Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-14EXECUTIVE MEETING - MARCH 14, 1989 RE: COOLIDGE CONSTRUCTION v. NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF APPEALS & PLANNING BOARD The Board of Appeals held an executive meeting on Tuesday evening, March 14, 1989 to discuss the above-mentioned case. Members present at this meeting were: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O'Connor. and Louis Rissin. Town Counsel, Joel B. Bard, was present at this meeting to provide legal imput on this case. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Conference Room of the North Andover Town Building. Attorney Bard informed the Board that the Planning Board did not act on a petition presented to them in March of 1985 regarding the water- shed, because of an upcoming Zoning change due at the April Town Meeting. The petition was then filed with the Board of Appeals in May and denied by that Board in September. Attorney Bard stressed that the continuation of this petition from May to September was legal. The petitions were regarding South Bradford Street and Great Pond Road. The petitioner then filed against both the Planning Board and the Zoniug Board of Appeals, questioning the Special Permit. According to Attorney Bard, the petitioner at the end of last year wanted the case dismissed and filed for a rejudgement. Attorney Bard suggested trying to settle it with the petitioner. Scott Stocking, former Planner thought this matter should be handled by the Board of Appeals. Attorney Bard stated that this decision happen- ed during the moratorium period and that may have been the reason for the denial. Mr. Vivenzio stated that this did not have any effect on the Board's decision. Attorney Bard feels that the enviromental period has passed and it does not have the same meaning today. Mr. Frizelle read the decision to the members and it was discussed by the Board. The Board said that it was strange that it came before this Board for a Special Permit when they had received a Form A approval from the Planning Board. The Form A gives them zoning protection for three (3) years and filing with the Planning Board gave them this protection prior to the Town Meeting. They had the right to file and receive the approval of the Planning Board because of this ruling. Mr. Vivenzio stated that he does not feel that this land is appropriate for the use planned. Attorney Bard stated that he feels that the Court will give them approval and charge the Planning Board with the error, in that the Planning Board failed to act upon the application filed with them, and as a result the applications were constructively approved. Attorney Bard suggested that the Planning Board would come up with an agreeable solution that the petitioner would approve and recommends that the Board of Appeals look at that plan before it goes to the Court again. He said that the zoning in effect at the time of the application, the Planning Board would have approval rights. The Board decided to sent this back to the Planning Board so they can talk to the petitioner and try to reach an agreement. Original plans may not be approved, but maybe it could be improved on and returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review. ~journed at 7:35 p.m. Audrey/~l. Tayl~r, Secretary Fr~nySerio, Jr., ~irman The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, March 14, 1989 in the Senior Center at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. The meeting opened up at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CON'D HOUSTON Builders, Inc. Variance Lot 30 & Lot 46 Jetwood St Letter from Houston Builders, Inc. read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk in which they requested to withdraw without prejudice. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow the petitioner to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ( Serio, Frizelle, Sullivan, Soule, and Nickerson). PUBLIC HEARINGS WREATH SCHOOL - Party A~$reived - Lot 3, Sullivan Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney for the petitioner reviewed the material that Attorney Sullivan presented at the last meeting including plans for the sewer study and the Board of Health letter. They want a 9 (nine) children and two (2) staff members up to a maximum of 12-14, but only nine(9) students. A topography study being prepared and is under contract to be given to the Board. They want approval so that the school can get underway, They realize that there has been a lot of ontcry about this petition but this type of use is allowed by the MA State law. Mr. Frizelle pointed out that the section on the application was incorrect. The Attorney said that it must have been a typing error. Mr. Frizelle said that the Board wanted to know the plans and how they would affect the land and buildings. Mr. Nickerson asked if the Building Inspector had a copy of the plans, and the attorney said no, that they were only told to bring them to the Board. Plans presented are as the house is now. Mr. Frizelle stated that the Board is fully aware of the laws, but the Board wants to know how this dwelling will be used, etc. Mr. Donahue said that this is a single family dwelling and explained all of the rooms on each floor and told of the fire prevention plans for the builsing. One room will be used as an office, and the fireplace in the building will be blocked off. According to the Board of Health there is enough room to house seventeen (17) students. Mr. Serio asked if they could go over twelve(12) students, and Mr. Donahue stated that they could have as many as fifteen (15) students if they wanted to but they only want 9 to 12. According to the Board of Health, the septic system is alright. The structural changes on the second floor are that some windows will be removed and a an additional exit from the building. