, detection and
su2pression nystems tied into the Fire Department via a raster
connected fire alarm Sox.
S . A dry SgwGf nhall he required to extend to the property line.
and the applicant Shall tie into the Sewer as soon as it
becomes available along Route 114 .
Please contact my office with any questions or concerns , and
please submit all p@£tinent information to my attention prior to
the next Planning Board Bearing .
Sincerely,
-- -
�:
Christian C. Huntress
Town Planner,
cc: Planning Board
William V. Dolan. Fire chief
Willia-m Bmurciak, DPW
D. Robert Hicetta, Building Inspector
Karen H.P.Helson, Director DPCD
VrAll
/
e
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Attorney David Bain! Jr.
36 Lawrence Street
Lawrence, MA 01842 .
RE! Donald Johnston, 1717 Turnpike St. , Nor Andover, MA 01845
Dear Attorney Bain:
Enclosed Please £0 d a copy of £ letter received by our office from MT.
ga i J. Wilson, Diet£icC Highway E'ngiLeer for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Department of Public Worms regarding the above Petition.
We feel that this may be o£ some help to his client should he de84ue
to reapply with a new petition,
#U&kD OF APPEALS
Frank Sello, Jr. e
Chairman
c.
/awt
r y1�
jK1&j&,e1,ffje, ,Q
{� ryry 7,��-y/� /�i�+'r+�} 7 7{, 41 6 MAPLE STREET, VA"VEFIS G1923
NORTH AND OVER — ROUTE 114
April 6, 1989
Mr. Frank Serio Jr. , Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town lull
North Andover, NA. 01845
Dean €+fir. trio:
With regard too your letter and pa.at) request of March 79E--h to corrfmc�rrt_ on Danuld
Jul stonrs petition at 1717 Turnpike Street (pout_ 114) , €or. ':et €Dac€c vtitr-tances;
the fallowing may be pertinent:
1. We wonder why the rear property line rould not be extended tyr the pscE,(°rR-
stonc wall thereby gaining an i7dditlonul 00.rty ( 0) feet more or ]ess
of frontage set back.
. Ve WoUld prefer $11 alternaLe design of access drives, of 01at shown
on tke sate plank to a single entrance and it w-113. he our requircmujt€_
when an access drive permit is requested .
3. The permit plan would require € dditiorIE3J. dotail;}: presc`-rtL. roadwuy
edges, striping, D.H.W. reL-,mice Ease litre extending t_11ree hundred
(300 t-) foet more or less on the westbound Find east;buund sick' taf tiie
property locus.
7+. We are pleased to cooper ite witsi ti1e 'j`owl� Boarc€s in any ms��iiex` k_ifw�L
effects traffic and safety on state highways,
Very truly yours,
David J. Wilsot,
District Highway Lrrgineer
�mB4r9 0 ®
w «, _ .w l�w�
^���2: . � «
_
Fi
DI2AT .�NI OF PUBLIC -�V 0RK3 -
#, KkPLE ST, RALTHoa . MA- Ot,
MR. FR&YK SRRIO JP CHAIRS]
2 r APPEALS
�)\ 5/L
NORTH ANDOVER, MA. 01845
Ili,...,.p p p,�1�.�
DATE: ,dune 19, 1990
TO: North Andover Planning Board
120 Main St.
North Andover, 14A 01845
FROM: David J. Bain, Jr.
Petitioner' s Attorney
RE: Johnston' s Country Storms
Site Plan Review/Reconsideration to
Zoning Board of Appeals
RESPONSE TD LETTER OF TOWN PLANNER DATED JU E 1 1 , 1990
in the letter captioned above, the Town Planner raised five
areas of concerns which will be dealt with separately.
1 . The Zoning_ Board__o.f......Appeals did not have input from the
State Department of Public Works .
When the Zoning Board of Appeals first m8t, they did not have
the benefit of a response from the State Department of Public
Works, although they had requested it. In fact, the receipt of the
letter from the Department of Public Works precipitated the second
hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. in the letter the
State Department of Public Works stated its preference for a single
entrance to the premises . The plan submitted to Zoning Board of
Appeals showed a dual entrance/exit configuration. This was
changed at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals . This change
constitutes a significant and material change.
2 . The premises are too close to the highway as shown on the
plans presented..__to._t.he......Zoning 8aard of Appeals .
One of the primary reasons for the Petitioner appearing before
the Zoning Board of Appeals was the 100 ft. set-back required along
Turnpike Street (Rt8. 114 ) . When the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to deny the relief requested, it did not have the benefit of the
letter from the State Department of Public Works . The Zoning Board
of Appeals acted in the belief that the 100 ft . set-back in this
instance was critical as far as state approvals were concerned.
When the Zoning Board of Appeals had an opportunity to review the
State Department of Public Wor ' s letter they discovered that the
State would prefer the premises back further if possible, but, the
State was not unduly concerned about the location. To the extent
that the initial assumption of the Zoning Board of Appeals was
incorrect, this constitutes a material and specific change.
. The Petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section
10 r_-..P.a;ragraph 10 . 4 of the Zoning BV-Laws.
Sections 10, Paragraph 10 . 4 of the By-Lads has been satisfied
for the following reasons:
a . The topography of the land makes it non-conforming . This
aspect affects this lot and not any other parcel is the zone
because this lot is the only parcel in the zone.
b. A literal enforcement would make the land useless because
any proposed structure on this lot would result in a non-conforming
structure. Therefore, financial hardship has been established.
C. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals acknowledged
that there was no other viable use for the land as presently
configured. To the extent that the Zoning Board of Appeals found
that the traffic concerns and set-back concerns had been addressed
by the State Department of Public Worts so that these concerns did
not pose a detriment to the neighborhood; they reversed their
conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to satisfy the provisions
of Paragraph 10 . 4 and determined that they could grant the relief
requested without substantial deticIment to the public good or
denigrating from the intent and purposes of the By-Law. This
constitutes a specific and material change of the conclusion
reached by the Board based on incomplete information.
4 . Granting _of thig___..variance would derogate the from the
intent and ur ose f the Zonis BY-Law.
initially, the Zoning Board of Appeals reached this
conclusion . However, the Boated found upon reflection that since
the lot is the only lot in the zone and their earlier concerns
about traffic safety and set back had been addressed, that hardhhip
had been established. Therefore, the intent and purpose of the
zoning ley-law would not be denigrated from if the variance were
granted. To extent that the underlying assumptions upon which the
Board ' s conclusion was based changed, this constitutes a specific
and material change.
S. The plan, as, presented, would adversely affect the
neighborhood. . --
The Zoning Board of Appeals founts that traffic safety
involving exiting and eatering onto Route 114 was a concern. The
letter from the State Department of Public Works required a change
in the configuration of the entrance and exit. The Zoning Board of
Appeals conditioned it ' s approval of a variance upon this change.
The neighborhood in question consists of raw land, a filling
station and several business uses, some of which are located closer
to Route 114 than the proposed project . It is difficult to see how
any item, other that traffic, could affect the neighborhood in an
adverse fashion, Once the traffic problem was resolved by the
input from the State Department of Public Works, the conclusion
that the plan would adversely affect the neighborhood was changed.
To the extent that the Board of Appeals changed it ' s opinion as to
the adverse affect of the project on the neighborhood, this
constitutes a specific and material charge.
