Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-07The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on February 9, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman, Walter Soule, serving as Clerk until Augustine Nickerson arrived, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Flintlock Realty Trust - Party Aggreived - Lot 1-5 Cranberry Lane Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney Shea presented the Board with a letter, which Mr. Soule read as follows: "RE: Flintlock Realty Trust, Cranberry Lane, North Andover; Gentlemen: We are attorneys for Fl£ntlock Realty Trust, owners of property situated on Cranberry Lane, North Andover, MA. With reference to the petition of Flintlock Realty Trust for a review of the decision of the Building Inspector of the Town of North Andover regarding property owned by John Rizza and Nancy Rizza, please be advised that the aforesaid Flintlock Realty Trust does hereby withdraw its peition with prejudice. Signed by Philip R. Shea, Esq. SHEA & DANGORA" Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE, Constantine Stoupis Variance - 69-71 Bri~htwood Avenue Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney Michael T. Stella, Jr., represented the Stoupis family. He stated that the land was purchased in 1976 when the family de- cided to stay in North Andover, they came from Greece in 1964. They purchased two (2) lots in 1976 and want to sell one lot now for their retirement. Presently the lot is listed as one, and they want to have it go back to the original form when purchased. Most homes are on lots of this original size in the area. Dimensions taken from Section 7.8 of the bylaws. Copy of deed shown to the Board. Several variances are needed by the petitioner. Letter from the Planning Board read by Mr. Soule, as follows: "The Planning Board would like to go on record as opposing the above cited applications for the follow- ing reasons: 1. The building lot would have only 9,389 square feet of lot area, 3,111 square feet less than required; and 2. The building lot would have half the required frontage; amd 3.In addition to the above cited variances, the applicant has re- quested an undisclosed number of setback variances. We can find no compelling hardship stated by the applicant to support these variance requests, as required by State statues, i.e. topography, soil conditions or any factor not of the result of any action by the applicant. There also appears to be confusion in that the notice calls for the erection of a single family dwelling and an existing structure is on the property which contains two dwelling units on each floor. No plot plan exists of this proposal to clarify this matter to the Planning Board. Your consideration of the Planning Board concerns outlined in this letter would be sincerely appreciated. Dated 2/9/88" Many abutters spoke against this petition stressing the fact that the neighborhood is already crowded and that there has been two fires recently, more houses would make things more dangerous. Mrs. Ryan stated that by having the new dwelling on the lot, sideways, it would be extremely close and take away from the rural feeling of the area. Only one house on the street is on an undersized lot. Presently have a drainage problem from one of the streets higher up and if a house is put on the lot the water problem would be increased. Stoupis - continued Page 2 One abutter stressed that the Town is trying to keep North Andover beautiful and that the bylaws should be enforced in order to do this. Ms. Horgan said she was against this petition. She is a native of Peabody and does not want to be on top of another house. Mr. Nicetta of Highland View Terrace spoke against the petition claiming that we would have to buy a lot on each side of this in order to build. Ms. McKay said that they had just finished a family room and do not want to be crowded. Mrs. Catadello of Brightwood Ave. stated that almost everyone on Brightwood Avenue having a back lot would want to add a house. Mr. Nicetta of Highland Avenue said that there are four (4) buildings within 225', and requested that this petition be denied. Attorney Stella said that the letter written did not have a copy of the plans. If the two lots had been purchased in different names, there would not have been any problem. The hardship is that legally there were two lots until 1960. Mr. Mealey bought his lot 33 years ago and he was!told he could not build on the lot then. No one else should be able to build if he couldn't. Mr. Frizelle stated that the plot plan lot lines and the deed lines do not agree. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and s~conded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the matter under advisement. Janet Cooper Special Permit - 150 Sutton Street At the request of Attorney Caffrey, the Board voted to continue this hearing to the meeting on March 8, 1988. