HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-12The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on January 12, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Selectmen's Meeting Room. The following members were present; Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Anna O'Connor
and Louis Rissin.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Joseph G. Bishop - Variance - 50 Granville Lane
Raymond Vivenzio called Mr. Bishop on the telephone a~d had a conference regard-
ing petition. Mr. Bishop will bring plans into the Board of Appeals before
2/9/88 meeting and also agrees to waive rights to automatic allowance in con-
sideration of Board continuing hearing to 2/9/88. Mr. Bishop will deliver written
waiver before 2/9/88 also. The vote was unanimous to continue this hearing.
Z. Richard & B. Wysocki - Variance -
851 Forest St.
Letter from Attorney David F. Bernardin read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk, as follows:
"At the Zoning Board hearing last month on the above application, the Board was
kind enough to defer action for a month, that is until this month's meeting which
is scheduled for January 12, 1988, to allow the applicants to research the
possibility of building upon the lots as originally laid out.
We have been looking into the situation through the Conservation Office and with
our engineer, but have not yet been able to complete the engineering. Our eng-
ineer does assure us that he will have the required work done in advance of the
next Zoning Board meeting.
May I impose upon you therefore, to bring this to the attention of the Board and
to have action further continued until next month's meeting.
I would also appreciate receiving a notice when that meeting has been scheduled.
Many thanks for your assistance. Signed-David F. Bernardin"
Upon a motion made by Mr. Nickerson and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted,
unanimously, to CONTINUE this hearing to the February 9, 1988 meeting.(Serio,
Nickerson, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin).
Janet Cooper
Special Permit -
150 Sutton St.
Mr. Cooper gave the Board a copy of plans showing the parking spaces required
(7 spaces) and the letter from the Town Planner was shown to the Board and to
Mr. Cooper. It was decided to wait until Attorney Caffrey arrived at the meeting
to continue this hearing. Upon the arrival of Attorney Caffrey, the hearing con-
tinued. Attorney Caffrey stated that the buyer and developer does not want to
spend a lot of money if it cannot be used for the purpose ~ntended, an auto glass
replacement business. He asked if a Special Permit could be issued just for usage?
Parking spaces shown on the plan were three (3) parall spaces, two (2) to the left
of the property and two (2) inside to be used constantly. Question of whether the
section to the left is necessary. It is probable to remove part of the building
to make more parking spaces but feel it should be decided by the Planning staff.
Petitioner only wants a decision about use as an auto glass business from the
Board of Appeals. Mr. Nickerson asked what was going to be put in the empty space,
and attorney stated that it could be in the decision what would be allowed in that
space. The petitioner stated that nine (9) spaces are too many for that size of
lot. Mrs. Cooper has allowed Trombly to use the space for parking but if the glass
company is allowed all of the Trombley vehicles will be removed. Mr. Soule stated
that the plan presented to the Board was not a plot plan, and that it is necessary
for us to put conditions on our decisions in order to protect the Town. Something
more specific must be shown for use of the other space. The Board emphasized that
the petitioner did not need a site plan review from the Planning Board.
Janet Cooper - con'd
Page 2
The unused space (25 x 30) could be used for a storage area in the future, but
at present only want to have a glass replacement business. The petitioner does
not mind if the petition is limited to a specific use. All of the glass used in
the operation, will be brought into the building through the front overhead doors
and not the loading dock door.
Mr. Serio asked what the petitioner thought about the points covered in Mr.
Stocking's letter? Could you abide by these rules if put into the decision? Mr.
Caffrey stated that most of the points were agreeable, but feels that only two
curb cuts are needed. When questioned regarding the billboard against the retain-
ing wall, Mr. Caffrey said that it is leased and has approximately two more years
on the lease. Mr. Caffrey was requested to bring in a copy of the lease covering the
billboard, and also a plot plan, not a sketch as presented tonight. Ail of the
points in Mr. Stocking's letter were gone over one by one. Petitioner asked by
Board if they would agree to extension and return complete plans to Board before
a decision is make? They agreed.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted,
unanimously, to continue this hearing until the February 9, 1988 meeting.(Serio,
Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor).
DISCUSSION REQUEST
Alan D. Solomont
- Special Permit - Route 114
Attorney J. James, Jr. spoke about the changes in the petition for the nursing
home on Route 114 which has been approved by the Board, increasing the parking
spaces and eliminating one of the openings to Route 114 as requested. Originally
had one driveway for service and one for main building, now only have one drive-
way for both with a cul de sac. The old plans were compared with the new plans
by the Board. The Board decided to wait until Mr. Dunlap, the architect to arrive
so that further questions could be taken up.
