Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-08T~e Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening the 8th of August at 7:30 in the Library/Conference room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Elbridge Leland Party Aggreived 11 Marbleridge Road Letter from Mr. Leland read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk.(see file). Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to accept the documents submitted by Mr. Leland as proof that a business has been on that site prior to 1972, therefore qualifying it as a non~ conforming use under Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaws. The Board determined ghat the use was in existence prior to the enactment of the R-1 zoning restrictions. (Serio, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). PUBLIC HEARINGS Charles Weber, Jr. Variance - 429 Mass Avenue Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Weber spoke for himself stating that the setback should be 30', and he would be constructing the shed within two (2) feet of the lot line. Mr. Peter Hardy, an abutter, spoke in favor of this petition. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition and Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, that he had noticed on the drawing that the shed was being built on an easement. Mr. Weber stated that he does not know what the easement is for and that there are a lot of large trees on the easement. Mr. Serio stated that a building permit could not be issued to build on the easement but you can build up to the line. Mr. Weber said that he would move the shed if the easement was needed. Mr. Nicetta said that the petitioner would have to get permission from the one that owned the easement before he could build on it. Mr. Serio stressed that the petitioner could build up to the easement but not on it, and suggested that Mr. Weber come forward six (6) feet. Mr. Sullivan asked if any of the abutters objected to this and Mr. Weber said no. Mr. Rissin asked if the petitioner would consider a continued public hearing to find out who owns the easement. The Board felt this was not necessary. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board Voted, unanimeusly, to GRANT the variance as requested subject to the condition that the shed be up to the easement line but not over or on it.(Serio, Nickerson, Sullivan~ Vivenzio and O'Connor). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Patricia Be~ley Party Aggreived Special Permit 37 Waverly Road Letter from Town Counsel read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Attorney J. Willis spoke for the petitioner stating that he agrees with the opinion but thinks that Kopelman & Paige neglected to see the 9.2 bylaw as he does. The lot is a legal lot and a 2-family dwelling could be built there if he tore the old building down and it would be legal. He is taking existing structure and adding to it to make a two-family dwelling. Attorney Willis showed new plans to the Board. Mr. Vivenzio stated that if you have a one-family on the lot, you cannot put a two- family dwelling on it. Attorney Willis stated that Town Counsel is saying that this is a non-conforming structure. If the house was taken down, he could build a new two-family. He asked if the petitioner could put a house on a vacant lot, P. Begley - con'd Page 2 and Mr. Vivenzio said yes, this Board has never made a decision on something like this because the previous Building Inspector allowed it. Mr. Serio asked if any- one was in favor or opposed to this petition. An abutter said that if the petitioner wanted to add on, wouldn't he still have the problem of parking, etc? Attorney Willis said no, the petitioner could build a 2-family house and he would not have to come to the Board. A two-family is allowed in an R-4 district. Mr. Nickerson said that a legal opinion had been given by Town Counsel and the Board should go by it. Mr. Vivenzio said it would be irresponsible to go against this ruling. Mrs. Begley's father said that the case before of the Leland's, you gave them permission to keep their business in a residential district because he had the business prior to 1972. Why are we not grandfathered into the two-family in an R-4 district~ The property has been there since 1894, why is the Leland petition any different from this case? Mr. Sullivan said that we cannot compare this to the Leland petition. One is for a business and the other is for a home. Upon a motion made by Hr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit as requested because the relief sought is inapplicable per the decision of Town Counsel in letter of August 4, 1989. (Serio, Vivenzto, O'Connor and Rissin) Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Party Aggreived on the basis of letter from Town Counsel, dated August 4, 1989.(Serio, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin) Mr. Vivenzio requested advice from the Town Counsel and was advised that the ZBA may require Ms. Begley to obtain a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw if she wishes to convert her non-conforming single family dwelling to a two-family unit, per letter dated August 4, 1989. It was suggested to the petitioner by the Building Inspector that she return to the Board for a Special Permit under Section 9.2. Thomas Gaffny Variance 88 Heath Road Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Gaffny spoke for himself and said that the abutters had no objection to his petition. Mr. Vivenzio questioned as to how close it would project to the neighbors line, and Mr. Gaffny stated that it would be straight back from the back of the house, the deck will be added to the porch. One abutter said that as long as it is not going to the side of the house, he has no objection. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT this variance as requested.(Serio, Nickerson, Sullivan, O'Connor and Vivenzio). Richard Shaughnessy Special Permit - 15 Wiley Court Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Shaughnessy spoke for himself and said that he wanted a family suite for his mother-in-law and the addition is less than 25% of the original dwelling. Mr. Nickerson interrupted stating that the family suite is already up. Mr. Shaughnessy said that Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, told him to come to the Board for' a family suite. Mr. Shaughnessy said that he applied for a two-family building permit and put it up and then proceeded to add a family suite. Mr. Nicetta then informed him that he had to get a Special Permit for a family suite and that is why he is here. Mr. Nicetta said that he told the petitioner that he could have a second tenement so he put an application in for a 2-family home. When the inspector went out, the house had four (4) meters on the outside of the house so the building department suspended Mr. Shaughnessy's building permit and the house has been dormant for many, many months. An agreement was made that it would be a 2-family house and take the in-law apartment from the Shaughnessy - con'd Page 3 basement and ask for a family suite from the Board. The house would end uP with an in-law apartment iR the 2-family house. Mr. Shaughnessy showed the Board the plans and showed them the changes to the original house. Mr. Vivenzio claims that a family suite can not be in a two-family house and can not be in an R-4 district. Mr. Rissin said that the petitioner would have to apply for a third apartment and not a family suite. Mr. Nicetta stated that he would have to apply for a Special Permit for a third apartment. Mr. Vivenzio suggested that the petitioner withdraw without prejudice. After an informative discussion, Mr. Shaughnessy decided to ask to have his petition withdrawn without prejudice. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow the petitioner to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE.(Serio, Nickerson, Sullivan, Vivenzio and O'Connor). Bessie Daher - Variance - 841 Chickerin§ Rd. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney Willis represented the petitioner. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector said that it is a 4,131 sq. ft. building. The 25% is 1,032 sq. ft. for a family suite and this one is 1,014 sq. ft. Attorney Willis asked if the Board would amend the motion of last time so that it states 'per the plans presented and approved'. Plans submitted to the Building Inspector by the petitioner. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. OtConnor, the Board voted, unanimously, to ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Board finds that the plans presented to and approved by the Building Inspector are correct and meet the conditions under the decision of June 13, 1989.(Serio, Nickerson, Sullivan, Vivenzio and O'Connor). Charles & Jane Nelson Variance - Lot 31, Penni Lane Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Nelson spoke for himself stating that in December of 1987 he bought the lot and eventually a road was built. He did inquire about building on the land and was told because of the easement on the land he could build at any time. The Planning Board has advised him that he could go ahead with his plans but the attorney did not write a Purchase and Sale because there was no frontage. The easement was not deeded back to the Town until recently. The easement was shown to the Board and to one abutter. It is a 50' easement, the Town has the easement but the land is privately owned. The petitioner wants to sell his parcel but the abutter objects to the easement being used. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, stated that if the Board granted the frontage, the Town could let him use it. Mr. Vivenzio read a letter from attorney. Mr. Nicetta said that it is a 3½ acre lot and would qualify for a 50' frontage. Mr. Serio said that the Board can grant a variance if the petitioner has some frontage but the petitioner does not have any. Mr. Sullivan asked why they couldn't come in from Gray Street? Mr. Vivenzio stated that the Board did not have enough information to grant or deny this petition. Mr. Serio suggested that the petitioner withdraw without prejudice, and go to an expert and find out just what can be done with this land. Mr. Nickerson said that we did not have any letters or informatio~ from the Planning Board regarding this petition. Mr. Vivenzio said that they could withdraw and reapply when they had more information to present to the Board. Letter from Mr. Nelson's attorney read by Mr. Vivenzio about the Selectmen's grant- ing permission for Mr. Nelson to use the easement. Mr. Serio said that an easement can be used as frontage, and three acres of land without frontage is a difficult problem. Nelson - con'd Page 4 Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow the petitioner to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Board and Mr. Nelson agreed that he needs to get more information about the easement that he would like to use for the frontage of his site.