Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-14October 14, 1980 - Tuesday Regular meeting The Board of Appeals held a regular monthly meeting on Tuesday evening, October 14, ~980 at 7:30 p.m. in the Tow~ Office Meeting Room. The meeting was changed from the regular Monday night because of Golumbus Day. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq., Uioe-Ohairman; ~{iohard J. Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; William J. Sullivan; and Augustine Niokerson. Associate member Ra2mond Vivenzio, Esq. was also present, as was Charles Foster, Building Inspector. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~enr~ I. Bodenrader - Rec~uest for.an in-law apartment on Mill Rc~d. The clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Bodenrader was present and showed the Board his house plan. The house is already built with an attached family room, which he wishe~ to use as the in-law apartment. No additional construction is required. A1 Hamilton, 165 Mill Road, asked what would happen in the ~uture sheuld Mr. Bodenrader no longer live in the house. Mr. Serio responded that this is covered in Section 4.121, Par. 16, and that should the Board grant the Special Permit, a condition would be attached stating that if the property is sold, it would revert b~ck to ~ single family dwelling. Mr. Foster then spoke, saying that this article was passed at the 1979 Town Meeting. The Planning Board put this section in the By-Law for families who need it and any violation would void the permit. The only difference between living with the family and having an in-law apartment (or family suite) is the kitchen. The Board has to find that the granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the area. There was no opposition from the audience. NOTE: Mr. Boden~ader's mother, who will occupy the suite if granted, is Josephine K. Bodenrader. Motion: by Mr. ~rizelle to take the matter under advisement. Second: by Mr. Sullivan. Vote : Unanimous in favor of the motion. ~enne%h...Haphey - Request for variance from "no-oUt" law. The clerk read the legal notice, as well as correspondence from the P1snning Board and the Building Inspector. Mr. Haphey was present and told the Board of Appeals that he has already been before the Planning Board, but was told to apply for a variance through the Board of Appeals. There was no input from the audience, favorable or unfavorable. Motion: by Mr. Frizelle to take the matter under advisement. Second: by Mr. Trepanier. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. October 14, 1980 -2- Regular Meeting KellF R. Realt,y Trust - Rec~uest for a variance to build new office building. The clerk read the legal notice. Alfred A. Shaboo, Vice-President of J. J. Flynn, spoke. The property, located at 41 Second St., is a garage which is non-conforming. It has limited rental alternatives and the current tenents keep various hours. They (applicants) would like to put up a nww office building, which would be conforming, barrier-free, and energy efficient. Tenents of au office building would keep normal hours and the building itself would be aesthetically pleasing to residents in the area. He also added that the plan provided for more than adequate parking. O~e of the problems with the present building is the drainage. The proposed design will contain the drainage within the walls and convey through the system through the elderly development hereby and eventually through Main St. Mr. Shaboo stated that he has already discussed the new building with Mr. Louis Minicucci of the Housing Authority, Mr. William Cyr, Highway Surveyor, Mr. Jospeh Borgesi of the Board of Public Works, and Mr. Charles Foster, Building Inspector. He has also talked with the abuttors by telephone, and stated that he has agreed to their requests for stockade fences, shrubs, etc. He feels that this would be a worthwhile project for the town, blending in with the new design of Main St. He further said that they do not currently rent all of their space, and for economic reasons, they need the variance. The existing building would be raz ed. Mr. Frizelle ~uestiomed how many offices would actn~lly be rented, and Mr. Shaboo stated that they plan to build a shell and rent by square footage. Mr. Frizelle then stated that in Section 10.4 of the Zoning By-Law, ihere are specific requirements that have to be met ~n order to be granted a variance, ie. substantial hardship or otherwise. Mr. Shaboo responded that because of the condition of the existing structure, which is in need of substantial ~enovation, it cannot be used in full. The present rental income does not pay for the expmnses of the building. EW~en after renovation, there will still be difficulty utilizing all the space. With a new building, they would be able to rent the entire space, thereby bringing in more rental income. Mr. Foster then explained that this lot used to be