Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-08The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting on Tuesday evening, December 8, 1987 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, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. PUBLIC HEARINGS Joseph G. Bishop Variance 50 Granville Lane Legal notice was read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Bishop spoke for himself and stated that when they went to refinance the house, the bank told them that the house was too close to the lot line by 3'. According to Mr. Bishop, the bank allowed the refinancing with a letter from the Building Department stating that he would get a variance from the Board of Appeals. There were no plans in the file, and Mr. Bishop said that they were left with the Building Inspector. No one in the audience spoke for or against this petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted to take this matter under advisement. Vote was unanimous, (Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Souls and Rissin) John M. Masuire Variance 56 Magnolia Drive Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Mr. Maguire spoke for himself stating that when they tried to refinance the house, the bank found that the deck was too close to the lot line. He had replaced the existing porch with a deck and it was slightly larger than the old porch. Mr. Maguire did not have any plot plans to show the Board but said that he would go home and get copies for the members. No one from the audience spoke in favor or against this petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to continue this hearing until later in the meeting so that Mr. Maguire could present the plot plans to the Board. Vote was unanimous. (Serio, Frizelle, Sullivan, Nickerson, and Soule) Philip & G. DiGloria Special Permit 22 Montsiro Way Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. No one at the hearing to represent the pstitioner, so the Board continued the hearing until the end of the meeting. Z. Richard & B. Wysocki Variance 851 Forest St. Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney David Bernardin spoke for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are in poor health and would like to have their family close by. Jane Watson, sister of Mr. Wysocki, gave the land to him, and some of it has been sold, so they are left with two lots. There are a lot of wetland according to Attorney Bernardin, so the sub division of the two lots would be one acre each. The proposed dwelling would be 20' from the existing dwelling. This would enable them to build in this area of town and be near the elder family. It is located in the 2 acre zoning area(R-l). The original plans shown to the Board. Because of the wetland, the new dwelling would be on Laconia Circle. Petitioner stated that most of the area is built up. No one from the audience spoke in favor or against this petition. Letter from Town Planner, Scott Stocking read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk as follows: RE: 851 Forest St., Lot area variance and setback variance;"This proposal calls for changes in the configuration of two existing lots, 9A and 9, as shown on the Assessor's Map which is attached. The applicant is attempting to create two new lots which will be smaller than allowed by zoning and not allow sufficient room for a sideyard setback for a Wysocki(con'd) Page 2 proposed structure. In fact, this application asks the Board to approve a total of 3 variances, 1. Two lots with less than the required lot area, and 2. Lot 9C would require a 10' setback variance for proposed structure. Proposed Required Under R-i Variance Requested Lot 9B - 49,869 sq. ft. 9C - 49,869 sq. ft. 9C - Setback 20' 87,120 sq. ft. 87,120 sq. ft. 30' 37,251 sq. ft. 37,251 sq. ft 10' The applicant has two existing lots of record which are grandfathered from the require- ments of the R-1 Zoning District. (2 acres). The applicant is seeking to change the existing lots inot wo new lots and to allow them through the Board granting variances to remain grandfathered under the R-2 Zoning District (1 acre lots). Staff dislikes "port chop" lots under the Form 'A' process since it is often an attempt to avoid the intent of the Town's Regulations and/or subdivide property without going through the Subdivision Review Process with the Planning Board. In order for the Board to grant these variances they must find a compelling hardship which renders this property unbuildable under its present configuration. In staff's opinion the existing lots are grandfathered and are situated to allow a house to be constructed on Lot 9A, and the existing house remain on LOt 9. Attached are the Conservation Commission Wetland Maps which do not show any wetlands on these two lots, which the applicant says contain "wet comditions". Additional problems also occur if the variances are granted, first the new lots would fall into the Town's Contiguous Buildable Area Requirements and second, where would a driveway be located for the structure on Lot 9C which would not present a traffic hazard to traffic on Forest Street and Laconia Circle? Upon staff visiting the site, the existing topography found on Lot 9A does not appear to be a major problem in placing a house on the site. Other areas in Town have presented a much more severe slope problem, which have been addressed by good siting of the structure. In short, staff does not view the applicant as having a sufficient hard- ship to grant major variances of this type to allow "pork chop" lots." Copy sent to Attorney Bernardin on 12/9/87. According to Mr. Stockings's letter, there are no wetlands on the two lots. Attorney Bernardin stated that the Mr. Wysocki's son has been to the NACC on two occasions about the wetland on the property and has been closed out. Mr. Frizelle suggested that Mr. Bernardin contact the NACC with Scott's letter. Mr. Sullivan wants something more from both the Town Planner and NACC regarding this situation. Upon a motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to continue this petition to the January meeting. The vote was unanimous.