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, resents that roadblocks are being put in the way and stated that this is the first time that he has seen the blueprints with the new dimensions. Said that he spent two (2) days with Mr. Donahue explaining to him what the Board and the Building Inspector needed, and these plans are not what he asked for. He wanted plans showing the parking and how the children would be protected. He wanted the meeting post- poned until the correct plans were presented to him before the meeting. Mr. Donahue stated that these plans had all of the information on them that Mr. Nicetta had requested. Mr. Serio asked if the sewer system was shown on the plans, and Mr. Donahue said no, but if there is a need for more leeching fields it can be put in. Mr. Serio stressed that they wanted the Board to approve a plan that they had not seen, and Mr. Donahue said no. Attorney for the petitioner read the letter, dated January 17, 1989, from the Building Inspector to the Board again(see file). He stressed that the Board direct the Building Inspector to cooperate with the petitioner so that they can present the plans to the Building Inspector for his approval and then he can ask for any improvements that he wants. They are not asking for a Special Permit or variance just for a reversal of the Building Inspectors letter. Page 2 WREATH SCHOOL - con'd The School will provide the Building Inspector and the Board the necessary plans and building codes for his approval before anything is done. The building was originally built with all the building codes correct. The School also wants a permit to use this building. Mr. Frizelle stated that he talked about the rules and regulations of the School and stated that they are only asking for a use of the building. Mr. Frizelle asked why an outside staircase? Mr. Donohue stated that this was only added to the plans in good faith because it would make it safer for the children. Mr. Soule said if safety is a factor, what about the wall on the property? They plan to have a four (4) foot high wooden fence put up on the property. Mr. Soule feels that the Board needs more imput on this matter. Mr. Donahue again sttessed that they were told to bring these plans to the meeting and they did so and will try to do just what the Board wants. Mr. Soule asked if the plans should show the fence and where the fence is going to end, and Mr. Donahue said that the fence is shown on the plans. Mr. Sullivan stated that the Board of Health had approved the plans for 17 people, but Mr. Donahue said that they would only have between 9 to 12 students. Mr. Sullivan quoted a State law that 12 was the maximum. Mr. Demers told the Board that the MA Office for Children state the number of children by the Square footage of the building and the bedrooms, and according to this method, they could apply to the MA office for twelve (12) students. Mr. Demers stated that there are always two counselers on duty, one awake and one asleep. This is every night. Mr. Nickerson spoke about the school in Middleton and looked at the land around this, and said that there is considerable acreage behind it. He said that although they do not own this property, they do own land right next to the school. Mr. Demers said that it would be to much money to buildin on this land because a lot of wetlands are involved. They do not get any financial help from the State for the building of these schoolds. The other property that they looked at was not large enough for the septic system and the school tOO. Mr. Nickerson, Clerk, read letters from the following: Police Chief Stanley, Safety Officer Fucca, Building Inspector, Robert Nicetta(see file). Mr. Serio asked if anyone at the meeting wanted to talk? Mr. W. Hoyt questioned why this is considered a school and the attorney said it is called that because it is approved by the State and is a school. Mr. Serio asked if anyone could bring children into their home and do the same thing? The answer was no. Mr. Frizelle stated that legally it is a resident and school and is an exception to the zoning rules and regulations. There would be two students per room except for the large room and all male students. When questioned about the 1½ gallons per minute, Mr. Nicetta stated that, that is why he asked for the plans to be more specific regarding the water and septic system and he should have these plans before any decision is made. A question of whether a larger leech would break through the wall of the property was asked. Mr. Demers said that Michael Graf of the Board of Health stated that this present system could supply twenty (20) people living in the house. Mr. Hoyt asked about a washing machine, and all of the showers to be taken, he does not feel that the system will stand that much use. When asked if the petitioner had purchased the property, they stated that they came to the Board before they would purchase the land. Mr. Nickerson questioned the traffic problems that would be created with the employees and the two mimi buses. The petitioner stated that the mini buses would only be to pick up amd drop off the students for school. An abutter at the meeting said that he believed the neighbors were being hood-winked by the petitioner and that they could change the number of children at any time. Mr. Nickerson asked if the children would be leaving the premises and Mr. Demers said they will not be roaming around the neighborhood. They may go to the