Robinson's Express. In 1951 the town adopted the present by-law. It is zoned for general business, but under the Zoning By-Law, no building permit could be issued on the property without a variance for frontage requirements. He further stated that it is through no fault of the petitioners, as it Ms not graudfathered in. He believes this creates a hardship for all property owners in this situation. Mr. Santo Messina asked about the drainage. Mr. Shaboo responded that they have retaining walls around the rear and catch basins in the drainage system on the property which will flow down through the drainage pipe. He has already been in contact with the Highly Surveyor about the drainage. October 14, 1980 -3- Regular meeting Kelly. R. Realt~ - con't. Mrs. Joyce Regan, 41 Second St., asked about lighting. She has a swimming pool in her backyard and is concerned that the people on the second floor of the proposed building will be able to look into her yard. Mr. Shaboo responded that they will have a certain amount of lights for security purposes, ~t they should not interfere with her privacy. From ground level to the roof will be less than 45 feet. At this point, Mr. Serio read letters from the Building Inspector and the Planning Board. Mrs. Peter Raadmae voiced concern over the driveway - what about a fire? Mr. Shaboo said he would place "No Parking" signs along the driveway and that he will grant an easement to the Raadm~e's. Mr. Chuck Pepalia, 30 Maple Ave., asked for a better definition of the plan. He is concerned about the number of tenants and the safety of children in the neighborhood. Mr. Shaboo said he would like to have o~e tenant, but that it is physically impossible to have more than eight. Mr. Foster told Mr. Shaboo that the Board would want plans of the building, showing the design, lighting, etc. The petitioner said that he would gladly submit such plans, Motion: by Mr. Frizelle to take the matter under advisement. Second: by Mr. Sullivan. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. Fred and Ednah Buthman - ~equest for relief of Buildin$ Inspector's decision. The clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Charles Foster asked that the Board not hear this petition because the legal notice referred to a Zoning Administrator and North Andover does not have such an officer. He referred to Section 13 of the Zoning Act. The clerk read a letter dated September 22, 1980 from Attorney Charles Trombly and further correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Buthman by Attorney Trombly. Mr. Foster objected to the reading of correspondence between himself and Attorney Trombly, but it was read over his objection. Attorney James H. Eaton, III, representing United Freightways, Inc., informed the Board members that there is a case pending in the Supreme Court and the Board should concern itself so that it will not be prejudicial in the future. Attorney Charles Trombly, representing several abuttors to the bark operation known as United Freightways, Inc. then spoke. He said he wants to get the Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector off-center. The abuttors, after appealing to all town officials, came to him. He thinks this matter should be brought to a head. He has already correspumded with Town Counsel and the Buildim_g Inspector, and if the Board does not hear this case tonight, he will come back! He feels that the Building Inspector is wrong about this operation being a legal non-conforming use. He then presented a petition from the abuttors requesting the operation be stopped. October 14, 1980 -4- Regular meeting ~hman - con't. He said that the decision of the Board of Appeals, dated August 18, 1975, has been abused, and it should be enforced by the Building Inspector. Mr. Foster again brought up the legal notice - wants a ruling on its At %his point, the Chairman called a 10 minute recess. When the meeting resumed, several sections were referred to in the M.G.L. by Attorneys Trombly, Frizelle, Trepanier, and Vivenzio. Mr. Trombly strongly argued that the Board of Appeal's decision of 1975 has not been enforced and that is why he is here - to get the Board to overrule Mr. Foster's decision of September, ~980 and enforce their original decision, which states that the bark operation is illegal. Mr. Frizelle made motions to dismiss without prejudice, to withdraw, to take under advisement and to continue the hearing - all of which were withdrawn. ' Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Foster why he changed the decision of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Foster - "When the operation started, it was residential - it is now industrial. The only violation is that they are processing outside of the building. There has been no change in the zoning since 1975. In 1975, United Freightways asked that the Board either grant a variance to allow them to continue, or to