HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision for Finding - Decision - 34 Wentworth Avenue 2/18/2022 Town of Notth Andover F APPEALS BOARD O
ZONING !7 V
G,tk Tinlesi44
TLonn R.Faigerl Chairman
Alexandria A.Jacobs,Esq.,Vice-C''a...a" r or
Allan Cuscia,Clerk
Luen P.McIntyre
D.Paul Koch Jr.,F-Sq.
Associate Alembos
Ujjcliael T.Us
steven R.Seide
Prank j.1,0ilea
Notice of De iSion ➢
Any appeal shall be filed within twenty Calendar fear 2022
days date of filing of this notice
after the Clerk pursuant
in the office of the,Town § 17
to Mass. Gen. L. ch.40A --------
AjjjIcAT1ON DATF
VPL'C November 16,2021
o3nathat,Grasso DATES'L,,ARIN' and
PROPERTY'- December 14,2021,January it,2022,
-th Avenue 08,2022
34 Wentworth FebrU
North Andover,MA 01845 PETITION:
Map 0067,Parcel 002 2,021-17
HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. PROCEDURAL ills -nding pursuant 10 Town of North
P
21, has requested a f, urpose of
November 16, 20 Zoning District for t,
oil filed Nov R-4
nt by apPlir-ati -xceptions in the a Finding
Applicant, 95-7.8 E
Zoning Bylaws, Section ctober 14,2021' specifically5Applicatitsecks
Andover Inspector's Denial dated 0 0' of Section 195-7.8 Exceptions to the
ove Building ati n 195-7.3 Yards
rturailig the Build' Zoning Bylaws for the aPP"c Frontage, SCU1011
S, (j, overturning the
Town of North Andover Z, Section 195-7.2 Street Fyo
from T ents of Section 195-7.1 Lot Dri
a, s for the , --oose j-
res ou a
requirements 2. summary ofn,0111iOnal Requirements
(setbacks), and Table allowing the construction Of a new.231 -x 35' 8,—glc lan"'y
Building inspector's Denial and a
eh
ct to the,Property eats with respect ZoLe
ing i-_ward of Appeals("Board"),and
North Andover0 all certified
g before the
uires a hearing n, Legal notices were sent t
licatio
The Application req were Published in The
en by mailing and pub ver and
hearing was given due notice Of the he Is Office of the Town of North Na�th
November 29,2021
the AssessorAndover,Onabutters Provided by spaper of generalcirculation in the Town o
Eagle-Tribune, a new
and December 063 2021. p.m.,
North Andover,MA on
ver Town Hall, 10 Mai Tuesday,
lic.hearings at North AndO 11,2022 at 7:30 and
Zoning
District.
The Board held pub 14,2021 at 7:30 p.m.,Tuesday, January ^h is located in the R-4 Z
Tuesday,December
at 7:30 p.rn,with respect to the Property,WhI
February 08,2022
Application 01:at the public hearings'
and eyhibits Were submitted With the AP
The following Plans Decision,Dated October 14,2021 prepared
Inspector Denial-OM Building In', containing eleven(t 1)pages;
(1) Notice of Appeal ft Eated November It,2021,C011tai 2 1,revised August 18,2021
20
by Stephanie A.Kiefer, Williams&Sparages dated May 7,
(2) plan of Land Prepared by W
containing one(1)Page;
Page of 4
PETITION 202.1-17
Town of Noah Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
expressly states such intent, and there is no such language,leaving the Board without authority to find an
instance of applicable"grandfatheiing-
s of
e Mass
usetts
Judicial
A succinct collection of well-established deV,le f first setrfo h tile carpplicaUlelaw.teThe first Court
regarding In lot size may be of assistance.
r.,the portion of the statute on which the board relied in[deny]ing
sentence of G.L. c. 40A, § fi,fourth pa
the permit,'exempts certain lots from increased 81nN1 t E.2d1368 (1985).rictiolls conditions
These conditions s are that,
.' Adaniowicz V. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757,759, 4
'conformed to
t}ie dine of recording or endorsement,' the lo ) with any adjo had at least ining ggand>'uare fantleet�(3)1 fifty feet o
frontage,(2) 'was not held in common ownership
then existing requiren►ents.' G.L. c. 40 [Al, § 6. We have interpreted the'time of recording or
ve date of tile
endorsement'to mean the time of'the most recent instrument of re
13b8cord 1{'the stakus ofrior to tile f thellot inin ediately
zoning change.' Arlarfloia1rcz A. Ipswich, supra at 762,
9 Mass.
prior to the zoning change is controlling')." Rourke v. Rofhina ,44 a once valid 109 froI c g rendered
1
(2007)(footnote omitted). "Section 6 is concerned with p
unbui}dable for residential purposes, assuming the lot meets modest 1368,3ninlum qu Ling froia Sturges frontage ...
