HomeMy WebLinkAboutREYNOLDS, ANTHONY a
L855
iCHO
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
November 25, 1974
Anthony Reynolds
182 High Street
Petition No. 17-'74
Mr. John J. Lyons, Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, Ma.
Dear Sirs
A public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on October 21, 1974 upon application
of Anthony & Sharon Reynolds as parties aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Board
under Sec. 9.22 of the Zoning By-Law. This is an appeal from a decision of the Plan-
ning Board pursuant to the provisions of Q. L. Ch. 41, Sec. 81T and 81AL in which the
Planning Board, on August 19, 1974, granted consent to Mr. & Mrs. William Woodhouse,
188 High Street, under Sec. III F of the Town of North Andover "Rules and Rdigulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land", effective January 1, 1973. The following members
were present: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman;
Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; Louis DiFruscio, and William N. Salemme, Associate
Member James Noble was also present and voted in place of William N. Salemme due to the
fact that Mr. Salemme was in favor of the Woodhouse request sitting on the Planning Board.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune on Ootober 5 & 12, 1974 and
all abutters were duly notified by mail.
The Woodhouses own a parcel of land on High Street. There are two buildings situated
on the parcel. One is used as a dwelling, the other (the building in question) is a
26* x 16' building which has been used as a store. Woodhouse decided that he wished to
convert the store into a one bedroom apartment. The area is zoned R-4 and the store is
a non-conforming use. The proposed conversion would thereby nullify the non-conforming
use and the building would conform to the zoning district.
Application was made to the Planning Board for consent under Seo. IIIF, supra, and
consent was granted. Petitioners are abutters and feel that the action of the Planning
Board is inconsistent with the provision of the Zoning By-Law and oits various sections
November 25, 1974 Anthony Reynolds Petition
of the By-Law in their application. At the hearing, the alleged zoning infractions were
argued and emotional arguments regarding the affect of the conversion on the neighbor-
hood were made.
This Board construes the question before it as being that of whether the action of the
Planning Board under the provision of Section IIIF was proper.
On a motion made by Member Frizelle, seconded by Member DiFrusoio, to sustain the
decision of the Planning Board the Board voted four in favor and one vote against.
Although some arguments of the petitioner were persuasive with regard to the application
of provisions of Zoning By-Law to this case, the Board was unable to act since the
matter properly belongs before the Zoning Board of Appeals and not before this Board
sitting as the Planning Board of Appeals.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF APPEALS
r�
� , ,t .
Alfred E. Frizelle, ice Chairman
AEF:gb
n N0 Fiti
2
S0