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to continue this hearing until March 8, 1988. Gordon M. Rokes Variance 40 Third Street Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney C. Perrault spoke for the petitioner, stating that the land was purchased in 1967 and sold it last June. Need a variance for the SE corner in order to leave the shed. At the time of the closing there was a mistake and no one obtained the variance. Constructed in about 1980, big and about 10' tall and could not be placed in any other area. There is a pool in the backyard too. Most abutters do not object to these two variances. Mr. Serio asked if anyone from the audience was in favor or opposed and had no response. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the matter under advisement. Robert F & Helen M. Hajjar Variance - 20 Mablin Avenue Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney James Hajjar represented the petitioners and stated that because of a mortgage survey, setback variances needed. In 1954 they were 17.5' from the building and 12.5' from the lot line. The bank wants a variance because of the lot lines. The petitioner's request would not have any affect on the neighborhood. Mr. Serio asked if anyone from the audience was in favor or opposed to this petition and had no response. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter under advisement. Page 3 James Logue, trustee of Country Corner Realty Trust Variance 701 Salem Street Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney J. J. Willis, Jr. represented the owners of the convenience store and presented plans to the Board showing the location of the sign. It was against the stone wall originally. When they purchased the store, they constructed a sign and put it 10' from the lot line. This sign location has not been very desirable. People coming from the Old Center cannot see the sign until they are almost on top of it. Within the parking lot, people backing up would hit the sign and it is presently down. They want to put the sign back in the same location that it was originally and feel that it would not be a deteriment to the neighborhood. There is a fire hydrant and a stone wall in front too. The peitioner feels that this would be in the best interest of the Town. Mr. Serio asked if anyone in the audience was in favor? No response. Letter from the Planning Board read by Mr. Soule as follows: "Applicant is requesting a setback variance from ten (10') feet to one (1') foot. Staff looked at the site and feels that the sign setback one foot from the existing stone wall and raised 3' above grade will not adversely effect sight visability along Salem Street from the parking lot or Abbott Street. The proposed location will increase the signs visability in both directions from Salem Street. Staff requests an elevation of the sign in order to insure its compliance with the Town's Sign Regulation." Signed by Scott A. Stocking, Town Planner. Letter in opposition from Bradford R. French read by Mr. Soule, as follows: "As an abutter of the Country Corner Trust, 701 Salem Street, and on behalf of my family and neighbors, I ask that the appeal to permit relief of setback requirements for sign location on the premises be DENIED. The attached photograph of Monday, February 2, 1988 shows heavy trucks parked on the edge of my lawn waiting to get on the premises at 701 Salem Street. This everyday occurance demonstrates that additional signage is unneccesary for Country Corner to attract business. This is a residnetial neighborhood and the location of additional signage will be injurious to the nature of the area. Pleas deny this appeal, Sincerely, Bradford R. French, 695 Salem St., N. A. MA" Mr. Frizelle asked how high the sign would be and Attorney Willis stated that it is 22', the same sign that was originally there. Mr. Frizelle stated that the sign could not be more than 20' high. Attorney Willis said that the island will be left in and the lighting would be positioned to face the building. Mr. Serio feels that people come to the sign before they realize it. Mr. Frizelle does not want the sign to be in sight. Attorney Willis showed a photo of the sign to the Board and stated that it would be the same as the photo. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the matter under advisement. William'Patterson Party Aggreived - 246 Turnpike St. Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Dr. W. Patterson spoke for himself. Presently his neighbor is putting an addition on to his house and Mr. Patterson feels that the Building Inspector was wrong to give him a building permit. Plans given to the Board. He wants to know why a building permit was issued because the new addition is attached to the shed. He complained in October to the Building Inspector's office and nothing was done, so he felt it should come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He feels the building is overbuilt. Dr. Markey spoke for himself and said they do not need a variance because the State had taken some land and they do not have to go before the Board for a variance be- of that condition. Dr. Patterson gave a folder to each Board member about the garage the Markey's added in 1977 and feels that this was done illegaly. Page 4 Patterson - con'd Mr. Frizelle and Dr. Patterson had a heated discussion about the case, particularly Section 9, Paragraph 9.1 of the Zoning ByLaws. Mr. Soule read that section to the Board. Dr. Patterson feels that a variance should be obtained by the Markey's be- fore any addition is put on the building. Letter from Assistant Building Inspector read by Mr. Souls, as follows: "I am in receipt of Dr. Patterson's letter dated February 3, 1988 to which I have responded as follows: 1) An addition for storage is allowed for single family home; setbacks from lot line as shown on plot plan met setbacks required; Chapter 40A, the Zoning Act, sec. 6, exempts single and two- family homes from meeting current setback requirements, provided the addition does not increase the non-conforming nature of such structure. 