Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-09April 9, 1984 Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, April 9, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Vice Chairman; Richard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; Augustine W. Nickerson; and Associate ~4ember Walter F. Soule. Building Inspector Charles Foster was also present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Meadows, Theodore - Variance - Turnpike Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. ~4eadows was present and stated the following: - He is proposing to create four buildable lots on Turnpike Street. - Lot 2 as shown on the plan lacks adequate area and frontage. It is lacking 8 feet of frontage and approximately 800 s.f. of area. - Lot 3, which is adjacent to Lot 2, contains more than the required amount of area and Lot 1, which is to the rear of Lot 2 on the plan and is a large lot, also contains adequate land so that a portion could be combined with Lot 2 giving it the necessary area as required under the Zoning By Law. - There is no land available to combine with Lot 2 to give it the needed frontage of 150 feet. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 4/9/84 was read and placed on file. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE : by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. by Mr. Trepanier Unanimous - motion carries. Landers, Vincent - Variance - Osgood Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Landers was present and stated the following: - He purchased the land 13 years ago. - Due to the fact that the State took a portion of the land, he now finds that the lot is inadequate for the building he wants. April 9, 1984 -2- Regular Meeting Landers - continued - It would be a hardship for him to have to go out and purchase another lot. - The proposed use of the land is for his electrical business. He is currently running the business from two locations and would like to combine them into one location. Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, added that in 1972 the parcel was rezoned from I-L to I-2, requiring a larger area and setbacks. No one spoke in favor of the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 4/9/84 was read and placed on file. Speaking in opposition to the petition was Mr. William Chepulis, 1018 Osgood Street, an abutter. Mr. Chepulis' objections were as follows: - First, he questioned the accuracy and completeness of the legal notice. The legal notice states that the land is on the South side of Osgood Street and it is not. Also, "Lot 6" is not descriptive enough. The public could have been misled. - In addition, the request is for a variance from the side and front setback requirements and it has been brought out that the lot is undersized. I-2 requires 80,000 square feet. - When the State widened Route 125 (Osgood Street) they took a small amount of land. This lot never met the requirements of the ZBL. It is proposed to construct a building on the lot and he wants to know the use of the building. In order to conform with the ZBL, it must be known what the intended use is to be. If it is going to be used for Mr. Landers' contracting business, it should be fenced in. He is also concerned with the height of the building. It is proposed to construct a 20,000 s.f. buiiding with 20 parking spaces - they should be 9' x 18'. The building lot coverage is 31% of the lot and the plan says 30%. - ~The plan also shows a loading dock. From witnessing the type of equipment Mr. Landers uses (flatbed, trailer, etc.) he assumes that in order to use the loading dock, it will be from semi- trailers entering the area. The only way a trailer can back up is to turn around on Osgood Street and back up into it. Also, there is a double enter and exit on to Osgood Street and the traffic is already bad with Western Electric and the new waste facility going up down the street. April 9, 1984 -3- Regular Meeting Landers - continued - He asked why Old Clark Street couldn't be used for access instead of Osgood Street. - The Zoning By Law states that the land will not be o~ercrowded. - No hardship has been shown, either financial or running with the land. - The land is not useless - it can be utilized with another structure. Allowing less than 50% of the required setbacks derogates from the intent of the ZBL. The plan shows 23 feet from the sideline and the By Law requires 50 feet. Also, the plan shows a 50 foot setback from Osgood Street and the By Law requires 100 feet. - The petition in its current form does not show any benefit to the public welfare or convenience for the benefit of the town. - Considering the building and the paved area, 80% of the lot will be covered. - If the request is granted, he requested that a buffer zone be provided or that the building be moved away from his house. - Unless vehicles are made to park inside, they will be all over the area. On the floor area ratio, if you are allowed 50%, right now the plan shows 31%. With a second story, it will bring it up to 62%. - The proposal is just a personal convenience to the petitioner. - It is negating all the work that the Planning Board did in the 1972 rezoning. Over 75% of the Zoning By Law would be in violation. Mr. Joseph D'Angelo of the Mass. DPW added that the 100 foot.setback from Route 125 should be maintained. More land taking by the State may be coming. Mr. Cyr, 1003 Osgood Street, asked what kind of building is proposed and Mr. Landers responded that it will have a loft. It will be either metal or masonry. The loft will be for an office on the second floor. Mr. Chepulis continued with the following: - He questioned the air space approach angle, since the Lawrence Municipal Airport is so close. - The closer you get, the less height you are allowed. April 9, 1984 -4- Regular Meeting Landers - continued - He is