The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-10-22 ZBA Decision - Enforcement Review 7/23/82 O my appeal shall be filed ;i3�,. �,.e p} ;'dr".C? isa5 GiP `LI. '. �Jr1G . vithin (20) days after the late of filing of this Notice •.'sac'tiis5;.*• G�'ER ►rTvv�e n. the Office of the Town �� 11' TOWN OF NORTH A.NDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE -OF DECISION Date . ..�?��. .23 , 195. . . . . . . - 82 Petition No.. . . . . .'. . . . . . • . . . . . . Date of Hearing. . . Petition of . . . . .Edwa.rd. .an.d . N.aricy. . C.o.nd.on/.Rob.ert.".an.d . M.oni.que. .Go.odr.i,ch. . . • . . Premises affected . .L a,t . W.). . Fj a g s,it i.P . P.r i Y,Q . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a r.e v i e.w. .o.f. .a dec3 s,i.on, .ma,de. ,by• .the. .Uu.i.1 d.i.ng, .f ns.pectox . and .enf.o.rc.em'e.nt. .act.i.on. .i n.-. "-xsxt0xfrexmtx cl udi,rq. .rev.oca.ti on . o.f. . bui l.di n.g . p.er. mAt.,. .deni a.l. . a.nd/o.r. revoc.ati.on. -of. .Ce0- i f.i.ca,te. ,f.or. .Us.e . and. .Occ,up-ancy• •an.d - t.he. .r.emova,l-, . . alteration or relo •at ' on of a building - After a public hearing jve_ on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . . . 0-1E P Y. . . . the request x il*bM4 xa�.vY1W tt(>th(x>Bt�ilding Ampt y'WY,xo A$sua M �3&K-Atxtbx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �XYt�4CK4��'�1�koX�X�3fkt�� ,�E�Vl��Y0Y1�'��t�'(-L1Xt2�741G�.l�iDC��OR'�Sltgt4Q�lk�t#DG}�9C r r. . igned Frank Serio , Jr . , Chairman Al fred E . Fri zel l e , Esq , , .Vice Chai rman Richard .J Trepani er , E•sq.. , C.l. erk ldi1l3am. J . Su1.l, iv.an, . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augus ti.q.e W .' N.J. gXers.on Board of Appeals i • RcC�"14'ED � to T0W{: `:I. f:K AAT. ,SSACHUS JUL 26 I ?s PP '62 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS July 23 , 1982 Edward Condon/ Robert Goodrich Lot W Flagship Drive Petition No . 24 - 182 M Mr. Daniel Long , Town Clerk Town Office Bui 1l.i na North Andover , M- ss . 01845 Dear Mr . Long : The Board of Appeals held. 'a public hearing on Monday evening , ; July 12 , 1982 upon the application of Edward and Nancy Condon and Robert and Monique Goodrich . - The hearing was advertised i,n the North Andover Citizen on June 10 and 17 , 1982 , and all abutters were notified by regular mail The following members were present and voting : Frank Serio , Jr . , Chairman ; Alfred E . Frizelle , Esq . , Vice .Chairman ; Richard J . Trepanier, Esq . , Clerk ; William J . Sullivan ; and Augustine W . Nickerson . The petitioners requested that the Board of Appeals review a decision of the Building Inspector and enforcement ' action , = includina revock-.tion of a building . permit , denial and/or revocation of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy , and the , removal , altera ion . or -relocation of 'a building which is in violation of the Zt iing By Law on premises located at Flagship Drive and known is Lot w , Flagship Drive . Property of the )etitioners abut Lot W , known as the Marion Drive property. The petitioners ,ere represented by. Attorney Andrew Caffrey of the law firm Nf Ford , Caffrey , and Grasso , Lawrence , Mass . Evidence was introduced by the petitioners showing that the building in question , constructed by Advance. Reproduction Corporation (ARC ) , is 'situated on Lot W , Flagship Drive , and . is located 60 feet from the ARC property line abutting the RED; J. IED D1,1WEL i,0#IG Condon/Goodrich T[�1kPc ;� Ef,Y Lot W Flagship )rive N01,7;l .!',g00YER July 2 3 " 19 82 JUL Page 2 petitioners property . The petitioners contend- that the building should be located 100 feet from the petitioners ' property: -line to meet the set back requirement of the Zon,i ng By Law . Lot W , Flagship Drive , is located in an I -1 zone . The peti- tioners ' property ( except for, a portion thereof) is located in an R-2 zone . The applicable section of the Zoning By Law is Table 2 , Summary of Requirements , Footnote 3 : "Adjacent to residential districts ( including those in bbrdering towns ) , an additional 50 foot side or rear set back skill be required . This additional set back area shall tie maintained open and green , be suitably fandsc.aped , unbuilt upon , unpaved , and unparked upon " The petitioners further contend that when the subdivision con- taining Lot W F agship Drive was approved , the Planning Board specifically re ;uired that there be a 100 foot ( 50 foot rear . setback plus an additional 50 foot per Table 2 , Footnote 3) set back in the rear . The Planning- Board , in its decision of October G ,' 1:. $0 , referred to said set back in condition number 7 which stated : "That as required by our Zoning By Law , Table 2 , Summary of Dimentional Requirements , Footnote 3 , Adjacent to residential districts , the required side or rear set back shall 'be 100 feet . The first 50 feet shall remain open and green , be suitably landscaped , unbuilt upon , unpaved ,, and not parked upon . Said 100 foot set back shall extend from the property line " Condition Number 7 of the Planning Board was not endorsed on the approved plan recorded at the Registry of Deeds .. The Building Inspector issued .,the building permit , according to his ' testimon•.