(Serio, Frizelle, Soule Nickerson, and Sullivan) Janet Cooper Special Permit 150 Sutton Street Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk. Attorney A. Caffrey spoke for the petitioner stating that they desire to put an auto glass replacement business on this property. The property had been previously used as a freight depot, fencing company and a carpet company. In 1982, Ms. Cooper purchased the land from Sweeney Fence Co. The Cooper family had a loss two years ago when Mr. Cooper passed away. Since that time the property has been leased . A buyer for the property has come along, J. Phillips Glass Co., and they want to purchase the property and open a auto glass repair company. The property is presently zoned R-4 and they want it changed to GB. They do not intend to increase the size of the building. Mr. Serio stressed that this parcel is a gate- way into North Andover and has a lot of traffic. This would be a good use for the property per attorney as it has always been used for a type of business. It is right next to the railroad tracks, should be zoned for General Business. No one from the audience spoke for or against this petition. Page 3 Cooper - con'd Letter from Town Planner read by Mr. Nickerson, Clerk as follows: "Should the Board see fit to grant this Special Permit, staff would recommend the following conditions be placed on your approval: 1. A site plan be submitted which shows the lot, structure, parking areas, curb-cuts and any area utilized for outside storage. 2. Adequate park- ing should be provided on-site. Recommend utilizing the 1 parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of gross floor area (structure is 3,276 sq. ft.~!- 4 parking spaces required). In addition to the one space per 1,000 sq. ft, parking space should also be provided for cars awaiting for service at a rate of at least two (2) spaces per indoor garage space. 3. A single curb-cut shall provide access to the parking lot off Sutton Street. Additional curb-cuts for the garages may be allowed. 4. Ail signage on-site shall meet the requirements of Section 6 of the Zoning ByLaw. 5. Ail areas utilized for outside storage shall be screened with a 6' high solid wood fence. 6. A curb needs to be installed on Sutton Street along the frontage of this lot. Must control the site to prevent parking on the street or in front of the building. 7. Existing junk on-site must be removed prior to issuance of a building permit." Attorney Caffrey stated that under the Special Permit, it is not necessary to comply with the new parking space requirements. Mr. Nickerson stressed that the Board does not want a car lot on the street, and Mr. Serio agreed, stating that this area has been a mess for long enough. According to the attorney for the petitioner, the Building Inspector stated that it is a non-conforming use, so the petitioner came to the Board of Appeals to correct the Situation. Mr. Frizelle suggested that:the building could be used for parking.Attorney Caffrey stated that the petitioner could increase the building up to 25% with a Special Permit, but they did not wish to do that at this time. Mr. Frizelle asked if the petitioner would be willing to compromise and Mr. Caffrey stated that he believed that some of the matters being brought up are more business decisions than the Boards. Mr. Frizelle said that cars are a big problem in the town and the Board has to make decisions as they see fit. Mr. Serio stated that rent- ing parking spaces from Trombley's could not be done, bacause they are already pakring their trucks on the Cooper lot. Mr. Robert Rosenfield, owner of the glass company stated that they have 15 locations in MA and have been before many boards. They plan to have three employees and would have adequate parking because the cars are in and out as soon as possible, one at a time. The business on Route 9 in Framingham has two bays on 6,000+ and 20' buffer and have five (5) deemed parking spaces, and this has not created a traffic hazard there. The plans do not stress the parking spaces, the building and the lot were not surveyed so the lot is not exactly placed as shown. The building will be spruced up and greens and plants put in. There will be no neon signs and the lot will be tailored to the community. This is the clean end of the auto business. The rental space could be used for office space, or six cars could be put there at one time with some in the building. Attorney asked if the employee cars could be back to back, and Mr. Frizelle said that this would not be a practical solution to the problem. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to continue this hearing to the January 13th meeting and requested the petitioner to bring more specific plans for the Board to study. The vote was unanimous.(Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, and Soule). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS John M. Maguire Variance 56 Magnolia Drive Plans brought in by Mr. Maguire for the Board to look at. There was no opposition from any of the neighbors on this petition. It is an uncovered deck but a little larger than the porch it replaced, The deck has been there since 1982. Mr. Maguire gave the Board copies of the plans for the file. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to GRANT the variance as requested. The vote was unanimous(Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan and Souls). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS North Andover Texaco Page 4 Variance Special Permit 980 Osgood Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to DENY the variance and Special Permit as requested, due to the fact that no one appeared at the hearing to represent the petitioner. The vote was unanimous(Serio, Frizelle, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Anthony & Ann Conte Special Permit 11-13 Third Street Attorney Stella spoke for the petitioner regarding converting the house into four (4) units as planned in the original hearing. The first design was off because of the parking spaces. A new plan was presented to the Board, showing that it is now a three (3) unit dwelling and all the concerns of the Town Planner have been met. The dwelling is next to Conte Funeral Home. The dwelling will consist of one 1-bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit. The side nearest to Main Street will stay the same. The Board feels the parking area is much improved. Mr. Burns, an abutter, looked at the new plans and spoke to Mr. Conte regarding same, he had no objections. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Frizelle, the Board voted to GRANT the Special Permit as requested in accordance with the plans submitted tonight showing three (3) rental units, and subject to the condition that the parking is completed with all the shrubbery planted. Vote was unanimous.(Serio, Frizelle, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Margaret Coad¥ Special Permit 89 Lisa Lane Mr. Coady presented the Board with copies of the assessor's file regarding this petition. The in-law apartment is less than 25% of the total square footage of the dwelling, therefore acceptable to the Board. Mrs. Coady gave the Board a photo of the son that would be residing in the apartment. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted to GRANT the Special Permit as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The premises be occupied by Jack Coady, son of applicant. 2. The Special Permit shall expire at the time Jack Coady 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 his lawful designee the right to inspect the premises annually. The vote was unanimous to grant this Special Permit.(Serio, Frizelle, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin. Philip & G. DiGloria Special Permit 22 Monteiro Way Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to DENY the Special Permit as requested, as no one was at the meeting to re- present the petitioner. Vote was unanimous.(Serio, Frizelle, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). RECONSIDERATION HEARING Alan Solomont Red Sarah Realty Trust Special Permit Page 5 East side of Chestnut St. Attorney J. James spoke for the petitioner stating that prior to the meeting on November 11, 1987, he had spoken to Audrey Taylor that they wanted to be allowed to withdraw without prejudice. The letter was not sent until after the meeting and no one was at the November meeting to represent the petitioner so the Board denied the petition. The petitioner would like the Board to reconsider their decision and allow them to withdraw without prejudice. Attorney James stated that the Board was familiar with the petitioner and by allowing the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice would not cause any harm to anyone. Mr. Frizelle stated that at the last meeting the Board had to make a decision because no one was at the meeting to represent the petitioner. Attorney James feels the Board was forced to deny the petition at the last meeting, He claims that the office was notified of the petitioner's desire to withdraw without prejudice and that he dictated the'letter regarding this on the same day that he notified the Board of Appeals office, although the letter was not typed and mailed until a week later. He stated that the petitioner had no plans to bring this matter to the Board in the near future. Mr. Frizelle chaired the meeting so that Mr. Serio could second the motion made by Ms. O'Connor to reconsider the the decision of November 10, 1987. The vote was as follows: In favor - Serio and O'Connor, Opposed - Soule and Rissin, and Mr. Frizelle abstained. The reconsideration was DENIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next meeting will be on Tuesday evening, the 12th of January at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's meeting room. Audre~W. Tayl~, Clerk Fran~/Serio, Jr., ~ir'man