(Serio, Sullivan, Vivenzio, Nickerson and O'Connor). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Robert Reed - Special Permit 206 Pleasant Street Letter from C. Huntress, Town Planner, read by Mr. Nickerson(see file) and letter from R. Reed read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Mr. Vivenzio stated that the application submitted did not address any of the issues in the bylaw and he does not feel confortable with what has been submitted and asked if this is all garbage that has been submitted. Mr. Reed asked if Mr. Vivenzio wanted a new plot plan and Mr. Vivenzio stated that the Board needed a site plan and more information than had been submitted. Mr. Nickerson asked if it was a single family home, how big and if the entire building would be used as a day care center? Mr. Reed said only the first floor would be used and only for infants and toddlers, Mr. Nicker$on stressed that the petitioner should have plans showing what is goind to be in the building and how many staff and show the parking plans. Mr. Sullivan asked if the petitioner had approval from the Fire and Police Departments. Mr. Reed asked how to get permission from the Fire and Police Departments, and Mr. Vivenzio said the plans must be shown to these departments and told what they wanted to do. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow' petitioner to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Board finds that the plans presented were not detailed enough and suggested that Mr. Reed have an engineer draw the plans up before he returned with another petition. (Serio, Viveuzio, O'Connor and Rissin). DISCUSSION ~ PRELIMINARY INFORMATION Mr. Scott A. Cote, Associate Director of Physical Plant, showed the Board plans of the new building for Merrimack College. He will be coming to the ZBA next month for a variance for height on the new building. It will be 41.6 5/8' tall, which.is lower than some of the buildings already on the campus. Question of the observatory and greenhouse and it will make it higher, so they will have to come back to the Board in a year or so. It should be about 8-12' above the building line, about 50+~. Mr. Vivenzio asked if there were any further restrictions for an application of this kind. The building will not add any new students so new parking places will not be needed. Cushing Hall will be closed so there will not be any new employees. Presently have parking for 3,000 cars. Mr. Cote asked the Board what he needed as far as plans for the next meeting and Mr. Serlo stated that the ones he had tonight were fine but the elevations should bm put on the plans. He said a mylar would also be needed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Robert Batal Bldrs. Boston Hill Ski Area Boston Rill Variance - Route 114 Mr. Robert Dunn represented Mr. Batal and showed the before and after sketches to the Board. The measurements between buildings was discussed in detail and decided that 44' between buildings would be the minimum allowed. Most of the buildings will be on the west side of Boston Hill and not very much will be seen from Route 114. The height from the ground level will be counted from garage level, some would be 40' but on a down level. Boston Hill - con'd Page 5 Mr. Dunn asked if a detached garage would be considered a structure, and Mr. Sullivan said yes and you need 50' between structures. Mr. Batal stated that you would see only two (2) units from Route 114. A visitor asked about the tower that is on the hill and Mr. Batal said that it is over 300' from them. This man lives on Penni Lane and is not within 300' of the site. Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Rissin are still opposed to the density. Mr. Sullivan stressed the need for opem space. Mr. Dunn said the TI~C wants as much space as possible and Mr. Batal has complied with their request. They had a lot more buildings and have pared down. Upon a motion made by Ms. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted to grant the petition according to the new plans and with certain conditions. The vote was 3 in favor and 1 opposed, therefore the petitio~ was DENIED. (Sullivan, O'Connor and Rissin in favor, Nickerson opposed). Mr. Batal was advised to come to the Board for a reconsideration and file before the ten(10) day period allowed. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted to accept the time extension letter presented to the Board for review. The vote was unanimous. Sample of letter included in minutes. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be on the 12th of September at 7:30 p.m. in the Library/Conference Room. Audrey W~Taylor, S~retary TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC HEARING On an application was received by the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) submitted by for a Special Permit or Variance under Massachusetts General Law (MGL), Chapter 40A, Section 9. Pursuant to MGL, Chapter 40A, Section 9, the Board and the Applicant hereby mutually agree that the time within which the Board shall hold a Public Hearing on said application number is hereby extended to end on ; and that a Public Hearing on said application in fact convened by the Board at any time on or before shall be one which complies with the time-period requirements of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 9, for a public hearing. Signed as a sealed instrument this day of , 19 For the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals BY: For BY: Title