In addition to the foregoing the Petitioner has at the request
of the Zoning Board of Appeals and this Board made the following
and, specific and material changes to it ' s plans ;
Double entrance/exit to single entrance/exit
Dry sewer connection
Revised lighting plan
Fully sprinklered building, as approved by the North
Andover Fare Department
Landscaping plan revised under the auspices of this Board
and the Town Planner
ignage that is appropriate and attractive has been added
to the plan
All necessary permits from the North Andover Board of
Health have been obtained
The configuration of the parking lot to make it attractive
and functional has been changed under the auspices of this
Board
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Johnston
By his Attorney
David J. Baln, Jr,
36 Lawrence St .
Lawrence, MA 01 840
( 508) 683-5896
l RECONSIDERATION Wage 5
Donald Johnson W Variances W 1717 Turnpike Street
a
Attorney Bain spoke for the petitioner. The letter sent to the Z3A from the PIA
DEW was received the day after the April Meeting„ a copy was forwarded to Attorney
Bain who requested a reconsideration because of additional information cunLained in
the MA DPW letter. Attorney Bain stated that the petitioner would have no pr.ablem
meeting the conditions of the DPW. He stated that the land behind and can the side
is not for sale. He feels that this would be a valuable addition to the area and
a convenience for the people in the area. This project should not cause a traffic
problem because it will only be one or two cars at a time. The petitioner requests
that the vote be rea`inded. Mr. Sullivan :asked if any of the Board would like LO
discuss this request and Mr. Nickerson said that he had read the letter and is con-
cerned about the setbaS from the road to the building. He feels that there hag not
been any changes in the setback. Attorney Bain stated that this is the onJ.y lot in
the zone and it is a small one and should be used fGr a good purpose. They cannnt
go track any further because the abutter does not wsaiL to sell the land. They have
tried tv buy it but to no avail. Mr. Soule stated that he saes nnthing wrong with
the petition as it is. Mr. Sullivan said that the 'lawn Meeting secrng to have been
more liberal with this kind of area and seems more favorable for businaos along
Route 114. Mr. Nickerson stressed that it is the only area in town that we can }gut
business. When asked, Attorucy Bain said that the land behind is zoned either VR or
R and the other laud is owned by the Comm. cif MA. Mr. Soule said that r-here isn' t
much that could go in there except something like this and cannot vision what else
could go in there. Attorney Bain said that the area in the back is over TO acres
and may never be used. Mr. Nicena seemed to think that this would have to go for
a site plat review.
The Board voted, unanimously, for a reconsideration on this petition, and removed the
' second.
Upon a motion made by Mg. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to
GRANT the variances uubj ect to the following conditions:
1. only one way in and out of this site.
Z. The State agrees to this one way in and out.
3. The Board of Appeals see the revised pleas and approve
of same before the building permit Is issued.
4. Flans be submitted for site review.
The vote was as follows: In favor, Sullivan, Soule, ]'Connor, Risvin
Opposed, NUkerson
therefore, the petition was CRANTED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Robert J. Batal Bldrs. - Roston Hill - Variances - Route ITA , TuEa i€ce St.
Mr. Batas, spoke and reviewed the requests wanted. firs. B. Fink spoke stating that her
major concern was the number of vRarinnees needed. The hardship she does not feel. 15
a legal hardship. The pond area in the front appears to extend inn Lire area that
site feels the State uculd want to have for a dea_eler: Uun land and it should be moved
back. Mr. Batal said that the wet pond is original and feel they are 501.1 in the
right-of-way. A plan has been filed with the State and the NACC and Plauning board.
Mr. Sullivan stated that we do not have to deal with this because the State and oLher
Boards will be handling this Matter. Mr. Ratal said the reason for these plans being
I4
f ' this way is that the road coming up this way makes it less hilly. Be said the mason
for keeping the buildings closer is so they rocs not have to take out as snarly trees.
The height requirements changed at the Town Meeting bur would not apply because this
peition was in front ref the Board prior to the new bylaw. if the zoning code is better
than the building code, the- zoning code would take effect.
Chestnut Green - condd page 5
now and the parking would be right behiRd this fence, eliminating Rome of the green space.
The traffic shady has been done. The State feels that they may some day wish to widen
Route 114, it would be on the other side of the road. The hardship is that the petitioner
r wants to serve their customers better. The parking Knht now A in mfKalent at the
resent time and this petition would eliminate that problem. There are three (3) condo}
p �
buildings involved in this petition. Mr. Vickerson asked if any parking could he }gut
in the back of the huildivngs. Attorney Willis statead that it is more intense than before
and he does not feel that the parking could he put any other place. Tke design by the
State indicates that any expansion would be on the ocher side of the highway. Some of the
tenants now park in the church parking lot. Many of the condo owners spoke in favor of this
petition stating that they do not want to have to park on Hillside Road, across the street
from the c:oenplex, they would rather park on heir own property. The hardship is to the
patients of the doctors located in the condo complex. Most of t1ja condn owilers spoke ill
favor of this peti.tlan. Building Inspector, Robert Nicetta stressed t€sae rare State DPW
must be notified of Ais and the impact that it could have on the State highway, and passed
by them first. Officer David Rand spoke stating that there is a srricriy left-hapd turn
and they have a lot of accidents in that spot. The cars leaving try to turn right thus
causing an accident..
Mr. Sullivan asked if the island could be pade so that no one could turd left? Officer Rand
wand no, becausL an island cannot be put in without the Title 5. He suggested that this he
continued and have it checked with the DPW before anything is clone, and get their suggestions.
Mr. Vi,venzi.o asked why tke petition had failed the last time K was presented to the Roa&,
and Mr. Serio stated that there were 2 in favor, 2 opposted and one abstained, therefore
it could not be passed. One abutter started that the people are parking parralal now in
this area and if they are allowed to park correctly, it will increase the safety of the
area, Attorney Willis said that the condo people would he happly ro comply with any
conditions the Board wants. The }petitioner has One just about eve rytbing that they could
to make the area safe, and they are willing; to meet with tie State Title 5 people.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenaia and seconded by fir. Sullivan. the Board voted to
continue this hearing so further imput from the State could be reviewed and the Board w
world have time to look at the old decision. (In favor; Sullivan, Nirke-'rson, and Vivenzio
against; Frizelle and O'Connor)
Donald Johnston Variance T � 1 71 7_ Turo pike Street
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney David Bait spoke for the petitioner. He
showed the Board plats of the land and the hAiding. The basics problem if the size,
shape and topography of the lot. The 100' front saLback is the worst prohiem. They have
enough parking. The conditions of this lot constitute a severe hardship as €e i.ned by
Massachusetts General laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10.The proposed bullding is of a size
and design appropriate for such a lot as evidenced by the fact that on3y 16 of the lot
is devoted to it. The petitioner Peals that this type of building would fit nicely A
the neighborhood and would be a contributing factor to the Town. The petitioner has
tried to buy a strip of hind adjoining their land but the owner would not sell it. Mr.
Serio questioned the setback amounts, and Attorney Bain stated that the building would
only take up l % of the lot. Mr. Nickerson and bar. AUsin asked what is behind this lest ,
and Attorney Bain said some is State .land and some residential , he thinks but do not
feel anyone could develop this land in the back. Attorney Bain said Nis is a CR zone.
Mr. Frizelle said that the location is 300' from Boston Road and fear berry Street.
Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor of this petitions? A resident of Sullivan Street
stated that he thought it would be a good idea to have ai e_onvenlenue stare in the neighbor-
hood. The small deli that was on Route 114 has closed and one is needed. Ms. Nutter,
daughter of 08 peiti_oner spoke and said it would be a fancily operation. Attorney Bain
stres+teSd the fact that if this is granted, It would he the right way to use this particular
lot and the Town would have a nice building and improve rare site.
Mr. Berko asked if anyone was opposed to this petition? officer lave. Rana spoke said that
Route 114 is a traffic problem. He asked what curb cuts would be needed and fir. WHO
said that curb cuts come from the Mate and that is Lhe Planning Board' s problem to solve.
Johnston - coned Page 6
Officer hated stressed that they need a complete lazed landing into the parking spaces;
and need agress and egress lanes for safety purposes. Attorney Bain said that he will
go to Mir. DeAngelo at District 5 to see what is heeded and try to comply. Officer Rand
said that ever} time a small business opened up on Route 114, the traffic is tied up for
a long time and it is very hazardous for this area so we seed an egress and agress for
this property.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Firzelie and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board votnd to
take this matter WER ADVISEMTNT. (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule)
CONTINUED FUBLiC HEARINGS
Ronald A. Merino .. Variance - 164 Sutton St .
Mi. Nicerta, Building inspector, spoke} and stated that the area was alright with him.