2) The addition is not attached to the shed, the shed and addition touch with wood shingles and flashing but the structures are built independent and can be seperated. I believe the addition will be used for storage as they do not have a garage. I am not aware of any violations at this property." Signed, Bruce H. Clark, Ass't Building Inspector. Mr. Frizelie asked how he found about about the State law, and Mr. Clark said he feels that the State and Town bylaws are both for the good of the Town, and feels that the Town cannot be more re trictive than the State. Dr. Patterson said that he felt that this situation would have been better if referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Mr. Clark said no, it was handled as they usually do, strictly by the law. Ms. O'Connor asked why the building department was using the State laws instead of the Town laws, and Mr. Clark said that they used both as applies to non-conforming use. Mr. Frizelle asked Dr. Patterson if he had filed a written request to the Building Department and Dr. Patterson said they he had not, but had phoned the office and could not get in touch with the Building Inspector. Dr. Patterson said that he had sent letters to th Town Planner and the Building Department in October, Mr. Frizelle asked what Mr. Patterson felt the Board should do. Dr. Patterson feels that the shed is not properly there and it should be removed and that there are other things that should be looked into also. Mr. Clark stated that this shed is no different from other sheds he has seen. Dr. Markey, Jr. said that there has been a lot of dissension between the two families, and Dr. Markey stated that the shed would be used for needed storage. Dr. Patterson said that the Markey house is over 5,000 sq. ft and he feels frustrated about the entire matter. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter under advisement. Hillside Development Corp. - Variance - Lot 62-63 Brewster Street Legal notice read by Mr. Soule. Attorney James Senior represented the petitioner. He stated that the area has mostly two-family dwellings, and that in 1983 the Board granted a variance for a one-family dwelling. At that time the lot in question would have conformed to being a two-family lot, but only has 9,000± sq. ft and not the 12,000sq. ft. as required now. The one or two-family would be the same area per lot. 80% of the houses in the area are two-family. Lots average 9,500 sq. ft. to 7,600 sq. ft. There are two larger lots in the area. The petitioner has talked with abutters and has letters from three of them, all in favor of this petition. Plans show two bedrooms per unit, for a total of four bedrooms for the two-family unit. Mr. Serio stressed that the lot is short in area by 3,000 sq. ft. Letter from the Planning Board read by Mr. Souls, as follows: "Please be advised that the Planning Board is opposed to the above cited application. The Board does not feel that an applicant, which owns a 9,500 square foot lot in a Zoning District (R-4), which calls for 12,500 square foot lot, should be allowed to place a duplex on the property. The lot does not meet the Zoning Requirements for a single family dwelling and permission should not be granted to allow two dwelling units. We can find no compelling hardship put forward by the applicant to support this variance request, as required by State statue. The Board of Appeals thoughtful consideration of our concerns in this matter is greatly appreciated." Signed 2/9/88 by Planning Board. Page 5 Hillside Development Corp. - con'd Ms. J. Hart, an abutter, said that she does not want a two-family dwelling on either side of her lot, and does not want any more multi-family dwellings in the neighbor- hood. Across the street are all one-familY homes, and she does not want a two-family beside her. Most of the multi-family dwellings are down the street. There are three two-family houses in a row and it is over-crowding and she cannot visualize another two-family next door, and feels that a single will sell as well as a two-family but maybe for not as much money. She stated that parking is a problem too, you could have as many as five (5) people in each side of the dwelling, which could mean 10 people and ten cars. She feels that the setback should be kept to the law, and perhaps made larger. She is not confortable with what they have put in for foundation. Ms. Hart had a discussion with the petitioner's attorney. Mr. B. Chipman stated that the house is to big for the lot and that the