Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.25 Minutes ZBA approved - tlm Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Approved 1/14/2026 Members Associate Member Michael T. Lis., Chair Matthew J. Ginsburg Laura Craig-Comin, Vice-Chair Zachary J. Hachey Frank J. Killilea, Clerk Melissa Rutherford James M. Testa Zoning Enforcement Officer Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq Paul G. Hutchins MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Time of Meeting: 7:30 p.m. Location of Meeting: Town Hall, 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 Signature: Terri MacNeil 1. Call to Order called at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq. Frank J. Killilea, James M. Testa and Matthew J. Ginsburg Staff Present: Terri MacNeil Gavel given to: Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq. – Acting Chair Pledge of Allegiance Administrative Matters Alexandra A. Jacobs, addressed the fact that the Board was short a member for the evening. Frank Killilea, as clerk is to be chair in the absence of chair or vice chair. He can pass that obligation onto the next member if he would like. Frank Killilea would like to pass that duty onto Alexandra Jacobs, who will serve as Chair for the meeting. A motion was made by Jim Testa and seconded by Matthew Ginsburg to move the approval of the September 9th meeting minutes to the January meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Applicant Consideration - Short Board Notice The Chair informed the applicants present that due to having only four members, those seeking a variance (both applicants present) required a unanimous "yes" vote. A single "no" vote would result in a two-year delay before the project could be brought before the Board again. The Chair clarified that typically the Board has five members, allowing for one dissenting vote while still approving an application. However, tonight, all four sitting members must vote in favor. The two-year deferral period cannot be altered. Applicants were given two options: Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of a meeting excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure that posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics the Chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at a meeting are to be listed on the Agenda. Note: Matters may be called out of order and not as they appear in the Agenda. Page 1 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceed Tonight - They could present their case and request a vote, understanding the requirement for a unanimous vote. Continue - They could present and then request a continuance to the next meeting, scheduled for January (there will be no December meeting). 2. New Public Hearing of 369 Wood Lane The petition of Nicholas Reilly and Christine (Mclaughlin) Reilly of 369 Wood Lane. The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195- 7.3, Table 2 (Dimensional Requirements) for one side setback in the R-4 Zoning District for the purposes of constructing an 8’ x 12’ mudroom and a 22’ x 24’ garage; specifically, Applicant has requested a side setback needing a relief variance of 3.8 feet (the side setback proposed is 11.2 feet and the side setback required per Table 2 is 15.0 feet). Frank Killilea reads the legal notice into the record. Christine and Nicholas Riley, of 369 Wood Lane in North Andover, introduce themselves and their project. They purchased the property last summer and have since completely renovated the interior and exterior of the home. They are now requesting a variance to add a mudroom (8' x 12') and a garage (22' x 24'). They noted that the addition of a garage would be consistent with the neighborhood, as 20 out of 23 of their abutters have either a single or double car garage. The proposed additions are intended to enhance the property value and improve the living space, specifically by creating a dedicated entry area for coats and shoes. A board member inquired about the design process, asking if the applicants had considered reducing the size of the additions. Mr. and Mrs. Riley explained that they had already minimized the plans from an original 24' x 24' garage with a 10-foot mudroom. The 8-foot width of the mudroom is necessary to accommodate a front door, a back door, and doors entering both the house and the garage, ensuring proper function. They further explained that while a standard two-bay garage is 24 feet, they were able to reduce it to 22 feet by using slightly smaller doors and narrowing the space between them. Their logic was to ask for the minimum relief possible by shrinking the entire structure as much as they could. Discussion on Garage and Mudroom Construction Jim Testa asked the applicant if he was doing the construction himself? The Applicant has worked as a contractor for a prefabricated manufacturer for a large portion of my career. I've built many garages, both stick-built and prefabricated. Matthew Ginsburg - If you eliminated the mudroom entirely, what would the entrance between the garage and the house look like? Was that considered? ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 2 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Applicant - We did consider that, but it would require the garage to be detached, which didn't make sense for the overall project. The current plan also completes the look, as this style—a mudroom connecting the house and garage—is very standard in the neighborhood. Having direct entry from the garage into the house is a major benefit. However, the mudroom is the most critical part of this project. Given our current house layout (kitchen, dining room), we lack a proper entry space for a closet, shoes, and jackets, making the existing layout very inconvenient. Interestingly, when the house was originally built in the 1960s, the foundation for a mudroom and garage in this exact footprint was poured, but the structures were never built. The foundation was poured and the gable end truss set on the home for the mudroom. They were ready to proceed, and some neighbors mentioned they either ran out of funds or encountered a financial obstacle. Jim Testa - So, is the foundation currently in? Applicant - The foundation is partially in. Some of it was removed, but most of it is still intact. Jim Testa - Are you planning on using that foundation? Applicant - Unfortunately, the foundation is not usable. It has degraded because it was never covered with a structure, causing it to deteriorate. It was also poorly constructed, lacking rebar and footers. So, it was not salvageable. Jim Testa - Do you know where the far left edge of that garage foundation is? Is that where you intend to build? Applicant - It is exactly where we want to build. The original foundation footprint for both the mudroom and the garage is the exact one we want to use. That was part of my discussion with the inspector, but it was irrelevant then because the setbacks were not yet a factor. The board and applicant discussion centered on a proposed attached garage and mudroom addition for the property at 369 Wood Lane, with particular attention paid to the aesthetic and practical benefits, as well as conservation setbacks. Discussion Highlights: Mudroom/Garage Necessity - Alexandria Jacobs and Jim Testa agreed that attaching the garage with a mudroom transition made practical sense, as an unattached garage would necessitate carrying items further and a direct entry into the kitchen lacked proper storage (mudroom/closet for shoes). Aesthetics - Frank Killilea noted that the addition of the transition/mudroom provides a "nice look" and is an "aesthetic benefit for the neighborhood." Application Documents - A brief clarification was made regarding the submitted plans. The applicant clarified that the "Rob Marino photography" plans were only the existing footprint and ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 3 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS that the architectural plan set for the new proposal was located at the back of the set. Jim Testa suggested only keeping the plot plan for the record. Public Comment (369 Wood Lane) - Robert Rafferty, the abutter at 104 Meadow Lane, spoke in support of the variance. o He explained that the existing foundation/roof line had been there for over 20 years, and he and his wife had always assumed something would be built there. o Their only request was that the structure not expand beyond the existing footprint. o He noted that the proposed mudroom would be in the spot of the old deck, and the garage in the spot of the driveway/foundation. o Mr. Rafferty stated the addition would actually give him more privacy, as he wouldn't have to wave at his neighbors every time they came and went. o The abutter was "fully in support of this," and Alexandria Jacobs acknowledged him as a "great neighbor." Board Deliberation and Vote: After closing public comment (Motion by Jim Testa Seconded by Matthew Ginsburg), the board deliberated. Discussion Regarding a Variance Frank Killilea made a motion to approve the variance, reading the legal notice into the record, incorporating into the record: (1) Certified Plot Plan by Hawthorne Land Surveying Services, Inc. dated September 24, 2025. Alexandria Jacobs - requested a second. Jim Testa: Seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes to approve the variance. Alexandria Jacobs - The decision will be available in a couple of weeks. 3. New Public Hearing of 56 Harold Street The petition of William and Kimberly Hart of 56 Harold Street. The Applicant is requesting a Variance pursuant to Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws Section 195-4.3, Table 2 (Dimensional Requirements) for one side setback in the R-4 Zoning District for the purposes of constructing an addition onto the back of the property; specifically, Applicant has requested a rear setback needing a relief variance of 14.1 feet (the rear setback proposed is 15.9 feet and the rear setback required per Table 2 is 30.0 feet). ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 4 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Killilea read the legal notice into the record. William and Kimberly Hart have lived at 56 Harold Street for 12.5 years, since Memorial Day weekend 2013. They have three children: an almost 14-year-old, a 10-year-old, and an 8-year-old. Need for Addition - The three-bedroom house is now too small. The almost 14-year-old and 8-year- old are currently sharing a room, which has become difficult due to the large age difference and the older child nearing high school. Decision to Stay - They considered moving but chose to add on because they love the house, the neighborhood, their neighbors, and the walkability (kids walk to school daily). Proposed Addition - They plan to add a small bedroom, a family room, and a much-needed coat closet (they currently have a dangerous makeshift one in the basement stairway). Location Constraint - The addition must go on the back of the house (where a deck and patio currently are) because they installed a sport court on the side of the yard a couple of years ago. Alexandra Jacobs asked if the Board had any questions. Alexandria Jacobs: Asked for a definition of a sport court. Applicant - It is a cemented area with a specific type of tile that allows for sports like basketball and pickleball. Frank Killilea - Noted that the existing garage is already non-conforming, extending into the setback. Applicant - Agreed, stating the garage goes right up to the fence. The house was built in 1920, suggesting the garage is quite old. Matthew Ginsburg - Inquired about the character of the rear property line (trees, vegetation). Applicant - There is a solid white vinyl fence. No tree line; one tree is behind the fence where a playground is set up. Matthew Ginsburg - Asked if they had spoken to neighbors and received comments. Applicant - Their neighbors across the street are supportive because they do not want the Harts to move. They haven't heard any negative comments. Frank Killilea - Specifically asked about the neighbors behind them. ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 5 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Applicant states that they don't have much contact with the older neighbors behind them, who seem to be away often. The fence separates the properties, and the neighbors' street exit is on the street over, not near the Harts. Matthew Ginsburg - Suggested the neighbors behind them might not notice the addition due to the fence. Applicant agreed, noting that one of the two neighbors behind them had added a double garage a couple of years ago, which the Harts didn't even notice until it was finished. Jim Testa - Asked if that neighbor was directly behind them. Applicant - Explained the properties are split. The one to the right, facing their backyard, has the majority of the property directly behind them. Alexandria Jacobs - Asked about the design process. The Applicant explained the design constraints for their proposed addition, noting that an upstairs addition was not feasible due to the house's already "unusual layout" with two separate stairways. They concluded the addition needed to stay on the first floor. Initially, they considered the area near the sport court, but this would require "redesigning the entire house" due to the location of the sink and a bathroom, which was not a viable option. Instead, they decided to enclose the space currently occupied by a deck and an adjacent patio that they "use a lot," viewing the project as "just taking that space but enclosing it almost." The Applicant confirmed the existing deck comes "as far out as the patio" and is "almost to the front of the garage." Board members inquired about existing structures and landscaping: Frank Killilea asked to confirm there is an existing deck and patio. Alexandria Jacobs - Asked when the sport court was installed (2020). Matthew Ginsburg: Asked if the addition would eliminate the back patio or deck. Applicant - Confirmed they "will not have a deck" but plan to put "pavers in the space" where the steps from the new addition would lead down, near the garage, for a grill. The Applicant also mentioned significant recent investments in the property, including removing asbestos shingles and installing new siding, with the intent to stay in the house. ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 6 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regarding landscaping and buffers: The Applicant stated they planted "32 or 33 trees" when the sport court was installed. They confirmed a buffer of trees exists on the side between them and the neighbors (17 on that side). Frank Killilea noted a picture showing trees behind the house. The Applicant clarified this was an "architectural rendering graphic" They specified there are only two trees in their yard, one near the street and one in the back corner, both away from the addition. Discussion of Variance Application Frank Killilea - Raised a question about visibility into the neighbor's yard, noting the existing fence and the proposed addition's impact. Applicant - Stated that the existing fence provides privacy. The new addition, with a patio a few steps down from the previous deck, would actually increase the neighbor's privacy by placing the applicant at less of an eye-level elevation. The proposed high windows are akin to skylights, as the adjacent houses are ranches. Frank Killilea - Confirmed that the current floor level is a couple of feet above grade, which the applicant confirmed, noting the steps leading down. Board Procedure and Public Comment Alexandria Jacobs notified the applicant that, as there was no public present for comment, the board could close the public comment period, discuss, and vote. The applicant was reminded that a single "no" vote would result in a continuance for two years, or they could choose to continue until January. Applicant hose to proceed with the vote - Go forward. Alexandria Jacobs ensured all members were in agreement with the procedure. Board Deliberation and Vote: After closing public comment (Motion by Jim Testa Seconded by Matthew Ginsburg), the board deliberated. Discussion Regarding a Variance Frank Killilea made a motion to approve the variance, reading the legal notice into the record, incorporating into the record: o Certified Plot Plan by John Abagis & Associates, dated April 22, 2025; and ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o Five sheets of Floor Plans by TMN Design, dated October 22, 2025 Alexandria Jacobs - requested a second. Jim Testa - Seconded the motion. Vote - All ayes to approve the variance. Alexandria Jacobs - The decision will be available in a couple of weeks. Scheduling Next Meeting and Calendar Frank Killilea: Briefly mentioned the 2026 meeting schedule. Alexandria Jacobs: Requested a motion to schedule the next meeting for January 13, 2026, Jim Testa: Motion to have the next meeting on January 13th, 2026. Matthew Ginsburg: Seconded. Vote: All ayes in favor of scheduling the next meeting to January 13, 2026. Alexandria Jacobs: Motion to continue the acceptance of the 2026 calendar. Jim Testa: Motion to extend the acceptance of the 2026 calendar. Matthew Ginsburg: - Seconded. Vote: All ayes in favor of continuing the acceptance of the 2026 calendar to the next meeting being held on January 13, 2026. 3. Adjournment: 8:30 P.M. Motion made by Jim Testa to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Matthew Ginsburg. The vote to adjourn is unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ZBA Minutes for November 25, 2025 Page 8 of 8