concerned that manufacturing will be allowed. Mr. Landers addressed the concerns and objections with the following: - There will be no manufacturing. The problem is not his lot line but the airport and the angle of the property. If the City of Lawrence would sell him some land he would have no problem. Regarding the State's request to maintain the 100 foot setback on Route 125 - if the State is going to change the road, they will have to take the Sunoco Station, Mr. Chepulis's house, and the other gas station on the other side of his house. His will be the only building that will be set back 100 feet. He has no problem moving it back toward Old Clark Road. The loading dock can also be moved. The parking spaces should not be filled. The only time a trailer truck comes in is for big jobs. They don't come in that often. If the Board thinks a 2 story building would be better for the site, he will consider it. Mr. Chepulis added that this is a Form A lot and asked what will be done about drainage. It does not work properly now. It runs down Sutton St. to Osgood St. There will be no absorption of moisture. dr. Cyr of Osgood Street agreed with Mr. Chepulis. ~4r. Chepulis asked if the land had been surveyed and ~4r. Landers said "yes". ~4r. D'Angelo added that it is very important that the lot be staked and that Old Clark Road be fixed. Chairman Serio suggested re-advertising and re-working the plan to move the building back approximately 20 feet. 24r. Landers requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. April 9, 1984 -5- Regular Meeting San Antonio, Elise - Variance - 30 Hewitt Avenue The Clerk read the legal not~ce. Attorney John J. Willis, Jr., representing the petitioner, made the following presentation: - The plan must be corrected - it says "Elsie" and it should say "Elise". Also, it incorrectly spells the name of the street. The area is adjacent to Chestnut Street. It is zoned R-3. It should be zoned R-4. There are no lots in that area that meet the requirements of R-3. The largest is 15,000 s.f. - The petitioner wishes to divide her remaining property. She will live in one house. - The intent of purchasing the large lot was to someday sell one. - This is an unusual lot in the area because it is the largest in the area. It looks out of place. - The variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By Law. - The Board granted a similar request in the R-2 zoning district on Appleton Street due to the character of the neighborhood. One of the reasons was that the lot was on sewerage. - The petitioner's lot has both sewer and water. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Nickerson VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. F. H. Moates - for Mass. Refusetech, Inc. - Variance - Clark St. The Clerk read the legal not~ce. Mr. Charles Perry and Mr. Ian Hughes were present and Ar. Hughes made the following presentation: - The proposed building is the administration building for the future trash to energy plant on Clark St. - A front setback variance from 50 feet to 27 feet is requested. - The topography of the land is a problem. - To minimize the earth movement on the site, they had to place the building as sho~n on the plan. April 9, 19 84 Regular Meeting Moates - continued - Several alternatives were investigated. The boiler, stack, generator, etc. are all there and there is nothing else left. - The vehicles will exit around the administration building. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the petition. A letter from the Building Inspector dated 4/9/84 was read and placed on file. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to take the petition under advisement. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Joyce, Ralph and Maureen - Variance - Rea Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Joyce was present and informed those present that it has been less than one year since he served as a Selectman in North Andover. He is here tonight representing himself and his wife. The proposal represents land presently owned by Helen Koroskys on Rea Street. He has a Purchase and Sale Agreement. The proposal does not change any lot lines or any zoning By Laws. The land does not come under the grandfather ctause because it contains only 21 feet of Frontage on Rea St. He proposes to put a driveway off Rea St. He would like access from Rea St. to access the land. No perc tests have been done to date. The land presents a hardship because it is not useable for development other than a single family house.Due to the shape of the lot, you cannot build a road. He is requesting the variance so that he can build one house on the 8 acre parcel. It will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By Law. It will not be a detriment to the area. It is landlocked except for the 21 feet of frontage. The status of Rea Street goes back to 1830. It was a public way until 1929 and then the town voted to discontinue maintenance and repair of Rea St. It is a private way open to the public. April 9, 1984 -7- Regular Meeting Joyce - continued Ail of the abutters on Rea Street are concerned with the potential development of the 8 acre parcel. They asked that a restrictive covenant that no further development will occur. He will NOT do it. - Their concern is that if he goes in there with the proposal in front of them tonight, that is the "foot in the door" theory . Regardless of who is the owner, the future development is a possibility. He has no problem with a condition that as long as the lot lines and configuration stays as is, only a single family dwelling may go in. - Also, the location of the buildings are approximate. The house is approximately 110 feet away from the stream. - No filing is necessary with Conservation Commission as of now. - The house is compatible with the neighborhood. It will be eith( a saltbox or a cape, possibly with passive solar. There is a hardship with the non use of the lot because of the frontage. One house on eight acres does not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ZBL. