Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-11The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, April 11, 1989 in the Library/Conference Room of the Town Building at 7:35 p.m. The following members were present and voting: Alfred Frizelle, Vice Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. Mr. Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman arrived later in the evening. Guest, Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector was in attendance. Mr. Frizelle chaired the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Clifford P. Poole - Variance 81 Wesle~ Stree~ Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Poole spoke for himself stating that they wished to stay in this area, but want to raise a family and feel that they need more room. The lot line in the back does not meet the requirements, will be 6.8' as the house in on an angle, as years ago the land was divided and the back line is not straight. They are 150' from the next house and they own the rest of the land in the back. No one spoke against this petition and Mr. Casey, an abutter sent a letter which was read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted, un- animously, to GRANT the variance as requested.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, Soule and O'Connor). Patricia & John Begley Special Permit - 37 Waverly Rd. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Patricia Begley presented her father, Mr. Finocchiaro, who spoke for her. They want to add two apartments and one will be occupied by her brother and one by her sister. Mr. Frizelle asked about the parking situation and Mr. Finocchiaro stated that they have six (6) spaces and can put two (2) more cars in the driveway. Mr. Frizelle, Nickerson and Soule, all questioned putting the cars in the driveway. Mr. Rissin questioned the 15' side setback, and the petitioner said, yes but the lot has a 50' frontage and a 12' setback according to the deed. Mr. Nickerson asked how they could get six (6) cars out, and the petitioner feels that only four (4) cars will be there at one time. Mr. Frizelle stated that it is a one-family home now. Mr. Frizelle asked if anyone was in favor of this petition? Mr. Finocchiaro, the petitioner's brother stressed that he now lived in Bradford and would like to return to North Andover again but at present it was financially impossible and that living in the petitioners house would make it possible for him to live in North Andover again. The petitioners sister stated the same thing. Mr. Frizelle asked if anyone was opposed to this petition? Mr. B. Zelitch, 28 Waverly Road said the lot is too small and it is ok for the three family members but in the future it could be used as a three apartment building. Ms. Bixby, 29 Waverly Road said her only concern is that she cannot park on Waverly Road now because of the traffic increase. When this house was being worked on there was absolutely no place to park and do not see how this petitioner can handle six (6) cars and asked how large the apartments are going to be. Ms. Brennen, 14 Sargent Street spoke for most of the neighbors and said she is against this petition and want to protect our investments. She referred to the Zoning ByLaws and feels that this is a major project being done. The feel that the lot is not big enough for a one-family house and they want to make it into a three-family house. The neighborhood wants to maintain back- yards and not have to look at concrete parking spaces and buildings. Presently, Sargent St and Waverly Rd. have sidewalks and greenery and they want to keep it that way. A petition was presented to the Board signed by 39 members. Elizabeth Wright, abutter, spoke against this petition. Mr. Maciejewski, 48 Waverly Rd. stated that he moved here from the City of Newton in order to get away from city life, and want to have grass and trees and a country feeling maintained in the neighborhood. Mr. Finocchiaro stated that out of the eight (8) abutters, his daughter has more land than four (4) of them. Begley - con'd Page 2 Mr. Frizelle stated that Section 4, Paragraph 4.122(Page 20) is the one that you have to overcome. You plan to add an addition to the building and this section states that you cannot make any outside changes. Photos shown to the Board of the neighborhood and the houses in the area. Mr. Rissin stated that they are in an R-4 district - Multi-family, not allowed in this district, and he read Section 10.31 to the meeting. Mr. Finocchiaro said that he feels that he has met all of the conditions of this Section, and that any traffic problems should be brought to the attention of the Police Department. Letter from 29 abutters read by Mr. Nickerson(see file) and letter from Ms. Brennen read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Mr. Frizelle asked if there were any more questions from the Board. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, un animously, to TAKE THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Frizelle, Nickerson, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Boston Hill Ski, Inc. - Variances - Route 114, Turnpike St. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Ms. Bernice Fink spoke immediately suggesting that the this hearing had been advertised erroreously, requesting a 7.1 for setback and it should be for a frontage. Mr. Frizelle said they would continue with the hearing. Mr. Dunn, owner of the property, spoke for himself stating that the reason is that they want to preserve the trees in the area and if it is not granted, they would have to use raised parking and this would reflect onto Route 114. Side set- back(40' requirement) and the distance between the buildings is 190' and because of the steep contour, they do not want to spread out the complex too much, want a compact project. Regarding the number of parking spaces, they have 114 on the plans and the bylaw requires 125 spaces. The steep areas could be excluded. Mr. Dunn stated that they want to comply with both the old and new bylaws as far as parking spaces are concerned. Mr. Frizelle stressed that parking is the main problem with any of our petitions and when the ski area was done, people were parking across the street. Attorney Sullivan represented the petitioner and said that the new building will have a storage area and a hall in the middle and will have a lot of dead space. It will be a mixed retail and business site. William Sullivan asked about the future use of the building. Attorney Sullivan said that there is not way to get a loading dock in on both sides. They do not want a raised parking area because of the light and visibility. They state that the new building would be further back than the Girl Scout building ~wn ~he street. Mr. Nickerson stated that the square footage had to include every- thing in the building. The petitioner stated that it does, it is 25,000 sq. ft but will have over 3,000' of dead space. Mr. Dunn said that the parking is about the same as they had before when it was a ski tow, with only a small addition. There is an 8-10' grade and if the parking was up there, it could create a problem with the lights showing on to Route 114. Mr. Frizelle asked why they didn't put the parking further back and not need a variance? The petitioner stated that it is a rock area and it looks like a quarry. Mr. Dunn stated that 10,000 sq. ft. of floor space that will be eliminated. Mr. Nickerson said that this is the same situation that we had at the North Andover Mall. Mr. Dunn stated that it is 7' above Route 114 , the building and roof line, and you could see the hill and the trees as it is. He wants to have it as attractive as it can be so it will blend in with the residentai area. Mr. Frizelle said they applied for a 7.2 and that deals with street frontage. You are asking for 7.3 which is for a setback variance. You can't ask for a variance that does not exist. Mr. Dunn said that they will provide the Board with a cite about this difference. The engineer will be here later. Mr. Dunn said the residential abutter does not oppose to the closeness on the right. Mr. Frizelle asked if anyone was in favor of this petition, and then asked if anyone was opposed? Mrs. Fink said that she is in a GB zone and this petition shows it is in a VR zone and it is a violation of this law. She said that the petitioner has not met with her and she lives across the street. She claims that Mr. Dunn changed the hill years ago and that it created a stream running into her land. There has been an increasing amount of water flowing through this culvert. She feels the side setback should not be granted and that the building should be smaller and moved. If this is done, they will not Boston Hill Ski, Inc. (con'd) Page 3 need a variance. She does not want him to have an additional septic system in the area. Mr. Dunn's attorney stated that the State will mandate and supervise any septic system and they also a study about building the sewer system down Route 114. This site will not have a septic system. Mr. Frizelle asked if the Board had any questions. Mr. Nickerson asked about the area of the building(5 acres) and if the present building rnns through the lot line. Mr. Dunn said no, and also stated that he feels this is the best use of the land. Mr. Nickerson asked what would happen if the State ~omes through,~ and Mr. Dunn said they would lose a lot of parking. Bylaw calls for 125 parking spaces and they want 115, and from a 100' setback to a 96' setback. Mr. Nickerson stated that if they~de the building just a little smaller they could eliminate the parking problem and the 100' problem. Mr. Dunn said that it is economically unfeasible. Mr. Nickerson stated that every petition that somes to this Board for parking comes back again to this Board for more and more parking spaces. Mr. Dunn said the side setback between the residential and the next building if for more than to be allowed and the impact isn't that great. Mr. Nickerson stated that a shorter length and built in the center of the lot would eliminate the problem. Mr. Dunn said the reason for this being where it is, is that it makes the building more appealing and attractive. Mr. Rissin asked about the truck loading area and how they would get into the building. According to Mrs. Fink, the enviromental review said septic system ok. Attorney Sullivan said that the NEQE has the last wood on what you can put in, traffic, sewage, drainage and all the other things talked about. The engineering firm will tell if the system can handle all of this additional sewage. Mr. Frizelle asked if it does not handle this, would you have to put the sewer system in or would it connect on to Route ll4(public works). It would have to pump up and drain into the three buildings. Accordingly, the whole sewer shed in the area dn down Route 114 corridor seems that a sewer line can be put down Route 114 and will handle this. Mr. Nickerson questioned what would happle if it didn't handle it, and Mr. Batal said they would apply to use the Osgood Pumping Station and if the Town feels that it could be handled, ok, if not then the Town could refuse. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, Soule and Rissin) Robert J. Batal Bldrs. - Variance Route 114, Turnpike Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Mrs. Fink objected to the meeting being held be- cause she claims she did not get a legal notice. Mr. Batal explained about the plans that they were going to do previously and stated that they are now changed. They have 104 units and did so to preserve the view. Ail the water goes into a pond and there will be no more water going under Route 114 than there is now. They have added a water- fall into the plans. Minimum setback 50' to 35'-25', relief needed to preserve the site. Will be building the road along the existing ski shop and save all the trees that at on the slope now. There will be no extra drives. Mr. Nickerson questioned the steepness of the hill for a roadway, it is 10.8 on the highest. Mr. Batal showed the Board pictures of what the buildings would look like from Route 114 and the trees that would be saved by allowing the height relief requested. 79% will be open spaces as it is now and they have eliminated 60 seperate garages and put them underneath the houses. making the houses higher, all the houses have double garages, plus extra spaces for visitors. Applicant met with the Trustees of Reservations for four (4) months about what they plan to do, and in order to help the Board make a decision, they will put a board fence down the property line and where we can and agreed to give them a ½ acre of land that borders the property on Chestnut St., plus put a snow fence up so as not to disturb any of the neighborss. Mr. Kimball meets every day with the construction engineer to keep things the way he wants them. Mr. Nickerson said that parcel 2 and 3 would be residential and parcel 1 would be commercial. Mr. Sullivan asked if the Fire Department had looked at the plans and is 22' would be wide enough for them to get through. Robert J. Batal Bldrs. (con'd) Page 4 Mr. Batal said that the Fire and Police Departments have no problem with these plans. Mr. Frizelle asked if any one was in favor of this petition, and Mr. W. Mitton from the Trustee of Reservations spoke about meeting with the applicant and then read a letter to the Board(see file). The agreement is that they want the items stressed in the letter to be a part of the decision should it be granted. The petitioner has not objections to this. Mr. Dunn stated that Mr. Batal is a local man but has been living in Virginia and will be returning to this area for this project. He emphasized the beauty of the waterfall and the pond that is there will not be touched, so there will be two ponds on the site. Mr. Batal thanked the Board for its attention. Petitioner asked if there is a time limit on the variance and for how long. The project would take about four or five years to be completed. Normally a variance is good for one year(40.A) with a one year extension possible. The petitioer wants the Board to put in the decision that the variance in the first phase(10 bldgs) started in the first year providing the Building Permit has been issued in the first year. Mr. Frizelle asked ~f anyone was opposed to this petition and Mrs. Fink said that she thought that 104 units on 27 acres is a very crowded purchase and wants this petition continued so she can do more research. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to CONTINUE this hearing to our May 9th meeting(Frizelle, Nickerson, Soul~, O'Connor and Rissin). 129 Main Street Realty Special Permit & Party Aggreived 129 Main Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson. Attorney J. Willis, Jr. spoke for the petitioner. Upper level of this site is occupied by Dunkin Donut, Pet store, and Post Office. He stated that a plan had been filed with the Building Inspector to use the downstairs of the building and the permit was refused. It is a 16,000 sq. ft. plus lot and need 25,000 sq. ft. There are ten (10) parking spaces on the lot now and feel that this is enough(see 9.1 of the bylaws) The petitioner only wants to change the rooms downstairs as far as size. Do not feel that a site review is needed for this type of change in the building. It meets the building codes. The Building Inspector said the basement area would need ten (10) parking spaces and Attorney Willis did not feel that this is true. Attorney Willis said that only cosmetic changes will be done on the inside of the building and there will not be any expansion of the building, only a different tenant. The same doors will be used as have been before and it will not deter from the neighborhood. The parking spaces in the back of the Town Building can be used by the public at any time. The