Upon the arrival of Mr. Dunlap, the plans were explained in detail, stating that
all of the setback requirements are exactly as on original plans, the only change
is that there are now 90 parking spaces as required and that tt is limited to one
entrance. Mr. Dunlap further stated that part of the parking area is over the
leech field and the service area will be blocked from view by the new buildings.
The plans have to go to the Fire Department for approval as a stipulation of the
Board's decision.
Upon a motion made by Ms. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted
to ACCEPT the changes in the plans subject to the approval of the North Andover
Fire Department.(Serio, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor).
EXTENSION REQUEST
Angus Realty Corp.
- Special Permit - 1077 Os~ood Street
Letter from Attorney Caffrey read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk, as follows: "Please
consider this letter an application for an extension, under Section 10.31 - 3
of the Zoning ByLaws, of a Special Permit granted September 24, 1985 to our above-
noted client (Angus Realty Corp.). Our request is based on the existence of good
cause for the delay in construction.
By condition 8 of the Board's decision, no construction could begin at the site
until revised plans were submitted to and approved by the Board. This was done on
February 10, 1987. Thereafter, on or about May 8, 1987, the Board signed the re-
vised site plan and it was recorded(with a copy of the Board's decision) at the
Registry of Deeds. Thus, May 8, 1987 became, for all practical purposes, the
effective date of the Board's decision.
Page 3
Angus Realty Corp. (con'd)
A further and fundamental requirement of the project is that it be connected to
a sanitary sewer system. Access to the sewer system, for reasons beyond the control
of Angus, did not develop when anticipated. An alternative route has been devised
and is currently being engineered.
Another obstacle, now overcome, was a lawsuit brought by an abuttor, in the Land
Court. The abuttor claimed ownership by adverse possession of a substantial portion
of Angus~ land. If the abuttor had prevail~, the location of the retaining wall
(referred to in conditions 2 and 3 of the Special Permit), as well as the siting
of the building itself, would have been affected. The abuttor's suit directly affected
Angus~ title because it was accompanied by a Notice of Lis Pendens recorded in the
Registry of Deeds on March 18, 1986. A certified copy of the Judgement in favor of
Angus was recorded in the Registry of Deeds on September 24, 1987.
Other obstacles to construction, related to obtaining necessary governmental
approvals for the project, also existed.
Based on the foregoing good causes, we respectfully request the Board's Special
Permit dated September 24, 1985(Petition No. 39-85) be extended one year to
September 24, 1988.
Signed: Thomas F. Caffrey, Attorney for Angus Realty Corp."
Attorney Caffrey spoke briefly on the reasons stated in his letter to the Board.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to
EXTEND THE DECISION for one year, September 24, 1988 as allowmd by Section 10.31,
Paragraph 3 of the Zoning ByLaws. (Serio, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor)
On January 12, a letter from Bruce H. Clark, Asset Building Inspector was received
by the Board and read at the meeting by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk, as follows: RE:
Anthony Conte, 11-13 Third Street - "In granting the Special Permit for three (3)
rental units, was it intended that the parking area and shrubbery planting be com-
pleted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit as required on previous Special
Permits?
After a short discussion, the Board determined that the answer to this question
is NO, unanimously.(Serio, Nickerson, Soule, Vivenzio and O'Connor).
On January 12, a letter from Bruce H. Clark, Ass't Building Inspector was received
by the Board and read at the meeting by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk, as follows: RE:
James Mavorkos, 88-90 Pleasant Street - "I viewed the parking area at 88-90
Pleasant Street at the owner James Mavrokos' request and I have the following
concerns in relation to the decision and plans from the Board of Appeals.
Telephone/utility pole in middle of entrance to parking area, ~urb, cut to
street is not done;
Turn-around at back of lot not existing, as shown on plan; apron removed and
landscaped - unsure where and what is required for landscaping.
In my opinion, he has not completely complied with the conditions set prior to
issuing a Building Permit and I am looking for further input or review by the
Board in determining if the condition has been met to its satisfaction."
After a short discussion, the Board determined that the decision is clear. There
is no pole shown on the plans presented to the Board. If a utility pole exists
on the entrance to the main parking lot, then the plans should be revised or
the pole removed. Plans have to be revised by the petitioner and presented to the
Board~heir decision and to change the records.
The Board decided that a letter should be sent to the Building Departmemt stating
the above information.
Upon a motion by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the meeting was adjoured
at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will be h~ ~Tuesday/even~ing, February 9th.
Audrey ~ T~aylor, ~cre~ary Frank/Serio~ ~r., Ch~n