The parking spaces shown on the original ones and Scott Stockipgs" s re}figural the site-
plan axrd they reduced the parking spaces to five (5) , Mr. Nice}tta looked at the letter
of Scotus and could not fired anything about five (5) spacers. Mr. Nicetta` s main concern
is with the amount of traffic in this spot. He said they are so busy at the Salem, N.H.
stare}, that the traffic is lined up waiting to get in.. His other concern is coming out
on Ashland Street from the site. The Police Department stre ased that with a Sutton Street
entrance, it would be very hazardous because of the right-turn only on Sutton Street.
Officer Rand stated that Sutton Street is the entrance and exit to downtown Nnrth Andover
and has a lot of traffic and one more thing to impact this area is one thing too many.
He stressed that the right-turn only on Sutton Street to Main Street is needed and do
not feel that more traffic could be handled. People would go across the tracks on
Ashland Street when heading for Lawrence. Chris Huntress, Environmental Planner, said
he spoke to Sett Stocking, Flanker, about the site and did not hear him say anything
` about five (5) parking spaces. He feels that it is a traffic hanard.
Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or opposed to this petition.
Mr. Merino showed the original plans to the Board. He seeks relief from R-4 zon€t for
glass co and R-4 zone for street. He said he can rshnw why it went from 11 spaces to 5.
Have 36 areas and it takes 10 minutes to do a tube. The hours they wouid be open would
not conflict with the major traffic. A traffic study was clone :and was not required and
it stated that the egress and entrance shown are the best for this site. They have
addressed every ivuue that the Town has requested and do not fell that 50-60 more cars a
day will affect the traffic flog that Much. The zaning is correct for this, but need
relief because of the land shape. Claims that Mr. DeAngelu sale that they number of cars
involved would n0V overload the area, Friday and Saturday arc the busiest days of the
week with about 60 cars serviced. Officer Rand said that he had seed the ad on TV for
this kind of We job and it gee'ms wrong becau8e of the traffice impact on the Town. It
is a dangerous spot. Mr. Merino sail that most people get an oil change while they are
out doing something else. We are not trying to create a destination location but deed
to ba near the center of the Town. Officer Fusso said that can his visit to the Methuen
location, there weTe 24 cars its front of the site waiting for service and North Andover
could loot handle this.
Letter from N. A. Fire ne=paartment read by Mr. Nickerson (see file) .
Upon a motfon made. by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the hoard voted,
unanimously, to take this Matter UNDER ADVISFMRNT. (Serio, Nickerson, Frizelle, Soule
and Sullivan) .
DECISIONS
Antonio & Francisco Nicolosi Special Permit - 242 Sutton street
Upon a motion made by sir. Frizelle and secunded by fir. Rissin, the Board voted,
unanimously, to allow the petitioner to WITHDRAW THE VARIANUE WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
. ¥«m . 22
Town of North A , N»2ch de \
_r. BOARD OF HEALTH
� ]g ~
G�4
DESIGN APPROVAL FOR
T
C�1 SOILABSO RPT|ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Applicant [ � Tc» No,
\ y2Li TU Z ' )
- . Reference Plan5and -Sp s. / DAY
G NEER D S�
rmi on is, gr granted for anindividual ! absorption m» c ƒsue k| Rem to be sn | \
. % at e with e;ma»» B rdofHe .
. . ,
HEAD N \
\ Site System p�rmco N z
, . ; Fee � � \
C}r`r`3Cv 5 {3f;' a tM1fi,, my Town of
L3l,EE_37l 2{ :t � NORTH ANDOVER �It,�tir[ E7�i�i�[E� (pEtil;
PLANNING & CONINIUNYFY DEVELOPMENT
' KA I EN Ii. ', NEL. ON. 011(L.CTOI t
David J. Bain, Jr.
Attorney at Lair
36 Lawrence Street
Lawrence, MA. 01840
RG: Jobnstall Country Store,
Site Plan Review Reconsideration to zBA.
Dear Mr. Bain,
Z air! writing ;in hopes of clarifying the points of
bich must be addressed in order for the 1'lannjiig iloarcl to vote--
upon your application for a recons der-ation to the zoning Board
of Appeals.
In Order for the Planning Board to vote favorable- ac{Li011 upull
your request , you 111ust first provide proof thr ii Your
reconsideration xs Lased on specific and j14aLc—rial cEtanyes to you 17
original application. The specific reasons that tho Zoning Beard
of Appeals ( L) denied your original application �trc� �� ; follows
I . The ZBA dick riot have input from the State Deptirtju['nl of Public
Works.
. The premises are too close- to the Highway as shown on the
plans presented to the ZBA.
3 . The petitioner has not satisfied the provisirins of Section 10 ,
paragraph 10 . 4 of the Zoning Bylaws . (Copy enclosod)
4 . Granting off" this variance would derogato- from the intont and
purpose of the Lonii Bylaw .
5 . The plan, as presented, would adversely affect the
' neighborhood.
According to the minutes of the Pu)jl i r, Hearing , l; e 'LI1A LrSdt that
size of the lot clad not lend itself to the consii-tiction of the
proposed structure and parking faciliti-es, talld that if approved
this site would derQgate from the general intenU and pur-p qs( of
the Zoning Bylaw.
Furth 2r, the minutes show the board fell: thi::� pru-juct— l_'n;-;ed a
threat to tie safety of vela .c3.es emiter,ijicq and exitiEiq from this,
site, a condition which would adversely affect the neighborhood .
I Rote this answers any questions as to what iBSUOs you are being
asked to address . The Planning Board was continued both public
Hearings with regard to this property to their June 21 . 199O
. . meeting, As the planning board has a deadline of June 30, 1990 to
\ act upon this application for Site Plan Review I would recoiomend
that you an&wer all of the above listed concerns prior to the
June 21, 1990 meet±=g�
As always, please feel free to contact my office with any £u£Lhe£
coliccrn5.
sine rely,
Christian C. Huntress
Town planner
\ cc: Planning Board
Karen H.P. Nelson, nireoto£ DFCD.
R
�I 10 . 32 Temporary Feumit
The Board of Appeals may grant a temporary special Permit
for u" Or OccuPanW Permiu fOr a period Of not more than
oncc ( I ) year at, a time , subject to a single renewal ,
Suo11 Permits shall be rQbject to r-onditiorrs imposed by
the Board related to safeguarding rile eharacr-er of the
district aftected and ;hall he processed jai accordance
+pith thQ procedures provided h4erein for ehe grat1r.ing of.
;.�".• Si�e�ial hermits .
10 . 4 VaCi.ances and AppeFtls
175
TbQ '?,Going Board Gf Appeals skull have power upon appeal
La granr- variances f rosy the terms of r-his Zoning Bylaw
where the Beard finds that owing to oircum , aaces
relating to soil conditions , slope , or taixograpkiy ct: the
"5 land Or structures and especially affecting such land or
structures but riot affecting generally tk1?: zoning
n district in general , a literal Qnforcemerxr~ of ch{�
-;. provisions of this Bylaw will lnvolvl� substantial
hardship , fir8nr-iai or otherwise , to the petltioEjer 017
.. applicarYt , and that dasirable reliet may be granted,
withoLtt substantial detriment to the public good and
with011t nullifying or substanLiai ]:.y derogating from the
intent: or purpose: of this Bylaw .
Additionally, all apt pal may be taken to the Zoning hoard ,r
Of Appeals cLS provid d iraz:ein by a per!>urt zcggt' 1t�VF-,d by
reasons of his inability to obtain a Permit Cr enfarcemenn
{ J.x action fro:A the building l nspf ct±or , by the Herrxinack
Valley Planning commission ' or by any person kncluding
f- . are Officer or Board of the Town of North Aj-i over or an
abuttiaig city or town a
_ r g9rieved by an order or: decision
of the Building Inspector or orlier aE�»xirsistr�t�ve
of f icials in violation of any provisiaE, of this; Bylaw .
x-tsr i
And petition for an aPpQai above must be t.akerl �rithi.a
thirty ( 30 � days of the date of the order or- decision
that is being appealed by fil :Lnq a notice of appe,�l ,
;,.>. specifying the grounds thereof with tk�e Town c1er. k , who
shall forthwith transmit copies of the appeal no sucII
officer or Board , whose order or decision is being
appealed , anti M the Zoning Board of Appeals, Such
officer or Board shall forthwith tr"ansmi r- to the Zoning
Board of APpea.ls all documents and gaper cansLituting q5u
records of r-h0 case in which r-he appeal 1s takefs .
