Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-09 NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF A?PEAL5 27 CHARLES STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHL;SETTS 01845 ORI61NAL ,~A~X (978) 688-9542 Zoning Board of Appeals Senior Center, 120R Main Street North And°Ver, MA 0184,5 The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, March 9, 1999 at the Senior Center at 7:30PM. The following members were present: Raymond V'rvenzio, acting Chairman, John Pallone, acting Clerk, Walter F. Soule, Robert Fo~d, Scott Kaq3inski, Ellen Mclntyre. William J. Sullivan participated wben/if required to form a quorum. George Eadey was absent, and Robert Nicetta did not attend the meeting. Please note: Ellen Mclntyre didn't arrive until 7:45 PM after the motions relative to New Business matters were made. Upon a motion made by Raymond Vivenzio and 2r~ by Wafter F. Soule, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve the February 9, 1999 ZBA Minutes of the Meeting the vote was unanimous: RV/WFS/JP/SK/WJS. Robert J. Shannon, Trustee, prope~ at:, Mill Road (parc~ D), North Andover, MA 0184S John Patlone read a letter from Mr. Shannon who is requesting a 6 month extension for a variance on Mill Road. Raymond V'Nenzio stated that Mr. Shannon got his request in "under the wire', and after a bhef discussion between Board members there was an agreement to extend the variance for 6 months. BOA.RI) OF.4.PPEALS 68g-9541 BUILDINGS 688-9545 CONSERVATION688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLAaNNING 688-9535 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, "MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, 1 ~ PAGE - 2 - Upon a motion made by Walter F. Seule, and 2~ by John Pallone the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a request for a 6 month extension to Robert J. Shannon, Trustee, for property at: Mill Road, (parcel D), North Andover, MA. for a variance (petition #045- 97). Voting in favor. William J. Sullivan, Walter F. Soule, John Pallone, Raymond ~rn/enzio, Scott Kaq3inski. (See letter from Mr. Shannon for the record). Upon a motion made by Raymond Vivenzio and 2~ by Walter F. Soule, the Zoning Boand of Appeals voted to postpone the elections of the ZBA members until later in the evening, the vote was unanimous: RV/WFS/JP/SK/WJS. Jean Fogarty, 33 Hain]El St. North Andover, MA The petitioner, Jean Fogarty and the Board decided to walt until Ellen Mclntyre was present in order to hear the petition, as Ellen sat on the original pedtion last month. GONTINUB) PUBLIG HEARING: Boston Hill Development~ LLC, 11 OM Boston RoMI, Tmvl~bury, MA {for oremises ~t: SMem TumMke. Rte. # 114~_ The petitioner requested to be heard later in the evening because he wishes to wait for his legal counsel to arrive. Stephen Haleru, S7 HEIih Street, cl~l The Dmlti~s oollM)Olltive Raymond Vivenzio, acting Chairman, explained the procedure to the petitioner. John Pallone read the legal notice, as the petitioner is requesting a Variance f~om the requirements of Section 6.6D, PI: Primary wall & roof signs, and is requesting a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 6.3, P19: sign size (area) and Section 6.4, P2: permits, the patitioner wishes to place one sign on each side of building so they can he seen either way along High Street. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, "MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, 1~ PAGE - 3 - Acting Chairman V'rvenzio asked who was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Halem and Mr. Jordan were both present to speak. Mr. Jordan described the location of the sign, and stated that in 1997 the Planning Board wrote in their decision that a small sign could be erected in fTont of the building. He wont on to state that he has a better location to place the sign and discussed same with the ZBA Board, another issue arose regarding a border that should be placed around the sign because without the border the entire side of the building becomes the sign according to the bylaw. Please note: Ellen Mclntyre is now present (7:4~M). Mr. Halem requested permission to put a 2nd sign on the building, and it needs to be smaller in dimension than the first sign. Mom discussion took place between the petitioner and the Board. Steve Halem spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he went to the Planning Board when he designed the size of the sign. At the Planning Board meeting, they asked what kind of sign was he going to put up. At that time, the landlord was asked to make the decision regarding the location of the sign. Mr. Halem stated that no one could see the sign because the building is so close to the street. Mr. Halem stated that he sent Mr. Jordan to the Building Dept. and went over all of the plans with the Building Inspector requesting to place 2 signs on the building, however, the Building Inspector sent him to the ZBA because Mr. Halem was not in compliance