rule that they did not need a variance because the operation was legally non-conforming. It has always been my contention that it was legal non-conforming, and, at this time, I felt that nothing could be gained by taking action." Motion: by Mr. Frizelte that the decision of the Building Inspector, dated September 10, 1980 addressed to Charles W. Trombly, Esq., wherein he states: "The so-called bark operation is, I consider, a legal non- conforming use being a storage and processing area that ha~ibeen used through the y~ars for similar purposes; therefore, in m~ opinion, there is no zoning violation .... "is overruled. The basis is the decision of the Board of Appeals, dated August 28, 1975, United Freightways, Inc., Petition No. 8-'75. Second: by Mr. Trepanier. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. Note: The following persons were also present at the meeting, all of whom want the operation h~lted: Thomas Cusson, 144 Sullivan St., Walter P. Hoyt, 109 Sullivan St., Lillian Hoyt, 109 Sullivan St., Sidney Coleman, 247 Farnum St., Robert and Thomas Buthamn, 1625 Turnpike St. October 14, 1980 -5- Regular meeting ~tt~son and ~qrse - rec~uest for variance on Narblehead~nion..$~.~eets. The clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John Lynch w~s present representing the petitioners. The locus is situated at the intersection of Marblehead and Union Streets. It is presently zoned R-4 and for the past 70 - 80 years, the property w~s owned by the weeks family. They were treated as two lots, receiving separate tax bills. The motivating factor in presenting this petition was prompted by a will by Mrs. Weeks. In the terms of the will, she devised Lot A to one person and Lot B is to be sold and the proceeds distributed. However, it is one lot. He further stated that the granting of the variance will not derogate from the intent of the Zoning By-Law. There will be a hardship to the petitioners if the variance is uot granted, in that they will not obtain the benefits of the will. At this point, a letter from the Planning Board was read. There was no opposition to the petition. Motion: by Mr. Trepanier to grant the petition as requested. Second: by Mr. ~rizelle. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. Note: Attorney Lynch withdrew the plan for correct~ons and re-submitted it on October 22, 1980. The setbacks had to be changed. ~isa M. Treat - r, equest for a variance to allow a horse on Ca.bell Rd., Continued from September ?~r ~28Q. Motion: by Mr. Frizelle that the petition be denied. Second: by Mr. Sullivan. Vote: In favor of the motion: Mr. Frizelle, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Nickerson, and Mr. Serio. Mr. Trepanier did not vote as he was not present at the public hearing.~ E.P.R. Realt~ Trust - request for a special permit on N ass. Ave. - continued from September 1~, 1980. Motion: by Mr. Frizelle that the special permit be granted as requested and that it meets the requirements of Section ~0.3~ and Seotie~ 9.2 of the Zoning By-Laws. Second: by Mr. Sullivan. Vote: Unanimous in Eavor of the motion. October 14, 1980 -6- Regular meeting. K$.n~.eth Haphey The Board viewed the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions. Notion: by Mr. Sullivan to grant the variance as requested with the provision that the Chairman of the PlanningBoardtalk to the Chairman of the Board of Appeals to avoid any confusion in this matter. Also, add the condition that the driveway will be no greater than fifteen feet in width. Second: by Mr. Frizelle Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. Bodenrader Motion: by Mr. Frizelle %h~t the special permit be granted pursuant to Section 4.121, Par. 16 of the Zoning By-Law, subject to the following conditions: 1. The family suite is solely for occupancy by Josephine K. Bodenrader, the mother of Henry I. Bodenrader. 2. This special permit shall expire at the time Josephine K. Bodenrader ceases to occupy the f~mily suite. 3. This special permit shall expire at the time the premises are conveyed by Henry I. Bodenrader to any person, partnership, trust, or corporation. 4- The applicant, by acceptance of the certificate of occupancy issued pursn~ut to this special permit, grants to the Building Inspector or his lawful designee the right to inspect the premises. Second: by Mr. Trepanier Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. Kelly R. ~ealt~ Notion: by Mr. Frizelle that the variance be granted a~s requested ~ubject to the following conditions: 1. The existing structure must be razed. 2. Office use is limited to office use am set forth in Sections 2.54 and of the Zoning By-Law. 3. That the new building be a brick building and the design by colonial accordance with the sketch submitted to the Board by the petitioner. Second: by Mr. Sullivan. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ~r k Serio, Jr., Ch~irm~n Jean E. White, Secretary