1 . No pt'- ZiLion far a variance or appeal dppealn atroll be
granted until a Public hearing is geld on the mattes;
by tht Z00irng Board of Repeals within sixty- fivt-
155 ) days after the Zoning Board at: Appeals receives
the petition from the Town Clerk .
' rt 1nJke its decision3
'rile 4i11r li Board of Appeals must;
on a petitiort for a var'�ance or .1ppeixi w, thin
,;cvertt - fiYe 7 ) days after the cute of the
petition is filed with the Tow � 3 ersc . In ce der to
c ranL a pe-titian far a varilnce or an appeal , tour
( q o the t S ) members of the Board must
concur , If the zoning Board of Appeals fails to act IFNI
ith rt the time lip;its specifi(:d ta�- reiiY , the
' petitioll for a variance Or appeal small e deemed
granted .
a , In the case of a variance , the zoning Board of
Appeals E[Iay i'OPo:se conditions , safeguards and
limitation: lot time and to se , however , these
' ca dit> ors ca��noC require continued owlrershiP
of tkte land or structure to �thict e variance
pertains pt?ains by the a icatlt , Petit ioyif: r, ar
ownef . eurL her-more , if tyre cis}ed wittrinrone
by the variarj e arcl sot axer
( 1 ) year of the date of the graait , r.11ey
lapseand play be re-established ably afte-r
RoLjci� grid a new hearing .
+ ' The Zoning Board of Appeals s3�a ) l cau,a Evade
a detailed record of ics pr-oceedings jL)dicati[sq the
a de of each membert � each gnUstion , or it absent
or failing to Vote , indicating sucks fact , and
setting fomh clearly thctouttee nor
i4 }� ck ys ason
in tht,
511a]_1 1�e filed wUhi tyre
office of the TOW the rdec si ��kYa1hall E. .1 public
*� nai.lec!
Cle
record . U<) Lice of
tor tY4r tYti to the petitioner, {lppI ,ca�itr c�� +
app�llaE,Et , tQ the ift iiiiyter ett the !
hr? rein , and to every peso;j ptresQnr� erinq
,.. who requested t1jar_ jjarice be seat to thin ��ic�
ated
the -iddres5s ro tdhich Sucil notion wzks co be sp!nt .
Each notice shall specify, that appeal _. , if ally ,
shall be tiled Withi" twenty ( 20 ) days aftev the
dare a filing o suc notice in the office of the
tain the
Tow11 Clar . The decision shall ai.30 cotl
k
names and addressees of the owner, an6 identific{atlon
of the land and/or :,- trrdcture affected ( if t% v{a"ance
pracedure - how the var'j,,,c c0i+epjje5 Sri Lh the
Sttxtn -0r V r<equireMesits tar i ssui11g a variance ) ,
doisaen
Certitioation that "Pies Boa diea and
tiled '� a roar {�-ljLjk�are
with the n
PlaE� il
required .
DATE : June 19 , 1990
TO: Forth Aindover Plazining Board
10 main St.
Forth Andover, MA 01845
FROM. David J. Bain, Jr ,
Petitionex ' s Attorney
RE; Johnston ' s Country Store
Site Plan Review/Reconsideration to
Zoning Board of Appeals
RESPONSE TO LETTER OF TOWN PLANNER DATED JUNE 11 , 1990
in the letter captioned above, the Town Planner raised five
areas of concern which will be dealt with separately .
1 . The Zoning...Board of Appeals did not have input from the
State ne artmenE of Public Works .
When Ehe% Zoning Board of Appeals f•.irsL mct, they did not have
the benefit of a response from the State Department of Public
Works, although they had requested it. In fact, the receipt of Ehe
letter from the Department of Public Works precipitated ttre second
hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the ieUer Ehe
State Department of Public Works stated its preference for a single
entrance to the premises . The plan submitted to zoning Boaxcd of
Appeals showed a dual. enL•rance/exit Configuration. This was
changed at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals . This change
constiEut s a Significant anti material change.
2 . The premises are too closeto Lhe_jilghway as shown on the
plans presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Ono of the primary Teasons for the Petitioner appearing before
the zoning Board of Appeals was the 100 ft. set-back required along
Turnpike Street (Rte . 1 14 ) . When L•he Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to deny the relief requested, it did not have the benefit of the
letter from the State Department of Public Works . The zoning Board
of Appeals acted in Elie belief that Hie 100 ft . set-back in this
instance was critical as far as state approvals were concerned ,
When Lhe Zoning Board of Appeals had an opportunity to review Elie
SE.ate Departraent of Public Work ' s leEter they discevertx LhaE Elie
State would prefer the premises back further if passible, but, the
S�_aEe was riot unduly concerried about the location. To Lh*-_ extcrit
that the initial assumption of the Zoning Board of Appeals was
incorrect, this constitutes a mate-vial and specific change.
3 . The Petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section
10 , Paragraph 1 . 4 of the Zonin 13 -TLaw,9 .
Section 10, Paragraph 10. 4 of the By-Laws has been saLisfi d
for the following r asone :
a. The tcpcgi�aphy of Elie lard Fnakes it non-conforming . This
aspect affects this lot and not any other parcel in the zone
because this lot is the only parcel in the zone.
b. A literal enfoxccement would make the land useless because
any proposed structure on this lot would result in a rion-conforming
Structure . Therefore, financial hardship has been esEablished.
c . The meinbc-�rs of the Zoning Board of Appeals acknowledged
that there was no other viable use for the land as presently
configured. To the exE nt that the Zoning Board of Appeals found
that the traffic concerns and set-back concerts had been addressed
by the State Department of Public Works so that these concerns did
not pose a detriment to the neighborhood; they reversed their
conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to satisfy the provisions
of Paragraph 10 . 4 and do-termined that they could grant the relief
requested without substantial detriment to the public good or
denigrating from the intent and purposes of the By--haw. This
constitutes a specific and material change of the conclusion
reached by the Board ba.5ed on incomplete information.
4 . Granting of this variance would-.- the from the
nt-_ ri.t__.and. purpose of the Zoning BY-Law .
Initially, the Zoning Board of Appeals reached this
fonclusion. However, the Board found upon reflection thaE since
the lot is the only lot in the zone and their earlier concerns
about traffic Safety and set back had been addressed, that hardlisip
had been e.9tabl fished . Therefore, Elie intent and purpose cif the
zoning by-law would not be denigrated front if the variance were
granted. To exterxt that the underlying assumptions upon which Elie
Board' s conciusica was based changed, this constitutes a specific
and material change.
5 . The......plan, .....a.s .. presonted, would adversely affect the
noiglYbnrlrocrd.
The Zoning Board of Appeals found that traffic safety
involving exiting and enteying onto Route 114 was a concern. The
letter from the State Department of Public Works required a change
in the configuration of the entrance and exit . The Zoning Board of
Appeals conditioned it ' s approval of a variance upon this change.
The neighborhood in que.9tion eonsi;�;ts of raw land, a filling
station and several. business uses, some of which are loca L-ed closer
to Route 11d than the proposed project. It is difficult to see how
any item, othez' that traffic, could affect the neighborhood in an
adverse fashion. Once the traffic problem was resolved by the
input f'acom the State Department of Public Works, the conclusion
that the plan would adversely affect Elie neighborhood was changed .
. ' To the extent that the hoard of Appeals changed it ' s opinion as to
Lhe adverse affect 0£ the pIo§ect on the neighborhood, this
constitutes a Specific and material change.
in addition to the foregoing £a@ Petitioner has at the request
of the zoning Board of Appeals and this Board made the following
. anG specific and material changes £o it ' s plan:
\ Z . Double entrance/exit to Single entrance/exit
\ , Dry sewer connectinn
, Revised lighting plan
. Fully sp£inkle£ed building, as approved by the NorLh
Andover Fire Department
. Landscaping plan revised under Lhe auspices of Lhis Board
. and the Town P1anne£
. Signage that is appro21iate and aLt£ac£ive has been added
to the plan
All necessary permits from the worth Andover hoard of
Health have been obtained
. The configuration of the parking lot to make it attractive
and functional has been changed under the auspices of this
Board
. Respectfully Submitted,
Donald Johnston
By his Attorney
David J. Bafn, Jr.