with the bylaws. Since the border is an issue, Walter Soule asked if the petitioner would agree to put the border around the sign and satisfy the Building Inspector. Mr, Halem said yes, he would do so. SCott Karpinsld stated that he thought the petitioner didn't need to be here tonight if the petitioner removed the street number from the building. Mr. Jordan read a portion of the bylaw regarding signs as he felt that he didn't need to be in front of the ZBA tonight, Raymond V'wenzio stated that he wanted to drive by and take a look at the sign and mn this issue by the Building Commissioner to get his opinion regarding the matter. He would like Mr. Halem to make a proposal to the Building Commissioner to get his opinion regarding the border and hopes the Building Commissioner agrees to let the petitioner use the signs with the border which was submitted tonight. Walter Soule suggested that the petitioner could have gone back to the Planning Board and asked for a revision to their decision and that would take care of this problem. Walter Soule stated that an 18' sign is too big for the size of the building and that the Building Inspector is asking for a smaller size sign. Raymond V'rvenzio asked if any one was present in favor or in opposition tonig.ht, no one was present to do so. Upon a motion made by Waiter F. Soule, and 2n° by Ellen Mclntyre, the Board voted to continue this petition until next months' meeting, voting: RV/WFS/JP/EM/SK. PUBLIC HEARING: John Pa#one read the legal notice as the petitioner is requesting a valance from Section 7, P. 7.1 & 7.3 for relief of lot area dimension, and ~ght and left side setback=, to censtmct a 2~ floor addition consisting of bedrooms, baths, closets and for a Special Permit from Section 9, P. 9.2 & 9.3 to censtmct a 2r~ floor addition on a pre-existing non- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, "MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE - 4 - conforming Int. Raymond V'rvenzio asked who was present to represent the petitioner. Kenneth Hoffrnan was present to represent himseff and Scott Giles was also present to represent the petitioner. Scott proceeded to explain the dimensional requirements on the side setback and to explain that the addition will exceed the 25% allowable use and that the addition will go as high as 45% of the existing structure. Walter Soule asked if the property was tied into town sewerage? Scott Giles answered no. Waiter Soule stated that he spoke to the Health Dapt. and discussed their was an option of tying into sewerage and that it was advised that before the addition be started that the petitioner should tie into Town sewerage. Raymond V'wenzio asked if anyone was present in favor, or in opposition? John Pallone mad a letter from the ZBA Secretary, Mary, to the Conservation Del~. and to the Board of Health. The letter was advising both departments that the properly was wffhin the Watershed Protection District and if they had any concerns please advise pdor to discussion at tonight's meeting. The Conservation Department replied (per Rochelle) that there ware no wetland issues to be addressed. The Health Department (per Susan Ford) verbally advised that she would look into the issue and advised ASAP (letter for the recom3. John Pallone read a letter from an abutter, Anita Djermonn, 60 Woodcrest Drive, stating that she reviewed the pint plan at the office and the Djermoun property and the Crittendon property am incorrectly identified on the plot plan. She wrote the letter to identify the need to switch the two names on the pint plan (letter for the record). The error was identified to Scott Giles, who is the surveyor for the propeAy, and the Board asked him to correct the pint plan and submit a new plot plan to the ZBA secretary ASAP. Mr. Criflendon, 24 Woodc,~'~t Drive was present to speak. He asked that the ZBA grant the variance request only if the petitioner was instructed to tie into the sewer, prior to starting the addition. Mr. Crittendon did nnt object to the variance or special permit, he only wanted to address the sewer issue, and he wanted to address the issue of where h~s Int is located on the pint plan. Upon a motion made by Scat Ka~nski, and 2"a by Waiter F. Soule the Board vnted to grant a variance from the requirements of Section 7, 7.1 for relief of right side setback of 2.25' and left side setback of 2.44' and for relief of lot dimension ama of 43,120 sq. It., in order to construct a 2~ floor consisting of bedrooms, baths, closets. And to grant a Spedal Permit in order to construct a 2r~ floor addition of relief greater than 25% up to 45% of the tntal existing area. Condition ~el. Mr. Hoffman will nnt be allowed to start construction for this addition until he ties into Town sewerage. Condition ~f2. In accordance with con'ected plan of land indicating the abutiem location as Mr. Djermoun who is located North of 44 Woodcrest, and Mr. Crittenden who is located South of 44 