Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-10September 10, 1985 The Board of Appeals held its regular monthly meeting at 7:30p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room. Chairman Frank Merio, Jr. opened the meeting at 7:40 p~m. Members present were: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman, Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk, William J. Sullivan, Walter F. Soule, and associate members John Simons, and Raymond A. Vivenzio. I~BLIC ~ARINGS MICHAEL L. ~J~TT~NBACH - VARIANCE - L~ND BO~}ERING LAIO~ The clerk read the legal notice. Attorney James Curtis representing Mr. Kettenbach stated that they need a variance for from~ge as this lot is land-locked, also permission td build in area covered by morotorium. Mr. Curtis stated that Mr. Gray supports this variance as long as it does not affect his land. Mary Charles Trust has right to use easement over Boston University land to Osgood St. Right-of-way is a dirt road by Edgewood Farm right to property in question. Mr. Kettenbach emphasized that he only wants to build one single-family house on this land of approximately 30 (plus/minus) acres, but could possibly build more after the 3-year moratorium. The lot in question is under agreement but not yet owned by Mr. Kettenbach. Claims house will be consistent to area, plus no runoff to lake, and that he prefers not to sub-divide. Mr. Frizelle: Why now when Town has already said no? Mr. Kettenbach: If one house is built now, parcel cannot be used for sub-division. Mr. Prizelle: What exactly is the hardship? Mr. Kettenbach: This is an isolated lot, right of way paid for and we cannot build if we cannot get to land via right of way, Possible Grandfather Law involved, original plans submitted to Planning Bd prior to change in zoning bylaws at Town Meeting. Mr. Frizelle: Are you in the watershed district? Mr. ~ttenbach: Yes. Charles Foster: Plan for sub-division filed prior to zoning change. Planning Bd refused to accept it because it was improperly filed, did not comply with Rules & Regulations. Town Counsel informally told Planning Bd that their decision may be incorrect. Planning Bd to hire their own lawyer. Mr. Frizelle: Where is your frontage? lit. Kettenbach: None, need 50' right-of-way. There is no street. We are completely land-locked. Although area broken into nine (9) lots we would only be using one, 600' ft. from lake. T~e right=of-way leads into Boston University land and private land. Mr. Nickerson read letter from Building Inspector Charles Foster. Attorney Albert F. Cullen, Jr. (abutter who owns 7 acres to west of property in question): The land in question (Carloly Rogers Turst) property right-of-way is unpaved crushed stone easement and them a hay path. I own 16 ft. right-of-way to my house and that is paved. I also use Rogers paved driveway. Easement co~s out to Osgood St. (all open land). I am ~ mile off road and have Town water and gas and septic tank system. Before moratorium, lit. Rogers filed a plan with the Planning ~d which the Board voted not to accept. Town Counsel claims that the filing of plan at that time made it duly filed. The plan presented by Mr. Kettenbach is not a correct or accurate plan. Should have aplan that shows septic~taak system amd watershed area involved. I would be happy to see 30 or so acre,s saved by single ownership but Mr. Kettenbach wants to be able to build after moratorium. I oppose more than one single-family dwelling on this parcel. Mr. Set!o: Frontage requirement needed. Presently only paths, would right-of- way be a burden to you? Hr. Cullen: No, if plans shown to you satisfy the septic system and only one sin§le home guaranteed. Hr. Frizelle: Where is nearest sewer line? Hr. Cullen: l~escott Street. Would require mejor sewer work to tie into that system. Perhaps sink a well on lot. Hr. Kettenbach: I only want to develop one lot, one house but should anytht~g happen to me, I do not want n~y family to be unable to develop this property. I will bring in a plan for only one house on one lot. The driveway would be gravel and not widened. Certain areas would have to be bulldozed sad road mede. Hr. Vivenzio: Plann£ng Board rejected this because owner had not signed, and it has never been appealed. Karen Nelson: Denied because of insufficient tnformetion for a decision. Time limit of six (6) months for refiling. Charles Foster: Application cnn be made for variance even if plan not accepted by Planning Board. MOTION: by Hr. Frizelle to take metter under advisement. SECONDED: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - Serio, Frizelle, Nlc~erson, Sullivan and Soule Notion carries KEVIN 3, HOLLAND - VARIANCE - 158 WAVERLY ROAD The clerk read the legal notice. Plot plan reviewed by Board. Hr. Holland stated he planned to do the third floor over into an apartment. He has a three (3) stall garage and three additional spaces for cars, already hot- Copped. Hr. Frizelle: What is the mekeup of the neighborhood? Mr. Holland: All two and three-family homes. A four,family on the right side of my proper~y. Mr. Frizelle: Is garage presently used? Hr. Holland: Yes, two are and one is empty. MOTION: by Hr. Frizelle to cake the metter under advisement. SECONDED: Mr. Soule VOTE: Unanimous - Seres, Frizelle, Nickereon, Sullivan & Soule Motion carries DONALD FOX - VARIANCE - 146 C~ST~UT STREET Hr. Fox stated that merketing survey mede by Scott Giles found that garage was to close to lot line. The ~arage is 25-35 years old. Should