36 Lawrence St .
Lawrence, MA 01840
(508 ) 03-5896
Town of
Nor AiI(it pvc.r
COSSti�lfll�fC}�! NORTHi ;.,��:�� AlF7�SF�t�i7tJtit'1t� 01t3i1,F
H$1 �1 i ¢ •ei.�'cx{ 9]fVJHRO OF fi08i 682 f F3 3
PLANNING
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KARFN H,P. NF1-90N. F)IRFCI'(X?
3arluary 19 , 1990
David J. Bain, Jr.
Attorney at Law
36 Lawrence Street
La+wrenue, IAA. 01840
Re: Johnston Country Store,
Site Plan Review
Dear Mr. Bain,
I would first like to thank you for {appearing before the Planning
Board at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 16 , 1990.
As you are aware, the above referenQed Site Plan Review
application was discussed and the board made the following
comments
1 . Pursuant to Section 10. 8 of the North Andover xoni.ng Bylaw,
"the Zoning Board of Appeal8 may not act favorably upon a
petition wniioh has been previously denied within a two ( 2 )
year period of time unless four (4 ) of the five (5) rembecs
of the Zoning Board of Appeals find that there are speci.fk.-
and, material changes in the conditions upon which the
changes in the records of its proceedings apd only after a
public hearing, held by the Planning Board, at which
consent to allow the petit,ionar to re-petition the Zoning
Board of Appeal, will be considered and after notice is
given to parties of .interest and only with four ( 4 ) of the
five (5) members of the Planning board voting to grant
consent. "
Your client, s application to the Zoning Board of Appeals was
denied on April ll, 1989 . At a subsequent hearing botorc the
locking Board of Appeals on May 9 , 1989 r your, client was
granted a variance under a re--consideration to that board . As
the bylaw states, you are to submit an application to the
Planning Board which snows specific and material changes to
your original denial before the Zoning Board of Appna 1-s , Th i g
will help to insure that proper and legal procedures huve been
followed ,gin' this rase .
. The Zening Board of Appeals granted a variance on May 9 , 1989
with regard to lot size, front., rear and side setbacks . In
accordance with the Zonirg Bylaw, '.Fable 2 ( 1 ) , 19 Front set_bsic k
shall be a minimum of 100 feet along Roue 114 , regardlei s of
the district, . . the first 50 feet of Erotic aeLback undt-�r thin
requitement Shall be planted and landscaped and no parking
Shall be permitted, " The planning Board i& requiring that you
repetition tEG Zoning Board of Appeals with specific regard to
this Concern.
S , The Boats would like to see a coyy of the deed for the
property in question,
4 . A commercial fire sprinkler system shall be required
throughout the entire structure . The building will also be
required t0 have its internal fife alarm, detection and
Suppression systems tied into the rife Depaftlient via a mastȣ
connected fire alarm box.
5 . & dry Sewer shall be required to extend to the property line,
and the applicant shall tie into the sewer as soon as it
becomes available along Route 114 .
Please contact my office with any questions or concerns , and
please Submit all pertinent information to my attention prior to
the next planning Board hearing,
Sincerely,
Christian C. Huntress
Town Planner.
cc: Planning Soars
William V. Golan, Fire Chief
William §murciak, DPW
D. Robert 9icetta, Building Ink2eotQr
Karen E. P.Nelson, Director DPCD
Town of 120 k1i I HIS t ret-I
N't ni I I A I V 14 1VU c'
'ONSP NORTH ANDOVER
I)I V INI�)N OF ffq IR)6H-
["I,ANNING & COMMUNITY DEVEI,013ME�N
K A f t I I I-J E-L SON, I')I I I I
November 28 , 1989
David J. Bain, Jr.
Attorney at Law
36 Lawrence Street
Lawrence, MA. 01840
Re: JOhnnton Property, 1717 Turnpike Streot,
North Andavor
Dear Mr. Elf-Ain;
I am writilig to inform you of the information nceded prior
to the Planning Boarcl rendering a decision with regard to tile
abovo referenced project .
The following pPints must be addressed :
1. For a rotail use of this size 24 parking sp;ces shall be
required , One of which can be compact spaces an per
section 8 . 1 .yaragraph 7 of the North Andover Zoning
Bylaw.
2 . False inforka tion was originally presented to the Zonip,
Board of Appials . The minimum number of parking spaces
required is 24 , not 16 as is noted on the plan which was
presented to the ZBA as basis for their May 11, 1989
decision .
3 . Due to the nbrnber of variances needed on thA site it
will be my recommendation that both the GFA Ad the
overall footprint of the structure be reduced so an to
but comply with thn Zoning Bylaws .
4 . Thu applicant must receivo Board of Hnnit'll approval for
the septic system prior to the Planning Board iswing a
Special Permit for this project .
5. The appiicant must review the proposal with the North
Andover Conservation Commissi= Administrator prior to
the opening of the Public Hearing with the Planning
Board .
Please contact me at your ear lir!:5t canvenieno,(- no I may
schedule a meeting With the Technical Review committee to review
the merits of your proposal . If you have any questions or
conce£nn pinan@ feel ££er t0 contact my office.
sincerely;
�
Christian C. Huntress |
Town planner. |
|
cc, D. Robert Nicetta , Building Inspector.
Karen H.P. Nelson, Director D D.
Richard Doucette, Conservation Administrator.
Mice el Graf, Board of Health,
Zoning Board of appeals
Planning Board.
|
. �
|
|
]
"Ariy appeal shall be ffle(l join, PAWL I D40
0 ,011 10WH CURK
within (20) days after the
(Nate of f i]i ntx, of t 1,i s N u H c e
in the 0Mcfa of the Town
- APR 29
Cferk.
TOWN Or NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Dun.ald Johnston Petition: #44-8�
114 Buston St .
DECISION
N. Andover, MA 01845
3k
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuegday nvening, March 14 , 1989
and April 11, 1989 upon the application of Donald Johnnon requesting a virlance
from the requirements of Section 7 , Paragraph 7. 1 , 1 . 2 and Table 2 of the Zoning
Bylaws so as to permit relief of Square foovage of lot , front setbAck and renj-
setback in order for construction of building on thr promisus located aL 3717
Turnpike Street, The following tnemher!; were prasent nud vuUng: Frank Striae, Jr . ,
Chairman. Alfred Frizelle, Vice—chairman , AugusKnn Nickerson, Clark, Willian;
Sullivan and Walter Soule.
The heating was advervised in Ue North Andover Citizen on February 23 , 1989
and Marc-b 2, 1989 and all abutter's were notified by regular miti.
Upon a mutiiun made by Mr. Soul-c- and seconded by Hr. Frizelle, Hie. Ro ard voted
to grant the varitizice% '.41b_jCCt to th42 Erji1QW111l,r Conditions,
1. Only one way fn and fjiif- of the slre.
2. The State agrees to this oun way in and out .
3, The Boa r.d of Appeals see tho revised plans
before the building permit is Issued .
The vote was as foliows: lei fPvnr; Nt-. '}(orjjio t-jr , FrIv'Lije Zind Mr. Soule
Opposed Mr. N If ke rskpsi a lid 1-1 c. S u f I I vall
therefore the petition is DENIED
The Board did not hear anyLlilag from the Masnachusetts Departmant of MIR Work,,;
and fell than the premises would be too clone to the highway. The Honyd Hnd,;
that the peoinioner hae not satisfied-the provislunn of Saction 1U, Foraquaph 10.4
of the Zabing. Bylaws and Ge granting of thIN varisnice would deragate fr(un Hif,
intone and purposes of the Zoning Bylaw and wauLd adversely affect Lhe nyjHhhnr1lE3vd.
Dated this 20th day of April, 1989.
