Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-10June 10, 1985 Regular Meeting The Board of Appeals held a regular monthly meeting on Monday, June 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk; William J. Sullivan (arrived late); Walter F. Soule; and Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq. Building Inspector Charles Foster was present. Chairman Serio opened the meeting by presenting a plaque to former Board Member Maurice S. Foulds, who recently resigned from the Board. Mr. Serio thanked Mr. Foulds for his service and stated that it was with regret that he accepted the resignation. PUBLIC HEARINGS Varrichione, Andrew - Variance - Waverly Road (continued) Again, the applicant was not present - TABLED. Angus Realty Trust - Special Permit - Osgood Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John Ford, representing the applicant, made the following presentation: - Angus Realty Trust (the Yameen's) have been a part of the community for many years. - They obtained rezoning in 1983 and 1984 for the parcel. - The plans have been in the working for some time. - They are seeking a Special Permit for construction within 250 feet of Lake Cochichewick. - The parcel is zoned GB and contains 5+ acres. - The existing structure is shown on the plan. It also shows the proposed structure. - All of the existing structure is within the constraints of the 250 foot setback from the lake. - They need the Special Permit to build the new structure and demolish the old one. They will tear down the old structure and incorporate their business in the new one. - There will be a Butcher Boy market, four or five retail outlets and possibly a restaurant. The existing structure is on a septic system. They propose to tie in the new building into a sewer system. It is a private system which will be turned over to the town at some point. In addition, they will engineer the site so that the drainage goes north and northwest and goes through some ~ulverts on Route 125. It will all be away from the lake. There is an access road that runs off Route 133. If the Special Permit is granted, they will eliminate it so there is no traffic on to Great Pond Road or Route 133. Ail traffic will be from Route 125. They will dress up the area so that it will be more attractive. This proposal takes into consideration the concerns that the citizens have for the lake. They went to the Planning Board in March and April. On the basis of the ruling from Town Counsel, they must now come before the Board of Appeals. - They filed a Form A plan earlier this year. The square footage of the building will be 42,700 square feet. If the Special Permit is not granted, they still have a right to build on the land, but instead of building another dis- jointed building, it will be more economical to put everything together. They will be unable to build the wall if the Special Permit is not granted. - The fill alone will cost approximately $48,000. - The wall will be another $36,000 to $40,000. The structure must be a certain size to be economically feasible. They would have difficulty meeting the parking requirements if the wall were moved. Speaking in opposition to the petition was Mr. Frank Ragonese, an abutter. He stated: - He became involved when he purchased the house next door. - He is concerned because he sees no benefit to the town. - There could be an impact to the value of his property. His decision to purchase the property was based on the scenic beauty of the area. There is a natural green barrier. The proposed building will be so huge it will dominate the corner. - Great Pond Road is noted for the beauty of its homes. The proposed building is 108' x 365' It will be like the outside perimeter of a football field. The building will be approximately one acre. In order to accommodte the building, they need a retaining wall. The retaining wall will not be a 3 to 4 foot fall. It will be substantially larger. His building is only 17 feet from the lot line. They will build within 50 feet of that lot line. He will be facing the back end of the building and the dumpsters as well as the employee parking area and the delivery area. - He is concerned about a portion of wetlands on the property. Denying the Special Permit would not cause a hardship to the petitioner. They told the people at Town Meeting that they were going to renovate the existing building and possibly add a restaurant. They are not shutting off egress from Great Pond Road willingly. They have to because of the wall. Mr. Ragonese asked that the Board visit the site before rendering a decision. Mr. Archibald Maclaren, project engineer, added the following: - They did not have to put in the retaining wall. - They chose to do it. - It will be a maximum of 3 to 3 1/2 feet. He told Mr. Ragonese that this project was being planned before he purchased his property. Mr. Ragonese added: - He saw Mr. Thomas Yameen and was not able to get any answers. - He was told that no restaurant was proposed. He called Mr. Kenneth Yameen and was then told that they did have plans for a restaurant. - At that time, he did not know of the immensity of the project. The Yameen's had an opportunity to purchase the property he bought and they chose not to. That may have been the solution. Mr. Thomas Yameen added: They did not purchase Mr. Ragonese's property because they felt that there would be no interference. They spend a minimum of $800 per month for rubbish removal, etc. His family has always run a first class operation in North Andover for 20 years. Mr. Fred Boucher, an abutter, asked what type of screening would be provided. He viewed the plans. Mr. Maclaren added that they will place shrubs where the Board requests them. A letter from the Planning Board (6/10/85) was read and placed on file. Attorney Ford asked the Board to continue the public hearing and added that if an extension is needed by the Board they will grant one. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until August 12, 1985. SECOND: by Mr. Vivenzio VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Daher, Kenneth - Special Permit - Lot 14 Great Pond Road Daher and Sobel - Special Permit - 1689 Great Pond Road (taken together) The Clerk read the two (2) legal notices. Mr. Kenneth Daher was present and requested that the hearings be continued since his attorney could not be present tonight. He submitted a letter from Attorney Kenneth M. Homsey dated 6/10/85. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearings until August 12, 1985. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Coolidge Construction - Special Permit - Great Pond Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John McGarry of Coolidge Construction and Mr. Steven Stapinski, project engineer, were present. Attorney McGarry stated: - They propose to build a single family dwelling on 3 acres. Mr. Stapinski added: - They have conducted studies and surveys of the property. They did a topographical and wetland study. They found that in the front of the lot there is a depression which is an isolated wetland. The water just percs into the ground. There is also a wetland in the back of the lot which runs through the site and runs through land of the North Andover Country Club. The site drains partly into the wetland area and partly into the sink hole. - The proposed home will be 350 feet back from the lake. - There is a septic system proposed. In order to build the driveway and the house, it will be necessary to do some grading within 250 feet of the wetland tributary. The water which used to go to the lake will be rechanneled and the area that used to drain to the lake will be redirected into this kettlehold depression. There will be less run-off into the lake than currently exists. They are proposing that the septic system be designed in accordance with the town and state standards. They have a permit from the Board of Health. - The house will be serviced by town water. - The Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions. - They have walked the site with the Conservation Commission. The house is 75 feet from the tributary and the driveway will be located approximately 50 feet from a tributary. From the driveway to the other side of the lot is approximately 18 feet. - They propose to construct a swale. This lot is a "frontage exception" lot. At one time they proposed a subdivision but have since withdrawn the plan. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Letters from the following were read and placed on file: Planning Board (6/10/85) Building Inspector (6/10/85) Speaking in opposition was Mr. Dick Katis, who asked about the sink hole and what would prevent it from overflowing. Mr. Stapinski responded that it is designed to hold run-off for a 100-year storm. If the land were used for agricultural use, the driveway would still have to be constructed. No matter what type of use, there is no exemption for driveway construction. When the lot was divided, they relied upon the testimony of a botanist. They said it is isolated and not a tributary. The Conservation Commission with the Building Inspector determined that their report was inaccurate. Attorney McGarry added that town meeting action gives the Board of Appeals Special Permit granting authority. This plan will not cause a detriment to the lake and will decrease the run-off. He will provide a copy of the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions. If this is denied, the lot will be unusable. Member Vivenzio asked if any attempt was made to purchase land from Lot A to make the dwelling conform. Mr. Stapinski responded that it would render Lot A non-conforming. The septic system on Lot A would prohibit them from moving the lot line. Building Inspector Foster added that even though they have a septic system permit, they are in a sensitive area. He asked if barriers or preventative measures could be taken to prevent problems in years to come. He also would expect that some permanent solution for surface water be taken. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until August 12, 1985. SECOND: by Mr. Vivenzio VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Coolidge Construction - Special Permit - So. Bradford Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Joseph Cushing of Kaminski Associates, project engineer, made the following presentation: The parcel is approximately 6.9 acres on the west side of So. Bradford Street. It is approximately 200 to 300 feet from Gre. at Pond Road and opposite Meadowview Road. The application is to subdivide the 6.9 acres into 4 house lots (Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5). - There is an existing dwelling on Lot 2. They are proposing to develop 3 house lots on the remaining 5.9 acres. Title V requires taht they stay 100 feet away from the wetlands and drains. In order to minimize the environmental impact, they are making their crossing in a different place. There is a culvert on the property. They will have a common driveway to service 3 dwellings. They will go before the Planning Board for a Special Permit for the common driveway. They will also have to go to the Conservation Commission. They will have to come back to the Board of Appeals because some of the construction will result in the cutting of trees within 25 feet of a tributary to the lake. The driveway will be 15-18 feet wide. Unless a Special Permit is issued, it is not possible to develop this parcel. - It was purchased as one parcel. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Letters from the Building Inspector (6/10/85) and the Planning Board (6/10/85) were read and placed on file. Speaking in opposition were Mrs. Ayer, Mr. Mithcell and Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts stated that the driveway will cross the brook twice. Mr. Cushing added: This plan was originally submitted to the Planning Board It must go back to the Planning Board for a Special Permit for the common driveway. Then it must go to the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission is going to look at this parcel from a different light than the other Boards. They will look for no increase in the rate of run-off, no on-site pollution during construction and making sure that the septic systems are satisfactory to the Board of Health and the State. He knows that the Conservation Commission will issue an Order of Conditions which will limit the kind of construction they can do. Michael Roberts, chairman of the Planning Board, suggested that all the information from various Boards be made available to the Board of Appeals. Building Inspector Charles Foster suggested that the Conservation k Commission's requirements be made available to the Board of Appeals prior to the Board of Appeals rendering a decision. Mr. Cushing said the Board of Appeals will probably issue con- ditions and then the Conservation Commission will have to look at it. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until August 12, 1985 SECOND: by Mr. Niekerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Mr. Cushing asked the Board to view the site. Coolidge Construction - Special Permit - Dale Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Joseph Cushing of Kaminski Associates, project engineer, made the following presentation: This plan has been before the Board of Appeals before. It was previously owned by Mr. Forget. - It is between Salem Street and Marbleridge Road. It was his original intention to subdivide the parcel into 5 lots. As a result of the first meeting with the Planning Board, the plan now shows 4 lots. They have Special Permits for Parcels 4 and 5 from the Planning Board and an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. They divided land and shifted land. This plan satisfies the conditions issued by the Planning Board when he received the Special Permit for construction. It satisfies the Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. The variance for the cutting of trees was denied by the Board of Appeals. They were proposing to put a sewer line within an easement down in the wetland area. The Board of Appeals said that since there was another way to tie in, the variance was denied. This plan is different in that the work is further away from the wetland area. They will tie the sewer line as a new one in the shoulder of the road and tie into Marbleridge Road. If a Special Permit is granted by the Board of Appeals, they will have to go back to the Conservation Commission. - It is protected from the moratorium. Note: Member Sullivan arrived here. Mr. Cushing continued with: - They knew they would have to go to the Board of Appeals, Planning Board, and Conservation Commission. - They placed the house to maintain the maximum distance from the contour. The house will be 28' x 68' No one spoke in favor of the petition. Letters from the Building Inspector (6/10/85), Planning Board (6/10/85), and Ethel and Hannah Stork and Mary Hart (6/10/85) were read and placed on file. The letter from Stork and Hart voiced opposition. Also voicing opposition was Mr. Rene Fugere. He said he is con- cerned with the brook. Attorney John McGarry for Coolidge Construction added that he does not think that any land from Parcel 2A can be purchased. MOTION: by Mr. Vivenzio to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Cyr Engineering - Variance - Pleasant Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. James Curren of Cyr Engineering made the following presenta- tion: - They want to continue developing two parcels for single family homes on Pleasant Street. - When they were first engaged to do the necessary studies, their intent was to construct 3 homes on 3 lots that their clients thought they had purchased from the Andover Savings Bank. - This area has been an area since 1974 whre there have been 11 to 12 Form A plans through Land Court. - Somewhere one of the lots got "lost in the shuffle". They are now down to 2 lots. - In a conference with the abutters, Building Inspector, and Town Counsel, they decided to forget the third lot and redesign the area for 2 houses. - A distance of 250 feet got lost somewhere in the train of thought. - When you look at the plan, it is not a normal plan of land. - If you look at the site, you would not know that they are not 250 feet away. - The only way to get it completed is to come before the Board of Appeals for a variance. - They feel responsible that the 250 feet was not noted in the beginning. They thought the required setback was 200 feet. - They are partially constructed and one is partially framed. No one spoke in favor of the petition. The following letters were read and placed on file: Building Insepctor (to Pleasantime Realty) (5/10/85) Building Inspector (6/10/85) Speaking in opposition were John Harriman, Attorney Russel Bodnar (for John Hart), Lawrence Ward, Bruce Davis and John Gromko. Mr. Harrimad stated: - About 2 or 3 years ago, the Andover Savings Bank was in the process of foreclosing on all these lots. - At that time, he talked to the bank's attorney and asked about one of the lots. - He was told that this was a non-buildable lot and they considered turning it over to Conservation. - In the interest of straightening out his lot line, he would be interested in it whenever it became available. - It always seemed to be non-buildable. - He tried to make contact with a lawyer who is a part of the company. No contact was ever made. - One of the houses should not have been built. Attorney Bodnar, who presented aerial photos, added: - Not only was Mr. Harriman advised that the lot was unbuildable but the Hart's also tried to pick up a small strip of land. - A building permit was issued within the 250 foot mark. The developers then went to an engineer who did not pick up on the mistake. - The people who are going to be hurt are the abutters. - Some type of hardship must be established. - The front of the house is within the 