requirements." Adanimi,icz i�. Ipsivich, supra at 763,481 N Andover,78
Chihnark, 380 Mass. 246,261,402 N.E.2d 1346 (1980). ,Iohusoll v. Board of App eals of
Mass.App-Ct• 292(2010) (emphasis added).
"grandfather" argument,Applicant
B. Section 195-7.8 Exceptions: as lied to tlieive to the
Property then Section 195-7.8 Exceptions
asserted that if the current Zoning Bylaws are pp
applies to the Application/property. This argument w fe1 not
f heeded byt�lariancePiW ithtthat said, hel
p
have the effect of substantially reducing the amount osince
Board finds,with the as
of research by Townt 195-7.8'sSm minimum heiia of 5,000 square feeto(the
34 Wentworth Street is undersized and does not meet
lot is short by 453 sf) with 50 feet of frontage(the lot is sio short to u i!en entslln entitled to this
Bylaws
and,consequently,emains subject to the current dime q
i the Board finds that the Building Inspector correctly denied Applicant's application far a
meet tile
In sunuala y,
' 1 permit because the lot comprising the Property is not"grandfatpeoe erta1daes not mes not eet the criteria
building p
applicable dimensional requirements for an exception(specifically,tile property
of having at least 5,000 square feet of lot area and 50' of frontage).
III. MOTION VOTE AND DECISION
On February 08,2022,the Boai'd voted to close the public hearing.
Wade b Allan Cuscia and seconded by Frank J. Killilea to gi.ali sto Finding i�emients of y
A motion was i y
the Applicant under North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section Section
Except
i
- 1 Lot Area,Section 195-7.2 Street Frontage, Section 195-7.3 Yards(setbacks),and Table
Section 195 7.
Suinmar of Dimensional Requirector's Denial
ements for the purpose 0f ove dei ce only vBacant lot in the Rio Zoning2. y
and allowing the construction of a new 23' x 35 single family ies
District.
The voting members in favor of the finding: None
D Paul Koch, Jr.,Esq.,Allan Cuscia,Ellen P. McIntyre,
The voting members against the finding: Michael T. Lis, and Steven R. Seide
Ronn R. Faigen,
Alexandria A. Jacobs,Esq. (recused), and
The non-voting members present: Frank J. Killilea
Page 3 of 4
PETITION 2021-II
Town of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
The Acting Chairman declared the Board's vote to be 5-0 to DENY THE FINDING TO OVERTURN
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DENIAL. For the sake of clarity and removing all doubt,the
Building Inspector appropriately denied the building pi'lly
t, and such denial remains in place without
change. WZAeNoroning Board of Appeals
Ronu R.Faigen, hairman
Alexandria A. Jacobs,Esq.,Vice-Chair
Allan Cuscia, Clerk
Ellen P. McIntyre
D. Paul Koch Jr.,Esq., Acting Chairman
Michael T. Lis
Steven R. Seide
Frank J.Killilea
i
l
Decision 2021-17
34 wentwollb--06 Decision(finding)v2.1 20220217(I)k-2clean).docx
Notes:
l. A decision granting a variance or a special permit shall not be in effect until a certified copy of the
decision is recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds,Northern District at Applicant's expense.
Further provided that if the Property is registered land then a certified copy of the decision shall also
be filed with the Land Court.
2. A decision granting a variance or special permit as requested by Applicant does not necessarily
ensure the granting of a building permit because Applicant must abide by all applicable local, state,
and federal building codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit as required by the
Inspector of Buildings.
3. Generally, (a)if the fights authorized by a decision granting a variance are not exercised within one
(1)year of the date of the grant then such rights shall lapse and may be re-established after notice and
a new hearing pursuant to the provisions of Mass. Gen. L. ch.40A, § 10, and(b) the righa s a,1�Qodrized
by a decision granting a special permit shall be deemed to have lapsed after a two(2)y p
from the date of the grant unless substantial use or construction has commenced pursuant to the
provisions of Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195-10.7.
j THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 4 of 4
PETITION 2021-17