peitioner wants to be able to use this building to its potential. If the Board feels that we are not grand- fathered in, then we will have to go to the Planning Board for a site review. Attorney Willis read from the Zoning ByLaw about non-conforming uses of the building and the parking requirements for this. There is no other space to put additional parking. The assessor carries this basement space as useable and the taxes are figured on this. Mr. Nicetta stated that the culprit is the parking and they would be extending the non-conforming use and adding more businesses and believe one plan shows two units but no details on their use. Without knowing what the businesses would be, we have to figure fifteen (15) spaces for this petitioner. The businesses that were in there were a frame shop, insurance agency, dance school and the office of Ridgewood Cemetery. Mr. Nicetta said that a Special Permit was needed for a non- conforming use and read the bylaw to the meeting. He then showed the plans to the Board. Attorney Willis stated that this will not be used any more than it was before and it has been used since the 1950's for this purpose. He feels that if the petitioner wants to change the interior of this building you can do it without any Special Permit. and feel that it is ok and that the building predated the traffic problem in the downtown and do not feel that a site plan review is needed from the Planning Board. 129 Main St. Realty Trust(con'd) Page 5 Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted,unanimously, that the Building Inspector's letter dated 4/10/89 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS BUILDING and that a building and occupancy permit should be issued to this petitioner. The Board finds that the Building inspectors decision was incorrect since the lot and structure preexisted the changes to the Zoning ByLaw and the lot and structure are therefore grandfathered. More specifically, any interior changes in the building may be performed so long as,the exterior shape of the building is not affected. The Zoning ByLaw provisions requiring site plan review and off-street parking places are inapplicable.(Frizzele, Sullivan, Nickerson, O'Connor and Rissin). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Chestnut Green at N. A. Condo Trust Variance 565 Turnpike St. The Special Permit request was withdrawn without prejudice. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. The State DPW had no objections to this variance according to Attorney J. Willis, Jr. and the North Andover Building Inspector, Robert Nicetta.(Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, O'Connor and Rissln). DECISIONS John C. Vajkic Variance & Special Permit - Lot 6, Kara Lane Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the variance and Special Permit as requested. The Board finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.3 and 10.4 of the Zoning bylaws and the granting of this variance and Special Permit would adversely affect the neighborhood and derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws.(Serio, Frlzelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule). Donald Johnston Variance 1717 Turnpike Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Frizelle, the Board voted to GRANT the variances subject to the following conditions: 1. Only one way in and out of the site. 2. The State agrees to this one way in and out. 3. The Board of Appeals see the revised plans before the building permit is issued. The vote was as follows: In favor: Opposed: therefore the petition was DENIED. Mr. Serio, Mr. Frizelle and Mr. Soule Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Sullivan The Board did not hear anything from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and felt that the premises would be too close to the highway. The Board finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Seciton 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaws and the granting of this variance would derogate from the intent and purposes of the Zoning ByLaw and would adversely affect the neighborhood(Serio, Frizelle, Soule, Nickerson and Sullivan). Ronald A. Merino - Variance 164 Sutton St. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to grant the variances as requested. The vote of the Board is as follows: In favor; Mr. Frizelle and Mr. Sullivan and opposed; Mr. Serio, Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Soule, Ronald A. Merino(con'd) Page 6 therefore the petition was DENIED.(Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Soule). Patricia & John Be~ley - Special Permit - 37 Waverly Road Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit for the addition of two (2) apartments on land adjoining present dwelling. The Board finds tha the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Seciton 10, Paragraph 10.3 of the Zoning Bylaws and the granting of this Special Permit would derogate from the intent and purposes of the Zoning Bylaw and would be a detriment to the neighborhood.(Fr£zelle, Nickerson, $oule, O'Connor and Ris$in). The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Our next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday evening, May 9, 1989 at 7:30 in the Town Building. Taylor, ~ecretary Fr~rlo,