dwelling is not appropriate for the neighborhood. The building is too high for the lot and area and takes away from the neighborhood. Barbara Sutter mentioned the parking problem. Fairly close to Route 133 and the road is very narrow and the street is not completed. Very cramped parking. Ail the houses on the way down are about the same and the new one would not be consistant with the neighborhood. Does not like the garage under the house. Neighbor at 38 Brewster feels that it would upset the uniformity of the neighborhood, and this was also stated by T. Donahue. Attorney Senior said that there are other homes in the area with this design, they appear to be the same in the front but they are different in the back. Petitioner would have a retaining wall of 4', and the parking conforms to the requirements, the third room has been too small so that it will not be used as a bedroom. The lot is too small for a garage on the side, so it is put under. One bedroom was eliminated and the garage was changed to satisfy the abutters and now they want something else. Mr. Frizelle stated that the petitioner had purchased this site in 1987 and the variance previously granted was for a one-family house. Mr. D. Strong, one of the petitioners, stated that the character of the area has changed since the original variance was granted and there has been a lot of construction since then and many are two-family homes. Attorney Senior said the requirement is the same for a one or a two-family home but need a variance from the area requirement. He stressed that a lot of time had been spent with Ms. Hart trying to meet the requirements she wanted. Ms. Hart said that in the beginning the petitioners had met with everyone and she commented that she only wanted a one-family dwelling on the site. Mr. Barrett, one of the petitioners, stated that the plans had been scaled down after talking to the neighborhood. He also stated that there is a sewer easement down the street. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the matter under advisement. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Joseph G. Bishop Variance - 50 Granville Lane Mr. Bishop presented the Board with new plot plans and a waive letter that they had requested at the last meeting. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter under advisement. Z. Richard & Barbara Wysocki - Variance - 851 Forest Street New plans shown to the Board by Attorney Bernardin and he said that the petitioner needed a variance for the new 2-acre zoning bylaw. Stated that the old hole on the property had been there since the 1890's. Page 6 Z. Richard Wysocki - con'd Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. The size and shape of the lot would have been buildable prior to the new Bylaw changes, thereby creating a hardship for the petitioner. DECISIONS Joseph G. Bishop Variance - 50 Granville Lane The petitioner agreed to provide the Board with a letter waiving rights to automatic allowance in consideration of the Board continuing his hearing from January 12, 1988 to the February 9, 1988 meeting. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. Constantine Stoupis Variance - 69-71 Brightwood Avenue Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the variances as requested. The Board finds that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning ByLaws and that the granting of this variance would derogate from the intent and purposes of the Zoning ByLaws and would adversely affect the neighborhood. Gordon M. Rokes - Variance - 40 Third Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this variance will not derogate from the intent and purposes of the Zoning ByLaws nor will it adversely affect the neighborhood. Robert F & Helen M. Hajjar - Variance - 20 Mablin Avenue Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested. The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaws and the granting of this variance will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws nor will it adversely affect the neighborhood. James Logue, trustee of Country Corner R. T. Variance - 701 Salem Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variances as requested subject to the condition that the petitioner present a drawing of the sign to be erected to the Board in accordance with the ByLaw. The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this variance will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws nor will it adversely affect the neighborhood. Hillside Development Corp. - Variance - Lot 62-63 Brewster Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance for area as requested. The Board DENIED the Hillside Development Corp. - con'd Page 7 request for a 2-family dwelling, only a 1-family dwelling may be constructed on the premises. The Board finds that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.4 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this variance will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws nor will it adversely affect the neighborhood. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday evening, March 8, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room Taylor