Woodcmst Drive. In accordance with Plan oft.and by Scott L. G~es, ~3972, Registered Land Surveyor, dated 3/9/99. Voting in favor. WFS/RVIJP/EM/SK. Jean FoG, arty, 33 Harold Strm~ North Andover, MA The Board will hear the petition now as Ellen Mclntyre is present. Raymond Vivenzio stated that Jean Fogarty submitted a plan showing map and parcel indicating who the abutters are to her property. Some discussion took place regarding the proposed lot and that it remain a use for only a single family dwelling, and that the present Int (33 Harold St.) remain a use for only a single family dwelling. Ellen Mclntyre asked what the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, "MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, PAGE - S - hardship was? Jean stated that it is a financial hardship as the lot is a large lot and she is paying taxes on a large size lot, she feels that by sub-dividing the lot she will be able to build another single family house and possibly sell the house and therefore, avoid paying a high tax rate which could be a hardship for her to afford over the long mn. The other lots in the immediate area appear to be smaller than Jean's cunent size lot, and by dividing her cunent lot she would be more in keeping with the other size lots. Raymond Vivenzio asked if any one was present in favor, or in opposition, and no one was present to do so tonight. Upon a motion made by Waiter F. Soule and 2~d by John Pallone, the Board voted to grant a variance for the lot at 33 Harold St., for street frontage of 25' and front setback of 23' and for relief of lot dimension in order to subs-divide the lot from 15,000 sq. feet into 7,500 sq. feet in order to construct a single family dwelling. Condition f~. That the lot be used to construct a single family dwelling only. Condition #2. That the existing dwelling remain a single family dwelling. Condition ~3. That the existing garage be razed. The construction must be in accordance with Plan of Land ce~qfied by Scott L. Giles, fYI 3972, Registered Land Surveyor, dated 10/8/98. Voting in favor. WFS/RV/JP/SK, Ellen Mclntyre voted in opposition. Please note: Robert Ford is now present (8:30PM). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAliNG: Boston Hill Devebpmenh LLC, tl Old Boston Rd., Tewksbury, MA (for pr-,,dnises at: Salem Turnpike, Route Ifil4) Raymond Vivenzio asked who was present to represent the petitioner, Attomey Brian Levey, David O'Sullivan, MZO Group, and Paul Marcflionda ware all present as well as William Barrett to represent the Boston Hill petition. As this is a continuance from last month's meeting, the first issue addressed was ' Open Space": The representatives were present to recap the acres to leave open for ~open space" as 16.68 acres, and not the aclditi,on, a110 acres requested by the Building Commissioner, refer to the Plan of Land and see Open Space". The 2r~ part of the mc, ap refers to issues of uheight", refer to height in the ZBA application. Atty. Levey's analysis is to minimize the cutting in the hill, as the actual building design has an up hill unit and a down hill unit, refer to the Plan of Land to see the construction of the hill. The plan presented tonight has all of the elevations indicated on it with the building heights indicated that the ZBA requested from last month's meedng. Atty. Levey stated that this is 4 units per acre designed for reducing the density of homes in North Andover according to the V-R zoning district. Atty. Levey stated that he is looking to pick up from last month's meeting and wants to make the Board and Town comfortable and to give Boston Hill flexibil~ with the Planning Board, (he wants the condition made in a decision for the 33 acre parcel as per the plan submitted, and decision on a variance for a site plan for a mula family project.) The Board prepared to verbally make a decision based on his requests stating that the decision is conditioned on half the land to be used for open space (50%) and the plan that will accompany the variance shows the 16.68 acres of open space but it didnl have to be configured exactly as shown on the plan as long is it's there. The variance is conditioned of the site plan and will vanj up to 10 feat. At this point Mrs. Fink, 1250 Tumpike St., spoke in opposition of granting any variances. She asked where in the bylaw it allows for more then one unit per acre. Atty. Levey ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, 'MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, 19g9 PAGE - 6 - stated that this lot had been grand-fathered and there was a preliminary sub-division plan filed prior to the change in the Bylaw which altered the density from 4 units per acre dovm to 1 unit per acre. She asked if they would go before the Planning Board for a site plan review if a vadance from the ZBA is granted tonight. She asked if they will get one permit for the entire development? Scott Karplnski stated that if the variance for