-,, ,flowing construction of the building on Lot W , Flagship Drive , to be GO feet from the property line of ARC . The zo,.ing district line is located , according to the decision of the, Building ,I;nspector , some 40 feet from the ARC property li - e on the property of the petitioners . The Building Inspec`,.or ' s determination of the zoning district line was made based �pon the Zoning Map , made a part of the Zoning By Law , which slows the R-2 , I -1 line to be '300 feet from the center of Mario ► Drive , which places the district Tine approxi - mately 40 feet from the- ARC property line on the petitioners property . The Building Inspector determined that since the r VECEIVF0 I.Xic, Condon/Goodrich 10-:41, i:LFFK Lot W Flagship Dr' ve July 23 , 1982 Pape 3 JUL 26 ! 18 P f T ARC property is not adjacent to the R-2 residential district , that Table 2 , Footnote 3 is not applicable and issued the building permit , which is the subject of review . The petitioners ' counsel contends that the correct interpre- tation of Table 2 , Footnote 3 read in conjunction with the Planning Board ' s October 6 , 1980 condition , should be that the 100 foot set back ( 50 feet plus 50 feet) should run from the ARC property line . ( It should be noted that , coincidentally , the plans presented to the Board of Appeals snow that the building is set Lack 100 feet .from the zoning district line running through the petitioners ' property ) . Upon a motion mad4 b , Mr. Frizelle andseconded by Mr . Serio , the Board voted u:-animously to deny the request of the peti - tioners to revoke the building permit , to revoke or deny the Certificate of Else and Occupancy; and , the removal , alteration , or relocation of he building on the premises known as Lot W , F1 agshi p Dri ve . The Board finds t; at the Building Inspector ' s determination of the location of tl.a zoning district line and his interpretation of Table 2 , Footnote 3 was correct , The crux of the issue presented is the location of the zoning district line of the R-2 and I -1 zone . Section 3. 2 , Zoning Map of the Zoning By Law makes the Zoning Map a part of the Zoning By Law . The Zoning Map shows the location of the I - 1 , R-2 , zone -to be 300 feet from the center ---_ --.—.- line of Marion Drive . The Zoning Map does not make reference to property lines of owners of the land . Section 3. 3 of the Zoning By Law , District Boundaries , provides that the Building Inspector shall determine the location of such boundaries ,.,h-en uncertainty exists The Board finds t .at the Building Inspector relied upon the Zoning Map and th , subdivision plans certified by a registered civil engineer, w:.ich shows the zoning district line to be some 40 feet on t:.e petitioners ' property . Since the Lot w , Flagship Drive property is not adjacent (Web- ster ' s Seventh Nei, Collegiate Dictionary defines adjacent as "having a common !order : ABUTTING" ) Table 2 , Footnote 3 is not applicable . Condon/Goodrich Tc,}',t !- , � , Lot W Flagship DriveJuly - Page 43 ' ].9$2 JUL The Board further finds that the Planning Board specifically referred to the provisions of Table 2 , Footnote 3 of the Toning By Law .in ." ts October 6, 1980 decision and that such condition . number 7 wa , r t endorsed on the recorded pl an ; and , therefore....__... the provi s i ,n atating : Said 1,00 foot set back shall extend from the propert line ; " is not enforceable . The Board o ' Appeals rejects the contention of the petitioners that the. Z.o ,inq By Law should be read in conjunction with the Planning BoArd ' s condition number 7 . Since the Planning Board did not inc ; ude condition number 7 on the plan , the clear language of the Zoning By Law prevails , The Board finds that the building located on Lot W , Flagship Drive is in conformance with the Toning By Law . Sincerely , BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Seri , Jr . , Chairman AEF/jw