be 20 ft from line. In 1958, the builder just put it up and the Building Inspector has no record of a Building Permit being issued. House is 25-30 feet from line. They need a variance for the garage. Letter from Charles Foster, Building Inspector read by clerk. k NOTIOt~: by Hr. Frizelle that we grant the variance. SECONDED: by Mr. Soule VO~: Unanimous - Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, Soule Motion carries TO~N OF NO~TH ANDOI~R - Si~CI/L i~IT r. JO~NSON STP~T Clerk read the legal notice. Charles Foster stated Co~nity Ctr., barn and house used by Town for a few years. Town has 99 year lease for use by Town of that property. Community Center used by senior citizens and recreation department (barn). House used by Thrift Shop on first floor, and an apartment on second floor. Carry property taken by Town and we want to put in a parking lot to be used by the Co~vanity Center as well as general public. Traffic conditions and parking in the Old Center are very bad. I checked this afternoon, and there were 74 cars parked there. Many small businesses located in Old Center and they attract heavy traffic and create parking problems. The parking lot would relieve the parking problem and aid the Police Department in keeping the area clear. Hrs. Nelson: This would be a municipal parking area that businessmen could utilize. The landscaping will fit right into the theme of the Old Center. Hr. Frizelle: Can you show us what is to be doneT Hrs. Nelson: There are many people involved on the committee, so a definite plan cannot be presented im~-~dtately. Hr. Frizelle: Aren't you asking us to buy a pig in a pokeT Hrs. Nelson: Could hearing be posponed so that final plans could be presented$ Hr. Sullivan: How long before plans ready~ Hrs. Nelson: Two to three weeks. Hr. Serio: Can it be completed before winter? Hr. Osgood: Partly, just how specific do plans have to bet Mr. Frizelle: Concept - entrance, exit, lighting, fence, closed or open at night. Hrs. Nelson: Should be as nice as possible for neighbors and townspeople. Statement by Hr. Bill Kent: Very interested and would like to work with committee in any way. Very pleased about this plan. Statement by Hr. S. Rogers: Very, very anxious for parking lot to be put in. HOTION: by Hr. Frizelle to postpone matter to next maeting, October 15, 1985, SECONDED: by Hr. Nickerson VOTe: unanimous - Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan, & Soule ~otion carries DECISIONS DAHAR, KENNETH - S IT~IAL PERMIT - LOT 4, GREAT POND ROAD DAI~R AND sOBEL - SPECIAL PEi~IIT - 1689 G~AT POND I~AD lOTION: by Hr. Frizelle to GRANT special permit provided following conditions are met: No vegatation, trees, shrub cut within the non-cutting zone on property or Sobel propert-y; that proposed dwelling be made to tie into sewer system; and second row of hay bales put in to prevent erosion, or whatever other steps necessary as determined by Building Inspector. SECONDED: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE: Unanimous - Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson, Sullivan & Vivenzto to GRANT ANG~ I~ALTY T~ST - Si~ClAL,,I~RMIT' - OSGOOD STREET MOTIO~: by Hr. Frizelle to GRANT the special permit with the following stipulations: 1. Plan be revised to show building be constructed beyond 250' from the lake. 2. The retaining wall shown on the plan must be constructed within 150' and 250' from the lake only except in the southeast corner of the lot for a sewer line and pumping station which is to be not greater than 20' on Great Pond ~ad, in a location to be determined by the North Andover Board of Public Works. 3. The retaining wall must be constructed and sraded prior to the commencement of construction of any structure thereon and before any building permit for a structure is issued. The Board suggests that two building permits may be required. 4. The parking lot as shown on the plan or revised plan is to be allowed within the 150' to 250' zone. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the existing structure(store) be demolished. 6. That a stockade fence closest to the structure be constructed on the northeast boundry abutting the Ragonese property in addition to the two rows of staggered white pines. 7. That all of the walls of the proposed structure be of the same matarial~ except- ing glass. 8. That the plans be revised and submitted to and approved by the Board prior to any construction on the site. 9. That necessary plans be submitted to the Building Inspector showing that drainage from the store drains away from the lake through catch basins on Osgood Street. 10. That trash receptacles be enclosed in masonry walled enclosures with front non-transparent gates. 11. That the existing driveway to Great Pond Road~ on the south side of the site, be demolished at the a=ea restated to be a green area which is not to be fertilized. 