BOARD 017 A 1 1[3 1.'.olk I .1�
k k
Chaff rmnn
now and the parking would be right behind this fence , elimi}l:lt ing rdaally of UP gcevn picu.
The traffic study has been dune. The State rents th ac they may Some ally wi;ho t, k'jd,1j
,. htoute 114, It would be on Ch e ather side € f that road . The %rdshtip is that Cho petiCieoner
wants to Serve their customers better, The parkinn right now is insufficient tar the
present time and this peoitlun would elltninaLe that problem. There are three (1) curtdo
buildings involved in this petitian. Mr. Nicker;an asked it ;any pnKinf, could he pw
ill Che back of the bulidings. Attorney Willis Uated that it Q more intense thNn haforc•
and he dues not feerl that the parking could Car. Put MY other ;place . The des!Kn by the
State indicates that any expansion would be on the ocher side or t_he hs [ghway . Scamw of the
tenants now park in the church parking last. Many of the ro"du owners poke in fatvnr eaf AN
petition staring that they do not want to have to park on EliCltiicle Boar, ourans the ;Crput
from the camPlex, they would rathar park on their own pr-a perLy . The h ayalt hip is; to the
patients of the doctors located in the condo compivx , hOnt of the condo nw"ur`; gpnko irk
favor of this Petition. liui IeCUg lrtspe eLor, Raharrt Nir:-t tln ntrCs`od ChAr: the StNt_e ItP
must he notified of this and the ias pncr that it could hnue on the stoto highway, and p aa.soll
by them fir.,t. Uffiner David Rand gpoko Stating t-hatt: there is n r.tulctly leA-hsAnd wrn
and they have a lint of accidents' in than spot , The cNrn Iertving rrY try CeiM right: Am,
causing an accident.
Mr. Sullivan asked if Cho island could he p ode sea AM no one could trout IN Q OFFICcr Rand
oaid no, because an island ca3nnot ha por in without the Title 5 . He *ai€Sast:ud that rh N bet
continued and have it checked wlLh the DPW Wore auphing is a3ono, lad fret their s;rrggvniun.�;
Mr. Vivenzio aNked whey the petition had Failed the latNe tlm€s is was l vesented LO Ne Huard,
and Mr. SYS staved chat there were Z In favor , 2 apposted and one abstAncd, t:hrecefore
it Could not he passed. One abumer stated that We people titre parking pnrrilrl raa3w ht
this area nd H Whey are allowed to pavk correctly, it will wcvua ne th o safroy uF obt.
area . Attorney Willis Naid than the c€ ud€a people wart1d be happly to comply with Any
conditions the Hoard want_S. The pnvirloner has done just zahOul UvVVYLhIni, that they Could
to make the area onfe, and they arm willing to mutt with the .`srnre Tithe 5 people.
- Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board votud ro
continue this Bearing so further t mput From' the State r.r "Id by reviewed and the Roard -
would have time to look at the bid declsinn. ( [ rk favor; Suf l Ivan, N1vkrr_"n, and Vivunzlo
ag ain no; Fri zal le and O'Connor)
Donald Johnston - Variance - 3 7 f 7 Torgilku .;tyt?t
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney David Rain spoke for the petitioner. A
showed the Board plans of Ne )Larry€ and the building. The hnsic prnhlum .if the salzr ,
Nha pe and topography of the text , The 100' f ronL s;etha rk is the wucmt Carat lam. Th ey have
enough parking. The con€ Rions -of this lot AnW t err a suvure hardship nq d"F inod by
Massachusetts General Laws, C17apler 40A, Section 10-The p5.-opoNed hailding .is of I size
and design appropriate for such :i lot as evide•arod hv the ract mar any in of thae teal
is devoted to I.L . The per.lrione~r fuels that this typo ?f beak{ ng .,ouid lit uEcely its
the neighborhood and would he a contributing factor to thtp Town. Thu pvriolarnur ham
tried to buy at strip of Land ard ;arin&2 their fond but rho anunpr would not: ovl [ it . Mr,
aria] € uestlanrd the uetbarck amaun'rs, nod At1'ts!'nuy Noin !;tared that Ne buildIng wouldonly take up 162 of rh e lot . Mr. Clickcr_ on nod Mr. IC Es nin <aNkud what 14 1fC'l ind this loft ,
and Aunr ovy Hat" said :some ii s linty I a"d and `iomo rvA [don r j a 1 , he t h J Ilk; Iktkt. ails Ikart
feel anyone could develop this hind in An hock. Atcurney Bain _old WH fn a CH -xuuu .
Mr. . Frizelie Sala than the! .Location is 300' from hosrtan Road and near Burry strr,vct
Mr . Arlo amked if :anyone was in favor of rhig petition? A Mgi{IvaV ski SUI [ Na" Strait
statad that he' thhUUgK it would be 0 f;e}od Idea rn hraav" a convenience tirory f.rt thr iwf. hbor -
huod . Thu small dell rkat was an Raute 114 has closed aknc[ nnv is S1euded, My, Nutter ,
Jnughoter of the peit_iunev npoke and said it warutd bn a family opprarjou . AUnruuY Vain
;r.rvsscd the fact that if this is granted, it '.~'cued be the right way t" "wv thin pirt_ icul ar
lot and the Tawn would have at n1cr hA J chAg and improve tho situ,
Mr. Serin asked if anyone was oppnsed ro this pctit- ican=x 01ficur Dav{, hand poke stick that
RcULe 114 is a trafftn problem. He asked what curb cuts would by nueded Ned Mr. gerin
naid rhnt curh 4uLs come from Chet' State and that in the 1 lynninf, h3onrd ' s problem to solve.
Jahi stnn -- coiled page 6
Officer Raod srresged that they noed a completes land leading into rhea € arking spaces
and need {-ogress and vgrns; Ianats for safeVy purperse8 Att€}rney knIn snid thar be will
'x go Co Mr. DeAngelo at District- 5 Co see what is needed and try to comply. officnr i#nQkl
said that every time a small business opcned LLB} an Route 114 , the trai € c Is tied up scar
a long tune aad it zs very hazardous foe this area so we need an vgr ess a"d :egress fur:
this property.
Upon a L1a{Drion raka de by LMr. Ftrzelfv and seconded by Hr. WiCIL['.ygon , rho board voted 14)
Lake Ohio mat.tet UNDER ADV1SEHTNT. (,inrQ, Fr.izelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule)
C:ONTINUF:t) PUBLIC EIE:AE{€l4(;4
Roiiald A. Merino - Vatr4t nju — 104 Sutton Sv,
Mr. Nicettat, Building Inspectar, mpoke and StVtUd that the area vital alright with him.
The parking gpacc: shown an the €rrigival valet. and Scott Scockiig0w refigured the xl.Ce
p1sn and they reduced Lhe parking Spaces tv five (0) . Mr. h`irntta Waked at the Intrer
A Sc.ott ' s and could noL find anythfog Moat five (5) `pSift`.. Mr. Nicntcds main concerti
its with the amount af traffic in this npor. He said they area su busy at Like Salem, N. H.
store, that the traffic is lined up waiting to got in. His tither concern is Cuming out
fail AshLatnd SoreeC from the site . The Police Department stressed that with a Sutton Street
entrance. It would be very hiazard+}L.LBi bemuse of the right-turn only € n Sutton St.roe t ,
Officer Hand stated that Sutton Street fs the ent.ranc_n and Qxit tea downtown North Audover
and has a lot cri Lrafficl and one more thing to impact thin area in one thing too pia ny .
He stressed Wat the right-turn only on Sutton Street to ,'aIn SEvuet is nendnd and der
not reef WaL more trnffi<c could be handled. People would go acroNs the rrazcks L]Lt
Ashland Street when laaading leer LawrCace. Chris E€kftkness, Frkvir€xLaLIentol Planner , said
he spoke to Scott Stacking, Planner . about the mite and €lfd nor War him gay SkLtything
about Meg CA parking spaces A feels that to - is a irMi<c ha ard . .
Mr. Serin asked if anyone was In favor or opposed to rhi<s pvtiKan .
