Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-08Deeember 8, 1~80 Regular meeting The Board of Appeals held a regular monthly meeting ca Monday evening, DecemBer 8, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Office Meeting Room with the following members present azld voting: Frank 3erio, Jr., Chairn~n; Alfred E. Frizelte, Esq., Vice- Chairman; Richard J, Trepanier, Esq., Clerk; and Associate Members Walter F. Soule and Raymond A. ¥ivenzio, Esq. H~BLIC ~ARINGS Subatcht John and Grace - Variance request on Thorndike Road The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney John J. Willis, Jr. represented the applicants, who are requesting a variance from the Zoning By-Law in order to split their property, which fronts ca both Thorndike Road and Irving Road, thereby enabling them to con- struct a single family dwelling, which wc~ld front on ~rving Road. The same applicants requested a variance for a two-family home in NovemBer and their request was denied by the Board. Attorney Willis testified that the Su~atch's have lived in the existing dwelling for eight years and it is their intention to remain on the property. The new lot line would run through the existing garage, which, he said, would be removed if the variance is granted. He further stated that the topography is in excess of the existing lots in the area and the fact that the Subatch's property fronts on two streets gives it a ~-uiq~e appearance. Attorney Willis presented a map which he drew from the Assessor's records ~howing 33 lots in the neighborhood, with only 9 meeting the required zoning requirements. He cited hardships in that the petitioners always intended to utilize the "back lot" and they have always been assessed for two lots. He noted that the neighborhood is developed arc,nd 8,000 square foot lots and ad~ing one more would not derogate from the area or the By-Law. The ~ubatch's do not know at this time if they will remain in their present home or move into the new c~e should the v~riance Be granted. At this point, Attorney Willis presented to the Board letters from four neighbors who could not attend the hearing but who voiced no objection. They are: Mrs. Hilda Peterson, 16 Irving Road; Mrs. Bertha Roberts, 15 Brightwood Avenue; Mr. Stanley Kandrut, 63 Thorndike Road; and Mr. Richard Vanderm~ss, 22 Irving Rd. Note: Mrs. RoBerts does no~ live in the immediate neighborhood, but owns property ca Irving Road. The following people were present at the hearing and also voiced no objection: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Piantidosi, 51 Thorndike Rd.; and Mr.. Steven Gallant, 36 Perley Rd. December 8, 1980 -2- Regular meeting Sub~tch - continued A letter from the Planning Board was read. The Board did not make a recommendation, except to adhere to the Zoning By-~w. Mr. Andrew Heinze, an abutter, then presented to the Board a petition signed by several neighbors who object to the granting of the variance. The basic reasons for their objection are: The neighborhood is already congested with single-family, tw~-family, and three-family dwellings. Many children, automobiles, and narrow streets add to this congestion. If the variance is granted, a Pandora's Box will be opened, enabling others to squeeze in houses on undersized lots, thereby creating problems for police and fire departments. Mr. S~lvatore Lipomi, one of the abutters who signed the petition, spoke very strongly in opposition to the variance. He stated that they also h~ve industry in the neighborhood and the children are playing in the streets because they do not have open space. Other abutters who also spoke in opposition at the he~ring were: Mr. Edward Somnlon, 41PerleyRoad; and Mrs. K~thyHeinze, 66 Thorndike Road. Mrs. Heinze is concerned that more houses could be constructed on land now owned by Davis and~Arber, thereby adding to the already crowded area. Attorney Willis said that the Subatch's should not be penalized beaause of what Davis and Furbermay or may not do with their land and they are simply trying to build a house on a lot which, in his opinion, would not oh~ge the appearance of the neighborhood. As far as the children playing in the streets, he reminded the residents and the Board that there is a pls~yground up the street. Mr. Lipomi asked the Board how long the Suba~ch's wo~ld have to begin construction if the variance is granted and whether the variance would pass to a new owner. The reply from the Board was 1 year to begin construction; and, "yes" the variance would be passed on should the proper~y be sold. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Trepanier, it was vo~ed unanimously to take ~he m~tter m~der advisement. Moo~¥l William and Claire - variance request on Gra~ Street The Clerk read the legal notice. Attorney David Bernar~in represented the applicants. The Noody's are in the process of selling the proper~y and when the plo~ plan was made, it was discovered that the porch and garage are in violation. A variance ~as granted in 1~70 to allow the construction of a family room and a garage. However, the previous owner decided to add a porch, which was not requested ~n the application or included in the building permit. The variance is nov being req,~ested to allow the continued use with the front and set-back violations. December 8, 1980 -3- Regular Neeting Moo~¥ - Continued Atterney Bernardin then presented to the Board a petition signed by several abutters who wished to express "no objection" to the gr~nting of the variance. However, he then informed the Board that the legal notice is incomplete. The error was discovered after it ran in the local newspaper and time did not allow for a corrected notice. The notice only mentioned a side line variance request and not a frontage violation. He did say, however, that the sections of the Zoning By-Law mentioned in the legal notice suffi=iently covered the total request. He infomed the Board that upon realizing the error, he immediately sent out registered letters to all the parties interest informing them that both a side line and frontage ~olatien e~ted and that the variance request would be for both.