12. The retaining wall shall be landscaped as shown on the plan. 13. Parking lot lighting shall be directed down. The Board finds that the provisions of Section 10-31 have been satisfied. The Board has determined that Town sewage will be added to the site (at present a sanitary hold- ing tank system is being used) which is of great benefit to the site. This Town sewage places this petitioner in a different light from other sites bordering the lake's Watershed District. Application for special permit for existing building denied in light of the granting of the special permit for the above. COOLIDG~ CONSTRUCTION - SPECIAL P~RMIT - G~EAT POND RDAD~ LOT B COOLIDGE CONSTRUCTION - VARIANCE - SOUTH BRADFORD STREET~ LOT 2/3/415 GR~AT POND ROAD, LOT B The petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to Section 4.133 3(d) to construct a dwelling within 100' of a tributary to Lake Cochechwick. The parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and once was a portion of another parcel. In their request, the petitioners presented plans which would redirect the flow away from the lake and that the driveway and portion of the dwelling would have to be to be constructed within 100T from the tributary. The board upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soule voted unanimously to DENY the petition for a special permit. In reaching its decision the board carefully considered the provisions of Section 10.31 of the Bylaws and finds that the petitioner did not m~et each of the criteria set forth therein. Particularly, the site is not an appropriate location for the proposed use, in light of its proximity to the lake tributary and the increase in sewage to the site. The proposed use would in ~he opinion of the board have an adverse effect on the neighborhood in that the Town has, in an effort to stem the pollution of the lake, imposed a moratorium on building around the lake. Although the moratorium does not affect this site, the board considered the mandate of the Town to be compelling. In sumnt~_ry, the petitioner fails to meet the standards enumerated in Section 1 of the Zoning Bylaw, namely that the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town must be considered. VOl~: To DENY, unanimous by Serio, Soule, Frizelle, Nickerson and Vivenzio SOUTH BBAI)FORD STREET, LOT 2/3/4/5 The petitioner seeks to obtain a special permit to enable the construction of three (3) dwellings on the site, in addition to an existing dwelling. The site has two brooks and wetland area which require that a special permit pursuant to Section 4.133 3(d) to construct within 100' of a tributary. The petitioner's represeantaive testified that the proposed development will require the additional approval of the Planning Bd and Conservation Commission and then will require a variance from the Board of Appeals. The Board upon a motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Hr. Soule voted unanimously to DENY the special permit. The Board finds that the proposed development and the delicate nature of the land with- in the no-build area set forth in the Bylaws does not meet the requirements of'Sectioo 10.31 of the Zoning Bylaws. Particularly because of the absence of sewage to the site and the site is not an appropriate location for the proposed use in light of its proximity to a ~ributary to the lake and the increase of sewage to the site. The pro- posed use would in the~opinion of the board have an adverse affect on the neighborhood, in that the Town has, in an effort to stem the pollution of the lake, imposed a moratorium on building around the lake. Although the moratorium does not affect this site, the board considered the mandate of the Town to be compelling. In summary, the petitioner fails to maet the stmndards enumerated in Section 1 of the Zoning Bylaws, namely that the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town must be considered. VOTE: Unanimously to DENY - Soule, Serio, Frizelle, Nickerson and Vivenzio KEV]~ J. HOLLAND - VA~J~ANCE - 158 WAV~P~Y ~AD MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to 9YtT the variance as requested, subject to parking area approved by fir. C. Foster, Building Inspector. SECONDED: Hr. Nickerson VOTE: Unani~ous - Serio, Frizelle, Sullivan, Soule and Niekerson l',llC ,~. L L~, KETTENBACH ~,,.VAR.ZANCB - LAND BORDERING LAKE MOTION: by Hr. Frizelle to DBNY variance because '~he petitioner seeks a variance from the provisions of Section 7, Paragraph 7.2, Table 2 and Section 4, Paragraph 4.133(4) of the Zoning ByLaws to construct a single family dwelling on a 30 acre parcel of land off Osgood St. abutting Lake Cochickewick. The petitioner testified that he has a Purchase Agreement on the property and needs a variance for the street frontage because the parcel is landlocked. Further, he desires to locate a dwelling within the Watershed District and requests a variance to do so. The petitioner further states that there will be access via a privete way. One abutter' Albert Cullen, spoke generally opposing a subdivision of the entire parcel which includes the 30 acres of land. The Board, upon motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Hr. Sullivan, voted to DENY the variance requested for Section 7, Paragraph 7.2, Table 2 and Section Paratraph 4.133(4), member Serio did not vote to deny. The Board finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the req~irements of Section 10,4 as to either section of the Bylaw which he requested a variance. In particular the 30 acre parcel is a portion of a greater parcel which the o~ner of record sub- mitred plans to the Planning Board for a subdivision. The landlocked parcel in question would be parc of the snbdivision and the fact that the parcel does not have frontage is not oi sufficent hardship to a prospective purchaser. Since there is no hardship shown es to Section 7.2, the Board findslikevise Chat there is no statv~ary hardship reason to allow construction of a dvelling within the Water- shed District. VOTE: Voting to deny - Frizelle, Sullivan, Soule, Nickerson Abstain - Set-lo Audrey ~. Taylor~/ Clerk v