,sir. Merino showed the originat flans to the Board. He seeks rel lee From i#-4 zonp for
glasN ca and K-4 cane for street . He said he can show why it went f rom . 11 nlr. ueN to 1 ,
Have 36 areas and It takes lD _linutes te] do a lube. The hnurq they would he npun would
not confl_icr with Whe major tr:xf.Clc , A traffic study win done and wAy nut r{ quIr�ed .alit]
it stated that the {�grobs and .putrFpep shown are the hvgt for itsIs sitV . " hay have
addreLsed every Issue that the 'Towle has requested :and do not fell that 5U-6D more cars ;I
day will affect Lhe traffic flow that much, The zaning is correct for t€alp., but nee(]
relief heczusa of the land shnje. Claims that Mr. Heirkgulo said th£kt the nLLmher Of LaM;
involved Wi]uld nat overload tle area . Friday and Saturday are they 'hush st da yg of the
week with ahaut 60 cars serviced. Officer haled Snjd that he had mein the A on TV for-
this kind of .>vaibe job and It sheens wrong becartihn of the traffice fakLpact on NO Town. It
is a dangerous spat . Mr. Picytho sals Lha v rigost people gav an W change WIN they am
OuC, doing somut31ing else. We are not rr'ving to c~rulte a dentinaLtinn location hear ieved
to he nn a r tho center of the 'fawn. Officer F ttsso said Ant on his visit to rhv ;•fa•r huyl>
lot aLion, Lucre vier€s 24 cars In from- Of the r; EtU Waiting fc,r hervic.c raircl P,0Frh e'k11d,.rvL'['
C0Lt]{i 1A0t 11-M1.11e this .
Letter- from N. A. Firm Department read by Mr. Nickerz{oar (sate• file) .
Upon a motion made by Pet-. F ixelle and s coiided by Mr. Nickerson , giro Eionrd vrarndp
unanlmeatLvb , to take thf.n manor UNDER ADVISF:.'dh;NTASerlo. Nickvrav" . 01nel le . Sant
and Sullivan) .
DECISIONS
AnLoitiv Frnac' isca Nicaloof - Special Pormit 262 SULLon Street.
Upon :a Irii viun made by Mr. Fil%elle nod SUfcFrsded by Mr. Eli o !" , the Bnord vot+ref,
unanimously , ru allow the pet? ri_onur to WITHDRAW TE€E', VARIA C;F: 91 TlEOUT PRI.lilDICR and
. f
•1. f i * lt�' ' 7 F `` II yy l - E 5 \ f{ tile APMic F" '3) S�Vkk31 'k r �41115f E
w L � GC: Of t�1C: E EC +s► •IFFT 4 �� 9JT
WWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHU E'IT
BOARD O,F APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
a�aid ,icrhitstaTY
.4 130"t- ri St. Into , . ri:iy 11., 1�}tis . . - - .
ArLdUVLer, MA 01645
Dato of Ileariog. - . f�trr11. ii.,- j'9139
�tt;t:UNS f 31�.1�`i'i`ION: May 9 , 1989
petition of Bond ,lstErtop . - - . . - - .
pmmism affected . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Referring W tiro abovo 134 6 ion for a varia bon from the rcquirumenW of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 .cticru- 7,,. l',zi rag rap F .}.l. . T.J. -and-Tabj'L' 2 . of, EJlc. .Zu11Ing ,Bylaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a0 BE, to pern1 t . - ,rLijef- .af .squaar,- Icotage- .of . 1ckt.,. _EruLkt. sa-t.bo - our -rear . se-t.ha0k-
-1 - ,roper -for, r_onstrutt jail .of- buiLdini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . - . . - - - . . . , . . . . - . -
After a public hearing given on't]ie above elate, the Board of Appeals voted to .CHANA. . . . . . Ule
raxfaciccs as r .r3. . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . mid horeby +xuthuri2e tho Building fnspectoF to imue it
rnutto , . Donald- Johriston. . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
for the oonstructioll of the abovo work, Umaed upon the following conditions:
1. only one way in and ou(;{}f the site .
2. 'me State agrees to thin oc'LL waY ill and ou' .
3. The 1ioard of Appeals. see tk7€: revir;t(k JIJAa3; ATId ,aj);)!-0VL-
of NaEnt before Lhe building pet-m r f.. Issued.
4 f'lacts be sulks its ed for site revlew.
Signed
ldi �iLt H3 :�[ll �.IV7111 t C fllg. �k,'E � rman
Atl.kaU Lnc-. .hl�cket
S{ 11,E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Appeals
PLO y
in
the the Town
TOYYJY 05 NORTH H A1YDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
�r
�s
D!):3:il{.[ JU€l[1Stcsll RECUNSF€]ERATEON
114 Boston street
044-89
N. Andover, MA 01805
3k DECISION
The lloard of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening, P€z rch 14 , 1989 and
April 11, 1189 upon Lhe application of Donald ,Johngrnn V0glLeSL1Hg a Vr.LT innCe from
the requirement; of Section 7, Paragraph 7. 1 , 1 . 1 and WOO 2 or the 7unini, Bylaw
so a5 to perrna t_ rcli-of of square footage of lnt , fronp 5etb,rtk ran4l ;-F,zir r;etback isi
ordar for couslLt'ua~tiun K building on tha promises lonand ;at E717 Turnpike
Street, € pon a motion made by Mr. HUN and neunndrd by Mr. 1•'flzel le , the Ward
voted to grant the variauceN sobject Lo snveral conditions, but the vote for t€ais.
was chree in favor and two opposed, tat3 the €➢a;titiekn was 4€r .ed
A ieti-er waS received from ALL- They David Bain requesting a rLuorLr;iclr..rarlon o€ tills
petition due to the fact that he had recet vcd at copy of a iet.ter froc4 .tIle P€,leszle=huneCts
fJepaUmenl! Of Public 1•ltrrka the day after tba Board of Appeals meetfrr['.. ThIs fe(:t vr: €,:id
pertinent %EormaKon concerning this pKItAn thn Attorney Bain Hir n renonnIderation
or this application should be 5eld. Attorney Bain' s request was received within Lhe
ten (1U) day appeal period , thereVre, the reconsideration wn; Rr.€1vduled for the regulau
macti.ng an May 9 , 19 9. The Board vated, unanimously, to reuun!;ic€rr rll € ,,111311fiarimi.
Upon a motion made by Me. O' Cohor and snconded by Mr. Soule, the 1Snnud vorod to GHAN-f
ohe variances subject to - the fLjiuwii�g cond Lions :
1. Only one way in !nd out. of the. site.
Z. The Srate agreexs :Qu thIs one wily in alut CAR .
3. The Board of A;3pi als see the ruv i srd plans and
approve of same before tf a building permit is iss4 ud ,
4 . Pl;psis be submitEed for site review.
':.'hc vo[-C was as follows: 1.1x favor: Pfe'. Sullivan , ;1r. `3faEllc_, :1:; . [}' [,crat[+es;' 4 Mr , €ti ;;ir3
01)11oee_d Mr. Nic_ket ;ori
therefore , the petition was GRANTED.
The Board fins that We petitionou has satisCied t€ O € 1-0Vi',1CrL1.'t (lC '3f--Ct €ran 10, Para-
graph 10.4 of the Zuning Bylaw and the g nt i_ng uF this ; [ 1 ' Jll]#
from the intent and purposes of the Zoning €iyJnw ;alld w11.1 1`10L ;LCIVL']-�,L'. l ',' ;�f f � rE th(1
ncighborhood.
Dated this 11th day of May, 198V.
BOARD OF J
f I , .