growth management is granted then 10 permits could be issued per year. Mrs. Fink objected to the building of units on such a steep hill because she feels this is totally against the growth management bylaw to do this, especially with this kind of density and with this kind of environment such as on a high hill she feels that they should have come in under a PRD and this would be more satisfactory to her. She feels this is not something that could reasonably be done to build that many units on such a high hill. Bill Banett proceeded to answer her question stating that he actually could build 133 units because the hill could take it, however, he chose to only build 79 units. Scott Karpinski asked Mrs. Fink if the density of the lot is the only issue? Mrs. Fink feels that the height is a problem because how can all of these buildings r~ on top of the hill, she also stated that a water problem could happen. Scod Karpir~d stated that no one can change the typography very much. Waiter Soule asked if they would agree to a general condition to the ZBA decision to see that a walking trail would be allowed behind Boston Hill. Ellen Mclntyre asked if building #13 could be moved over about 30'. Waiter Soule asked if section 5 of the bylaw applies regarding getting an excavation permit? An issue of traffic and safety arose and Walter Soule asked if the builder would address these bsues. He also asked what the time lines were relative to the construction to complete the units? Bill Barrett add~ these issues and stated that this would be a fairly extensive process and that he would obtain the necessary permits relative to excavation, and they would leave a significant buffer zone from the hill between Rte. #114 in order to leave a safe zone for traffic to travel, and the time line depends on the economy possibly a 3 year period to complete the project. More discussion took place between the Board and the Boston Hill representatives discussing the height of the units. William Sullivan asked the Boston Hill developers to submit an as buiit plan showing especially the height relative to each building. Raymond Vivenzio asked if there were any more questions from the Board or from anyone present. Mrs. Fink was the only opposition present and she didnl have any further questions. The Board disc,_~-__~a~l making a decision, but after doing so, they changed their mind relative to a height variance. Petitioner then requested permission to withdraw the height variance without prejudice. The following decision was then made: Upon a motion made by Walter F. Soule, and 2r~ by John Pallone, the Board voted to allow the petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice the request of 8.5 (6c) height limitation: and the Board voted to uphold the Building Inspector's decision of Section 8.7 (6e) and the Board voted to deny the Pan'y Aggrieved patition of the Growth Management Bylaw and the Board voted to Grant a Variance on the following Open Space Aooeal/Variance with the followin~ conditions; This variance is conditioned upon agreement that only 79 units be allowed. This vadance applies to the 33.35 acre parcel of land shown on the plan entitled 'Open Space Appeal/Variance Plan' for Boston Hill in North Andover, MA prepared for Meslti Development Corp., by Marchlenda & Assodates. LP., 62 Montvale Avenue, Suite I, Stonehem, MA and dated February 24, 1999 (the "Open Space Ran') which is recorded along with this variance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, "MINUTES OF THE MEETING" MARCH 9, PAGE - 7 - 2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval by the Tow~ of North Andover Planning Board of a Site Plan for multi-family housing project on the 33.35 acre parcel of land known as Boston Hill in North Andover which property is shown on the Open Space Plan. This Vadance is conditioned upon half of the land of 16.68 acres being retained as open space in perpetuity for consewation, agricultural or recreational uses by deed restriction, dedication to the Town or other similar mechanism. As this valance is conditioned upon the approval of a Site Plan by the Planning Board of a multi-family project which process may result in changes to the precise layout of the project, the 16.68 acres of open space may be located anywhere within the parcel shov~ on the Open Space Plan and need not be the same 16.68 acres shown on said plan. This vadance is conditioned upon the agreement that the proper Open Space will allow a tie into the Rte. ~14 and Ward Hill Reservation area to allow for a Conservation Trail to be located on the site. As per the above conditions tho Zoning Board of Appeals vote was unanimous: Walter F. Soule, Raymond V*rvenzio, John Pallone, Scott Ka~nsld, Ellen Mclntyre, Upon a motion made by John Pallone and 2r~ by Robert Ford the board voted to edjoum the meeting, the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjoumed at approximately 10:15PM. Approved by: ~ MI/Feb99rnin