~ (front set-back violation is 7/10 of a foot). Attorney Phillip Sullivan, representing the buyers of the property, was also present and asked for an immediate decision. The closing was scheduled for October 31,. 7980 and the 45-day commitment has expired, lie is satisfied with the manner in which the parties in interest were informed. Chairman Serio informed the Board that he had asked for Town 0eunsel's opinion on the incomplete legal notice. Town Counsel reccmmended that the Board act only on the side line variance and hold another public hearing for the frontage vari~oe. After discussion between Attorney Bernardin, Attorney Sullivan, and the members of the Board, it was decided that sufficient notice had been given to the parties in interest and the intent of the State Statute had been met. Note: Building Inspector Charles Foster was also present at thus meeting and told the Board that since they are only talking about 7/10 of a foot, it is possible that because cfa stone wall on the property, surveyor's plans could vary. Member~rizelle asked both Attorney Bernardin and Attorney Sullivan that if the variance is granted, would they certify title, and both replied "yes." At this point, the clerk read a letter from the Planning Board recommending favorable action. There was no opposition voiced at the hearing to the granting of this variance. Upon a motion made by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, it was voted unanimously to take the m~tterunderadvisement. Adams~ Christopher and Elaine -variance and special permit request on Naple Ave. The clerk read the legal notice. Attorney George S%ella represented the applicants. The parcel in question was purchased in 1966 before the Master Plan was incorporated. O~e side of the dwelling, No. 49, has an up and down stairs apartment, and would remain the same. The other side, No. 51, presently consists of an up and down stairs apartment, and the variance and special permit are needed to convert this side of the building, thus creating one-bedroom apartments. No exterior changes are requested and there is ample parking for the building. December 8, 1980 -4- Regular meeting Adams - Continued Attorney Stella l~wther stated that it is his opinion that the "grandfather clause" applies because of the age of the building. He said that the Zoning By-Law allows for a conversion of net more than five family units and they are seeking four. He also stated that Mr. Adams will continue to live in the home. At this point, the clerk read letters from the Building Inspector and the Planning Board. There was no opposition to the request. Attorney Stella then referred to page 53 of the Zoning By-Law, Section 10.4, and testified that the structure has been in existence for many years and does not meet the 12,000 foot requirement. There will be no detriment to the public good and there is need for one-bedroom apartments in Ncr~hAndover. granting the variance will not derogate from the intent cf the By-Law. Upon a motion made by Mr. ~rizelle and seconded by Mr. Trepanier, it was voted unanimously to take the matter under advisement. Reed, Robert and Lorraine - Reversal of Building Inspector's decision on Ashland St. The clerk read the legal no~ice. Mr. Reed was present to explain his situation. Ashland ~treet is zoned I-S and all the houses are non-conforming. During the past few montb~, HSD has notified him that they will contribute monies to the improvement of the building for '~esidential." He must go back to the non-¢onforminguse to ~btain the monies from HUD. He said it will help the town as well as the residents cf the area if they could go Back to non-cenforming uses as houses. Mr. Serio informed Mr. Reed that the property needs to be re-zoned, or that he needs a "use" variance, which the Board of Appeals cannot grant. Mr. Foster agreed with Mr. Serio, but told the Board that he recommended that Mr. Reed come before the Board to possibly get another slant on things. Town Planner Susan St. Pierre informed him that Riverviewand Ashland Streets might be re-zoned back to residential at Town Meeting, and he suggested that Mr. Reed talk to her. Upon a motion made by Mr. ~rizelle and seconded by Mr. Trepanier, it was voted unanimously to D~iYthe request for lack of juristiction. DECISIC~S Moo~v Motion: by Mr. F~izelle to grant both requests. Second: by Mr. Trepanier. Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion. December 8, 1980 -5- Regular meeting Decisions - continued Adams Motion: Second: Vote: Subatch by Mr. Frizelle to grant the variance and special permi~ as reques2ed. by Mr. Trepanier Unanimous in favor of the mo~ion. No decision - continue to next meeting so that the property can be looked at by Bo~rd members who have not yet seen it. 0~mm ~s, ,ndmss The Board members present tonight signed plans from previous hearings they sat Oil, Minutes cf November 10, 1980 were accepted as written. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Frank Serio, Jr., C~irma~ Jean E. White, Secretary