OWL WWII €<am NLLI I fv;tit
Page 5
RECONSIDERATION
Donald Johnson -..n" Variances Ttkrnpike
`ti.. Attorney Rain spoke for the petltiaser, The letter sent. Lo the ZBA from Lhe NA
DPW was received tho day aftcv the Aprtl meeting, n copy wau forwarded to AtLorney
Bain who requested a reconsider Vion bacause of additional informatian contained in
tChe NA Dn' letter. Attorney Rain stated that the petitioner wauld hove no prohicnt
meeting the conditions of the € PW. He graced that the land behind and an the .side
is not for sale. He feels that this would he a valuable additiun La the me a a"d
a convenience for thn peupie Q Cite aver . This prajnco should noc ciuse a traffic
problam because it will only be ann or wo cnrs at a time. The petitioner rcquent
that the vote be reeNded. fir. Sullivan nsked If any of the Board would like to
discus; this request and Mr. Nicknrnon said that he had rend the Orrer and Is con-
cerned about the setback from the road to the building, He Fnels that there has not
been any changes in the sethack. ALtornvy Bain stated Chat Lhis is the only ]err Q
the zone and it is ar gmal_l one :teats shvuid he used for a good pur€bngv. Thuy e=Nnnnt
gu back any further because Ehe abutter doeh not want to Nell the ].and , They have
Cried Lo buy it but to no avail, Mr. Soule stated that he sees nothing wrong with
the petition as it is. Mr. Sullivan said Lhnr the 'Power Meeting seums i"n l aVV Qekl
more liberal with this kind of aren and seems more favorable for bu ninesm niu"g
Route 114 , Mr. . Nickerson stressed that it in the only area in town thar we start put
business. When asked, Attorney {lain said Lhat the lean behind is honed either VR or
R and the other land i:; ome€E by the Comm, of MA. Nr. S€aule said Lhaat there isn' t
much that coald go in there except: womeLhing like this and can nut v1sinn what else
could go in there. Attorney Bain said that the nr€a in the hark in over 10 rarrefi
and may never be usnd. Mr. Nicctta nvemnd to think that Clais w0UJd have tea go for
4 site {elan review.
The Board voLed, unanimovslyr, for a On this peLiLfnaa, atlld r-e-ruttur,rl thf--
secon€E,
€ pon a motim made by Ms . G'Ca nor and spe-onded by Mr. 5uuie, the_ �ivard vuLe€E to
GRANT the variance; subject to the following can€€itions: .
i. Only attic Way ill a lad orrC of tlri- s.ite.
2. The State agrees Ca Lhis one way ial ,Maid t+tiL.
.I, The Bo.aa-d of Appeals lee the revised plans ;lie€E a pprovu
of same before the 'building € ormit iN Jssucd.
4. Plans he submitted Cor site review.
The Vole was a,.; Follows. in favor, Sullivan , ;uule , O' Connor , Rissin
OPPOsed , bicker sun
therefore, the petition was CFANTED.
fiolrcrt ! . El.tt,�] Bldrs. B..;Ntnn Hill Vaarl.ancus v Ilyrnp3kv St .
Mr. Elartal spoke and reviewed the requents wheeled. Mrs. B. hint poke} tittat &g Lhzar her
major concern was the number o.f vtari.ancrq ,�cuded. 'E'h h.trds sip ;lit doom alert bezel in
"ar
a legal hardb0p. The pond ea to Che front appears to vxtund [site, the Fr vl thaL
the feels the State would warm to have for a decrlerat [un land ;and it mlould he mnvvd
back. Mr.'. Baatal ..arks Chat Lhe wet pond is original and reef they ,tru g#" Ell in Lhe
right.-of-way, A €xlau has hn{gin Eiled with the Stnty a"d the ri,1M .airs] Pla nniuq hoard ,
Mr. SuLlivan stated that WO € U noL hnVe to dcal with this becarunv tt p Sea tv a"d catlke_r
Baar% 011 be laandliug this matter . fit-. Battnl said tltc ri'.a on l €rr the•ne• plans being
this way is that tho r'uad c_camiog up thiti way matkeq It Jess hilly, He said rhv re. sou
Cor keeping the buildings closer Q Sep t€:Vy do noL hnvr to Lake Out an Mann LrccsS.
The height requirements changed at the Town Meeting but would not apply Qcaune this
peirion was in from of the Board, prior Lo the nuw bylaw, 11 the •xn ai. g coda in Voter
than the bAlding code , the. zoning code would take efiec vt
120 NI'mirl Slrc��r
'oFl- zS C)F:; Town of
NORTH AI DOVER -NOT O I Al if ii)vcr
i kss;I 1-11 t]!;(A P; 01 H4!)
)INIS E I WA FION
I MIN iNG
PI.ANNING & COMMUNITY I-JEWULOPMENT
X A]M-4N j 1.1 3. N I.r.,1-3()N�' '-I-()I I
January 19, 1990
David J . Bain, Jr.
Attorney at Law
36 Lawrence Street
Lawrence , MA . 01840
Re : Johnston Couutry Store,
SAO Plan Review
I would first like to thank you for appear inq baLora Lhe Planning
Board at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 18 , 1990 .
As you are aware, the above referenced Site Plan Review
application was discussed and the board wade the following
comments :
1 . Pursuant to Section 10 . 8 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw,
"the Zoning Board of Appeals may not act faverably Upon
petition which, has bona previously denied within a' Lwo ( 2 )
year period of time uWass Lour (4 ) of the Hyn (5) members
of the Zoning Board of Appeals find that there are spnWCK!
and material chhngen in the conditions upon which the
changes in the records of its proceedings and only aHer a
public hearing, held by the Planning, Board , at whjuji
consent to ail'bw the petitioner to re-petition the Zoning
Board of Appeal will be considered and after nutice is
qivcn to parties of interest and only with four (4y of the
five ( 5) members of the Planning Board voting to grant
consent . "
YQI r cIiellt ' s application to tho Zoning Board of Ap;-)c,,jj.F.
de-riicd on April 11 , 1989 . At a subsequent haaring bahorn the
Zoning Board of Appeals on May 9 , 1989 , your client wa!;
granted a variallc!e Under a to that board . Af-,
.fie bylaw states , you aro to submit an application to the
Planning Board which shows specific and watarial ehanVcs to
your original dynial before the WnAV Board of Appealn . ThK
Will WIP to insure that propou and legal procoauyoi have bCOF1
followcd in this cash ,
2 . The Zoninq Board of Appoals qi7sntod a %qkrjzjjjc(_' ozi r,1,1y ') , JIM9
With regard to lot size , frwnU, rear and '; ion vathnukn. In
with the Koninq Bylaw, Table 2 ( 1 ) , " Front notbawk
nhall to a minimum of IGO feet along Route 114 , regardless of:
the district , . . the Urst 50 feet of front Aethank Undar this
requirement shall bo planted and landGeaped and no parking
shall ba permitted. ® The Ilanning Board is requiring that you
repetition the Zoning Boar! of Appeals With specific regard to
thi& concern.
3 . The Board would like to see a copy 0I the deed for the
property in question,
4 . A commercial fire sprinkler system shall be »@quire«
throughout the cntif@ Structure . The building will also be
f@§Rired to have its internal fire alarm, detection and
suppression systeIiS tied into the Fire Department via a master
connected fife alarm box .
5 . A dry Seale£ Shall be required to extend to the property line,
and the applicant shall tie into the Sever as soon as it
becomes avaiiable aloes Route 114 .
Please contact my office with any questions or concerns , and
please Submit all pertinent inforPatioll to my attention prior to
the next planning Board hearing.
Sincerely ,
Christian C. Huntress
Town Planner'.
cc: Planning Board
William V. Dolan, . £ire chief
William amur-ciak, ' PPW
D. Robert Nicetta, building Inspector
Karen e. P,Ne1Son, Director DPCD
2 . A commercial fire Sprinkler system shall be required
throughout the entire structure . The building will also be
required to have its internal fire alarm , detection and
Suppression systems tied into the Fire Department via a master
connected fire alarm box.
] . A dry sewer shall be required to extend to Uhn property line,
and the applicant Shall tie into the sewer as soon as A
becomes available along Route 114 .
Please contact my o££loe with any questions or conce£RG, and
please su mnie nll Pertinent information to my attention prior to
the next planning Board Bearing . .
Sincerely. .
zz
%� x
Christian C. Huntress
?own Planner.
. oc : Planning Board' '
William V. Dolan . Eire Chief
William ! murcia\. DPW
D. Robert §icefta. Building Inspector .
Karen H.±.welson, Director DPCD