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Speaking in opposition were: Mr. Vern Roddhal, Mrs. Averka, Kathe~ Kendrick, David Weiss, Veronica Mandry. Mr. Roddhal questioned the property line and asked that the public hearing be continued while he has his land surveyed. He cannot locate some of the drill holes and he thinks his property line parallels Rea Street to Averka's corner. Mr. Joyce responded that the composite plan was prepared from reco~ in the Registry of Deeds. He has no objection to continuing the public hearing. Mrs. Averka stated that Mr. Joyce has no plan for his house. They have a well which is very close to the property line. They don't want the water from the septic system into the well. Mrs. Averka also stated that when her father purchased the land ob 70 years ago, there was no opening. The builders made an opening. There was never an entrance there. i.lrs. Kendrick stated that she is concerned about the brook that rt through her property and Roddhal's property. They have a floodin¢ problem. She wants a restriction put in that states that nothing' will interupt the flow. ine ds ~r April 9, 1984 -8- Regular Meeting Joyce - continued Mr. Weiss added that the area is all marsh. He is concerned with the neighborhood. He has no objection to a single house but is concerned with future development. He also said that the way it became landlocked was that the land at one time belonged to Helen Koroskys and the ones to be developed were sold off along Rea Street and they thought this land was useless. Mrs. Veronica Mandry asked about developing land and frontages. This plan shows a small amount. She asked if anybody else could do the same thing. Chairman serio responded that it would depend on the individual case. Mrs. Averka asked about the hardship and Chairman Serio responded that it is the inability to use the land. The maximum potential of this land is in combination with Averka's land. This proposal is a minimum impact. Mrs. Averka said that the shape of the lot is due to the pastures. When the builders developed across the street, they needed a place to turn around. It was just a cow path before that. They pushed the stone wall. It used to be straight. This was back land on Johnson Street. It was not always landlocked. The front pieces were sold off. Mrs. Mandry added that Rea Street was a street that was just for walking purposes. It came out to Abbott Street. It has a circle in it that came out to Johnson Street. The developers did push the stone area. The Fire Department could not get to a swamp fire be- cause of the stone area. ~r. Joyce responded to the objections with the following: - He did not know about the well and he will comply with the Board of Health regulations. - If he has the opportunity to improve the access to the land he will take advantage of it. The neighbors are concerned that he will try for a common driveway. As long as the parcel remains as it is he will not develop it beyond what is before the Board tonight. It is the priviledge of land owners. He has not looked at this parcel except for what is here tonight. He has NOT approached either the Averka's or Mr. Roddhal about buying land. A real estate person might have but he did not. - On the boundary lines, there is a deed referencing abutting property owners. The frontage narrows from 21 feet to 16 feet. John Callahan, project engineer, added that the mimimum requirement is 100 feet away from an active well for septic s~stems. He also stated that no survey has been done. April 9, 1984 -9- Regular Meeting Jo~ce - continued MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until the next meeting of the Board on May 21, 1984. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. Willows, Inc. - Variance - Turnpike Street Tabled - applicant not presenT. DECISIONS Meadows, Theodore - Variance - Turnpike St. MOTION: by Mr. Soule to grant the variances as requested. No second - motion fails. MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variande for the frontage only on Parcel 2 and deny the variance for area and that a revised plan be submitted showing that Lot 2 conforms to the area requirements of the Zoning By Law. SECOND: by Mr. Frizelle VOTE : In favor - 4 (Serio, Frizelle, Trepanier, Nickerson) Opposed - 1 (Soule) Motion carries. Willows, Inc. - Variance - Turnpike St. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to continue the public hearing until May 21, 1984. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. San Antonio, Elise - Variance - Hewitt Avenue MOTION: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the variance with the condition that the street name and the applicant's name be corrected on the plan. SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : In favor - 4 (Serio, Trepanier, Nickerson, Soule) Opposed - 1 (Frizelle) Motion carries. April 9, 1984 -10- Regular Meeting 14oates, F. H. (For Mass. Refusetech) - Variance - Clark St. MOTION: by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance subject to the condition that the plan meet the requirements of the Board of Appeals. SECOND: by Mr. Trepanier VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. MINUTES - 1/30/84; 2/2/84; 2/13/84; 3/12/84 MOTI'ON: by Mr. Frizelle to accept as writte~ SECOND: by Mr. Soule VOTE : Unanimous - motion carries. The Board scheduled a Special Meeting for Monday evening, April 23, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. to render decisions on Kindred and Dion. The members who sat on the public hearings are not all preSent tonight. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ran~ Serib, Jr./ ~hairman Jean E. White, Secretary