250 foot area. - The entire lot is going to be subject to a great deal of shoveling and moving things back and forth. The bottom of this lot is very close to the pumping station. - Fertilizers and chemicals will be used and they will drain into the lake. - There should be no financial hardship if there is insurance to cover the mistake. - The Hart's have spent $2,000 for landscaping. - The house that is up has 2 decks on it. It looks like another variance may be necessary if the future for whatever is going off the decks. - Property values will be affected. - It is a dangerous precedent. Mr. John Hart added: - He initially raised the issue. - They were told that the lo~ were unbuildable. - He went to Cyr Engineering and questioned how the stakes could be so close to his lot. - He thinks they will have a deck with further encroachment on his yard. Mr. John Gromko added: - There are 25 people here tonight and they all agree in their opposition. Mr. Lawrence Ward added: - In 1981 he purchased his home. In the process of purchasing, the builder had to appear before the Board of Appeals because of inconsistencies in the lot line. Building Inspector Charles Foster added that this is an envi- ronmental concern. In further discussion, Mr. Curre~ added that the lot lines were changed so that the lots conform to the area requirement. He also stated that they are owned by Pleasantime Realty Trust. A1 Yoda is building the houses. He is with Merrimack Valley Realty Trust. They are a singular and dividable entity. Mr. Curren added that the lots may not be landscaped and Mr. Hart said if they are not landscaped they will not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Member Frizelle asked how the moratorium will affect the lots and Mr. Curren said the building permits were granted on 2/4/85. Attorney Bodnar stated that the Cease and Desist should negate the building permits. Building Inspector Foster added that in the moratorium article, a variance provision was included in case a house burned down. That is the basis for this petition. Mr. Bruce Davis said this is not a case of a house burning down. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries HacMiff Development - Special permit - Salem Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Note: Member Sullivan sat on the remaining petitions. Mr. William MacLeod, project engineer, made the following pre- sentation: - This is a request for a Special Permit for construction within the Watershed. - The lot in question was submitted to the Planning Board under a Form A plan in November of 1984. - They have conducted perc tests and they have been approved by the Board of Health. - They had a public hearing before the Conservation Commission and they have issued a negative determination. - They are here tonight because of the wetlands that exist behind the lot are within the 100 feet of the house and for some grading. They have looked at alternatives. The septic system on the lot is the minimum distance from a catch basin on Salem Street. They would be agreeable to a restriction that the lot could not be further subdivided or that any portion could be sold to abutting properties. The house is the minimum distance from the septic system and the side lot line. The Conservation Commission has required that haybales be placed during construction. They will go to the Planning Board next Monday (6/17/85) for a common driveway. Putting the septic system in the back would require more disturbance. The existing driveway is on an easement that was there prior to Klemer buying the lot. There is a maintenance restriction on it. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Letters from the Building Inspector (6/10/85) and the Board of Health (to the Planning Board (5/28/85) were read and placed on file. Speaking in opposition were Mr. James Hamblet, Mrs. Gall Klemer, Mrs. Constance McAndrew, and Mrs. Burenson. Mr. Hamblet stated: There are problems with the lake. The State says no construction within 100 feet of a water course. This is another request to construct a sanitary disposal system. - Controls should be put on these. - *There is no sewer. Mrs. Klemer added: It should be prohibited. - The engineer and the corporation knew the layout of the lot at the time they purchased it. - It is such a large lot but they seem to only be able to build on a small part of it. - She is opposed to building the septic system in the back. - She is concerned that the land is a meadow and some kind of landscaping will be necessary and that chemicals will be used. Mrs. McAndrew (previous owner) added: - When they sought an estimate of what the land was worth, they were told it was unbuildable. They didn't think it could be built upon. Mrs. Burenson said she agreed with the statements made by Mr. Hamblet and Mrs. Klemer. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Regan, Daniel - Special Permit - French Farm Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Regan made the following presentation: - This is a request for a Special Permit for an in-law apartment. He did not know that a Special Permit was required and the apartment exists. It was constructed in March. It is for his mother-in-law, Cecile Micka. The house was built by Jayco in August of 1984. It consists of a bedroom, a kitchen, living room, and a bath. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector (6/10/85) was read and placed on file. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Xoye, James - Variance - Great Pond Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Mrs. Joyce Toye made the following presentation: - The house is partially completed. - It is located across from the Campion Hall estate. - They hired Kaminski and Associates to do the survey and draw a plot plan. - The side setback violation of six feet was just brought to their attention. - It would be a hardship due to blasting to move the house. - The foundation was constructed with a building permit. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector (6/10/85) was read and placed on file. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance as requested. SECOND: by Mr. Sullivan VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Columbia Realty Trust - Variance - Columbia Rd./Sutton St. The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Domenic $calise made the following presentation: - This is an L-shaped lot. - They are proposing to subdivide it into two and place a new dwelling on one of the lots. - There is an existing 3-stall garage. - The lot on Sutton Street requires a frontage and area variance. - The back lot consists of 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage. - The lots in the area were designed as 5,000 square foot lots. - It has no benefit other than the use of the garage. - They are proposing a single family dwelling. No one spoke in favor of the petition. A letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Lynch was read and placed on file. Speaking in opposition were Mr. and Mrs. Carl Waggoner, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Coffin and Mrs. Kierstead. Mr. Waggoner stated: - The entire area was a ravine. A new house will interupt the water table. Mr. Coffin added: k - The lot was subdivided several years ago. - He is opposed to the creation of another small lot. - This area of Sutton Street has taken enough over the years - they have the airport, the trash to energy plant and the busy Hig~ Street intersection. Mrs. Kierstead added: - There is a water problem and it flows all year. - This will create a crowding problem. Mrs. Coffin added: - Columbia Road is only 600 feet long and there are already 13 houses on it. Attorney Scalise added: - There is no question that the area was set up with 5,000 square foot lots. - The proposed lot is no smaller than other lots in the neighborhood. - It would not cause a detriment to the neighborhood. - The dwelling will be small and they will address the water problem. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Palumbo, Robert - Special Permit - Flagship Drive The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney Andrew Caffrey Jr. made the following presentation: - This request for a Special Permit was before this Board 4 years ago. - Three of the members are still here. - The area in question is adjacent to the Flagship Drive a~a and is a part of the development. - Part of this proposal was before Town Meeting requesting that the area be rezoned. It was defeated. - The Special Permit granted 4 years ago allowed the extension of the industrial use into the residential land by 100 feet. - The area is almost 8 acres of R-2. The request to extend the zoning district would add approximately 2 acres of residential into industrial. It is the highest use of the land. There is no residential development anywhere near it. The closest development is Marian Drive, which is some 350 feet away. They are asking to use a 100 foot strip of R-2 land as industrial. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Member Frizelle read the 1981 decision to the Board and the audience. Speaking in opposition were Mr. Peter Novello of Marian Drive and Mr. John Simons of Rock Road. Mr. Novello stated: - The land has access from Marian Drive. Part of the land in question is part of a subdivision whose approval has been rescinded by the Planning Board. At the Town Meeting, there was an article by Mr. Webster to rezone the land from residential to industrial. The town sent a message to officials. Being an owner of residential property, he has a hard time with the industrial use. The vote~Town Meeting should influence this petition. Mr. Simons stated that he agreed with Mr. Novello about the Town Meeting message. Attorney Caffrey added: - Regardless of the message of Town Meeting, this Board may grant a Special Permit. - Town Meeting should not influence the decision. - This industrial use will not put it any closer to Marian Drive than it already is. - It is only an extension of the 100 feet. There will be 5 to 6 acres of buffer between the abutter. The 100 foot setback will also have to be met. There will be no construction on it. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Board of Selectmen - ABC Bus Company The Clerk read the letter. Mr. John Casey was present and informed the Board that he has submittted a petition requesting a review of a decision made by the Building Inspector and asked the Board to schedule a special meeting for his petition. Chairman Serio explained that due to the recent resignations of two Board members and the vacatio~ season approaching, the Board will not meet until August 12, 1985. Attorney Ramsey Bahawry of the Board of Selectmen stated that his . Board is concerned because ABC Bus Company was trying to hold them down because they transport the school children. Building Inspector Foster added that they already have a contract for next year. The Chairman instructed the secretary to schedule the public hearing on Mr. Casey's application for August 12, 1985 and to forward a letter to Mr. Casey with a copy to the Board of Selectmen explaining the Board's position. OTHER BUSINESS Hetherington, James - Request for removal of condition - Annis St. Mr. Hetherington was present and asked the Board to reconsider a condition they placed on his variance which stated that his existing garage must be razed prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new one. He stated that he needs the existing garage for storage while the addition is being constructed. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle that the existing garage be razed 30 days after the addition is closed in. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries Special Meeting - completion of June 10, 1985 agenda and business. The Board scheduled a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, June 26, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of completing the