Harold Parker State Park or the store, and added that all the students would be living at the house. Mr. Nickerson asked if this building was a residence or a school, and Mr. Demers stressed that it is a residence for the students that attend the Wreath School. It is a learning process for the students and they teach them to intermingle into the community. Ms. O'Connor read a letter from the Lawrence Tribune, written by a mother with a son that had problems similar to the ones of the students to be living at the Wreath School have. She stressed what an improvement it had made in her son's life as well as her own. Wreath School - con'd Page 3 Mr. Nickerson asked if the school had the authority to administer medicine to the children, and Mr. Demers said no, only a medical doctor can do this. Mr. Nickerson said he feels that everyone should be concerned and he does not feel that it should be stuffed down someones throat. He feels that the attroach has not been tastefully done to the neighbors or Town and he does not want to be forced to vote on this. Mr. Serio said that he agreed with this and the reason that this is being done is that the Board has no control over this, it is a law and is allowed in the Town and the State. The Building Inspector will have to uphold this. Mr. Frizelle stated that he had been on the Board for a number of years and have been faced with a number of decisions and we denied the Woodridge petition and this was takem to the Court. He stated that he has put a lot of thought into this petition as well as a lot of work and has come to the conclusion that his is the law, that an educational and residential facility is alright legally. These children are not part of the school system of the Town. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board VOTED to find that the Party Aggreived, Wreath School, Inc., is, based upon the evidence submitted, a non-profit educational corporation within the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sec. 3, and, that the use of the premises for residential purposes is part of the educational program of the school and is therefore not subject to the use regulations of the North Andover Zoning ByLaw.. Therefore, the Board reverses the decision of the Building Inspector dated January 17, 1989, wherein he denied an application by the Wreath School, Inc. and instructs the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit and other necessary permits subject to the following conditions: The Plans submitted by the Wreath School, Inc. shall be drafted in accordance with the MA. Building Code and applicable North Andover Codes and Regulations. The Wreath School, Inc. shall produce evidence that the well on the premises is adequate to supply water for at least seventeen persons. Evidence shall be submitted from a certified engineer that the soil on the premises is satisfactory to maintain a septic system with a capacity for at least seventeen persons, and the septic system shall, if necessary, be upgraded to a capacity for at least seventeen persons. Vote: 4. That no more than twelve students and two overnight counselors shall be housed at the residential facility on a daily basis. In favor: Mr. Frizelle, Mr. Serio, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Soule Against : Mr. Nickerson John C. Vajkic Variance & Special Permit - Lot 6, Kara Lane Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Vajkic spoke for himself stating that he purchased a lot with the intent to build a home on this lot. He needs a variance because of the lay of the land, and would need one no matter where he placed the home on the lot. Mr. Serio asked what the easement next to the petitioners land was, and Mr. Vajkic said it is part of Lot 3 and because of the agreement, he would have access for land- scaping purposes. Mr. Serio asked if it was written into the deed and Mr. Vijkic said yes. Mr. Serio asked in anyone was in favor of this petition. Mr. J. Carter, an abutter, said that this was basically a sub-division. Most of the houses are built and by putting the house in this way it will blend in with the other houses. Mr. Vajkic said that he could make the house smaller but it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Vajkic - con'd Page 4 Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition? Ms. Sapienza spoke against the petition. She presented a petition to the Board and it was read into the records by Mr. Nickerson(see file). No one else spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Vajkic said he finds it puzzling that this house should be considered an eyesore to the neighborhood. If this house is considered an eyesore to the neighborhood, then this Town has a problem. The oobjection to this petition is the variance would allow this house to be too close to the lot line. Mr. Carter owns the land and there is one roadway that could be put in but he does not plan to see this land in the back. Originally got permission from the Planning Board 50' was taken from the lot and made into an easement. There is land in the back that could be developed stated Ms. Sapienza. Mr. Rissin asked how far from the easement was the next house, and Mr. Consoli, an abutter, said that he is 25' from the easement. Mr. Nickerson said that the petitioner will be bringing the lot closer to the 50' easement. Mr. Vajkic said that the easement belongs to Mr. Carter, the owner of the land in the rear of this lot. Mr. Carter stated the petitioner wants to place the house on the lot in a nice location. The easement funds to the end of his land. This is not going to be a roadway and by selling this land he can cancel the developers from building on this property. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to TAKE THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, Soule) Peter Pawlick Variance 23 Dana Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. M r. Pawlick spoke for himself stating that he wants a front porch on his house, and showed the plans to the Board. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or opposed to this petition and no response. Mr. Nicker$on stated that it is within the average for this area. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule and Sullivan). Veronica Monteiro Special Permit - 1110 Salem Street. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. The petitioners daughter spoke for her and showed the floor plans to the Board. The Board discussed this matter. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or opposed to this peititon, no response. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Frizelle, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the Special Permit as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The premises be occupied by Veronica Monteiro. 2 The Special Permit shall expire at the time Veronica Monteiro ceases to occupy the family suite. 3. The Special Permit shall expire at the time the premises are conveyed to any person, partnership or corporation. 4. The applicant, by acceptance of the Certificate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the Special Permit, grants to the Building Inspector or lawful designee the right to inspect the premises annually. (serio, Frizelle, Nicker$on, Sullivan and Soule). Chestnut Green at N. A. Condo Trust - Variance 565 Turnpike Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney Willis spoke for the petitioner. They came before the Board once before asking for more parking spaces. This is in a different location. The petitioners now own the property and need more parking spaces. They request a variance of 32' of Turnpike Street. A nice wooden picket fence is in place Chestnut Green - con'd Page 5 now and the parking would be right behind this fence, eliminating some of the green space. The traffic study has been done. The State feels that they may some day wish to widen Route 114, it would be on the other side of the road. The hardship is that the petitioner wants to serve their customers better. The parking right now is insufficient at the present time and this petition would eliminate that problem. There are three (3) condo buildings involved in this petition. Mr. Nickerson asked if any parking could be put in the back of the buildings. Attorney Willis stated that it is more intense than before and he does not feel that the parking could be put any other place. The design by the State indicates that any expansion would be on the other side of the highway. Some of the tenants now park in the church parking lot. Many of the condo owners spoke in favor of this petition stating that they do not want to have to park on Hillside Road, across the street from the complex, they would rather park on their own property. The hardship is to the patients of the doctors located in the condo complex. Most of the condo owners spoke in favor of this petition. Building Inspector, Robert Nicetta stressed that the State DPW must be notified of this and the impact that it could have on the State highway, and passed by them first. Officer David Rand spoke stating that there is a strictly left-hand turn and they have a lot of accidents in that spot. The cars leaving try to turn right thus causing an accident. Mr. Sullivan asked if the island could be pade so that no one could turn left? Officer Rand said no, because an island cannot be put in without the Title 5. He suggested that this he continued and have it checked with the DPW before anything is done, and get their suggestions. Mr. Vivenzio asked why the petition had failed the last time it was presented to the Board, and Mr. Serio stated that there were 2 in favor, 2 opposted and one abstained, therefore it could not be passed. One abutter stated that the people are parking parralel now in this area and if they are allowed to park correctly, it will increase the safety of the area. Attorney Willis said that the condo people would be happly to comply with any conditions the Board wants. The petitioner has done just about everything that they could to make the area safe, and they are willing to meet with the State Title 5 people. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to continue this hearing so further imput from the State could be reviewed and the Board would have time to look at the old decision.(In favor; Sullivan, Nickerson, and Vivemzio against; Frizelle and O'Connor) Donald Johnston Variance 1717 Turnpike Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney David Bain spoke for the petitioner. He showed the Board plans of the land and the building. The basic problem if the size, shape and topography of the lot. The 100' front setback is the worst problem. They have enough parking. The conditions of this lot constitute a severe hardship as defined by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10.The proposed building is of a size and design appropriate for such a lot as evidenced by the fact that only 16% of the lot is devoted to it. The petitioner feels that this type of building would fit nicely in the neighborhood and would be a contributing factor to the Town. The petitioner has tried to buy a strip of land adjoining their land but the owner would not sell it. Mr. Serio questioned the setback amounts, and Attorney Bain stated that the building would only take up 16% of the lot. Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Rissin asked what is behind this lot, and Attorney Bain said some is State lamd and some residential, he thinks but do not feel anyone could develop this land in the back. Attorney Bain said this is a GB zone. Mr. Frizelle said that the location is 300' from Boston Road and near Berry Street. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor of this petition? A resident of Sullivan Street stated that he thought it would be a good idea to have a convenience store in the neighbor- hood. The small deli that was on Route 114 has closed and one is needed. Ms. N~tter, daughter of the peitioner spoke and said it would be a family operation. Attorney Bain stressed the fact that if this is granted, it would be the right way to use this particular lot and the Town would have a nice building and improve the site. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition? Officer Dave Rand spoke said that Route 114 is a traffic problem. He asked what curb cuts would be needed and Mr. Serio said that curb cuts come from the State and that is the Planning Board's problem to solve. Johnston - con'd Page 6 Officer Rand stressed that they need a complete land leading into the parking spaces and need agress and egress lanes for safety purposes. Attorney Bain said that he will go to Mr. DeAngelo at District 5 to see what is needed and try to comply. Officer Rand said that every time a small business opened up on Route 114, the traffic is tied up for a long time and it is very hazardous for this area so we need an egress and agress for this property. Upon a motion made by Mr. Firzelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMTNT.(Serio, Frizetle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Souls) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ronald A. Merino Variance 164 Sutton St. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, spoke and stated that the area was alright with him. The parking spaces shown on the original ones and Scott Stockings's refigured the site plan and they reduced the parking spates to five (5). Mr. Nicetta looked at the letter of Scott's and could not find anything about five (5) spaces. Mr. Nicetta's main concern is with the amount of traffic in this spot. He said they are so busy at the Salem, N.H. store, that the traffic is lined up waiting to get in. His other concern is coming out on Ashland Street from the site. The Police Department stressed that with a Sutton Street entrance, it would be very hazardous because of the right-turn only on Sutton Street. Officer Rand stated that Sutton Street is the entrance and exit to downtown North Andover and has a lot of traffic and one more thing to impact this area is one thing too many. He stressed that the right-turn only on Sutton Street to Main Street is needed and do not feel that more traffic could be handled. People would go across the tracks on Ashland Street when heading for Lawrence. Chris Huntress, Environmental Planner, said he spoke to Scott Stocking, Planner, about the site and did not hear him say anything about five (5) parking spaces. He feels that it is a traffic hazard. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or opposed to this petition. Mr. Merino showed the original plans to the Board. He seeks relief from R-4 zone for glass co and R-4 zone for street. He said he can show why it went from 11 spaces to 5. Have 36 areas and it takes 10 minutes to do a lube. The hours they would be open would not conflict with the major traffic. A traffic study was done and was not required and it stated that the egress and entrance shown are the best for this site. They have addressed every issue that the Town has requested and do not fell that 50-60 more cars a day will affect the traffic flow that much. The zoning is correct for this, but need relief because of the land shape. Claims that Mr. DeAngelo said that the number of cars involved would not overload the area. Friday and Saturday are the busiest days of the week with about 60 cars serviced. Officer Rand said that he had seen the ad on TV for this kind of lube job and it seems wrong because of the traffics impact on the Town. It is a dangerous spot. Mr. Merino sais that most p~opls gst an oil change while they are out doing something else. We are not trying to create a destination location but need to be near the center of the Town. Officer Fusso said that on his visit to the Methuen location, there were 24 cars in front of the site waiting for service and North Andover could mot handle this. Letter from N. A. Fire Department read by Mr. Nickerson (see file). Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Serio, Nickerson, Frizelle, Soule and Sullivan). DECISIONS Antonio & Francisco Nicolosi - Special Permit - 242 Sutton Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow the petitioner to WITHDRAW THE VARIANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Nicolosi - con'd Page 7 to GRANT the Special Permit subject to the following conditions: that no more than two (2) business entities, corporation, or partnerships operate from this facility and adequate (6) parking spaces be provided per the bylaw.(Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule and Rissin). EdWard Sibelaski Variances 82-88 Main Street Upon a motion made by Mr, Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY these variances as requestedl (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule and Rissin). The meeting adjourned at 12.00, and the next regular meeting will be on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989. udrey ~. -Tayl~r,~ecretary -~fr~e~io ~r. , ~£rman