Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-06-14Monday - June 1~, 1971 le/ular Meethlg & ~ Hear/rigs The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, June IA, 1971 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building with the following members present and voting: J. PhLlip Arsenault, Chairman; Kenneth E. Pickard, Vice Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Be3_iveau, Clerk{ Arthur R. Drummond and Frank Serio, Jr. Associate Member ~illiam N. Salemme was also present. There were over 30 people present for the hearings. 1. HEARINg: Da**id & Dorothy Rennie. Chairman Arsenault disqualified himself from sittin~ on this petition and desig- mated Vice Chairman Pickard to sit as Chairman and appointed Assoc. Member Salemme to sit as a member of the Board. Dr. Beliveau read the legel notice in the appeal of David & Dorothy Rennie who requested a variation of Sec. 4.17 & ~.18 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the continued sale of nursery plants not grown on the premises, packaged fertilizers and garden supplies excluding garden tools or mechanical implements; on the premises located at the west side of ChickeringRoad; approx. 2,000 feet distant from the corner of Massachusetts Ave. and known as 20OChickering Road. He also read a letter from the Buil~iug Inspector to the Rennies stating that they are in violation of the Zon4ng By-Law because their premises are being used for purposes not allowed in a residential district. Retail selling is limited to farm produce and the sta~.d cannot be used as a place where merchandise other than farm produce can be sold. He ordered them to discontinue selling non-farm produce by June 15, 1971, which would ~l!ow him time to dispose of his present supplies without imposing a financial hardship and also time to appear before the Boardof Appeals. The letter was dated May 26, 1971. Atty. Maurice Rappaport represented the petitioner, who explained that they have always been allowed to conduct the sale of fruit and vegetables. It is now necessary to seek a variance in order to make a living. This could be a limited variance; they need some means to keep the place together. No one in the neighborhood is ag~st what they are doing or compl~ug. This is their only income. They have a sm~ll truck garden now. The only opposition is from competitors. The only thing other than shrubbery that they are selling is packaged fertilizers and this would be stored in the garage. These people have been living here for a long time a~ are entitled to sustain themselves. The request is reasonable and he asks that the Board grant the variance for the specific items asked. John J. McLay, Turnpike Street, spoke in opposition stating he went to the Building Inspector opposing it. He said he has never been opposed to any business in town but they should conduct their business on an equal basis. They should have their property zoned for business and they should have proper parking area~ they are now parking on both sides of the street. Other businesses need parking areas, entrances, exits, etc. They are allowed to sell products grown on their land but they are now expanding and se~ng other things. They do not have the proper conditions to run a business there. Mr. McLay said he re-zonedhis area to business. If this was a properly zoned area he would not be opposed. They had asked to be a~ owed to sell the merchandise they had for Mother's Day and Memorial Day and they would not bring any other stock in. They did bring other stock in after they said they wouldn't do so. This was in violation of their promise. June 14, 1971- cont. Henry Lurid, also spoke in opposition and agreed with everything Mr. McLay had stated. He too had to rezone his property to business in order to sell the same products the Re~nles are presently selling. Peter Romano, lives across the street from Rennie, and asked if the variance was granted and they do sell other than what is allowed, how much could the business expand. Building Inspector Foster explained they could only sell what the variance allows. He also pointed out to the Board the fact that they are not asking for an appeal from his ruling but are asking for a variance. Don Boyle expla_A~ed that he is involved in the business, he is a son-in-law to the Re~1es. He stated that he did not bring any other products in after 'he said he wouldn't and explained that it was a special job he. was doing. Mr. McLay then said he is doing a ]~udscaping business also if he is doing that special job. Member Drummond stated he was surprised that a special permit was not asked for instead of a variance. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Henry K. Hyder, Jr. - Tennis Club. Chairman Arsenault presided again and the five regular members sat on this petition. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Henry K. Hyder, Jr. who requested a Special Permit under Sec. ~.8 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit an Indoor Tennis Complex on the premises located at the south side of Salem Turnpike, Route 114, adjacent to 757 Turnpike Street. Atty. Henry K. Hyder, Jr. stated that he is the petitioner and attorney for the principals involved in this petition. There is a purchase and sales agreement with the Dandeneaus and the area will be purchased regardless what this Board does. Approx. 8.9 acres are involved. He read Section ~.8 of the Zoning By-Law which allows tennis clubs. Robert F. Harem of Lowell, explained the project in more det-~l. He stated this tennis club would be a first in this area. There is an increased interest in physical education and sports and this proposed club ~_!1 satisfy a year-round opportunity for children and parents. There are 5 indoor courts. He showed large pictures and drawings and expl~iued that the building would cont~lockers, showers, sauna baths, a large lobby with the second floor of the lobby providing seating for spectators, a pro-shop selling supplies, equipment, etc., coffee shop; this would be a private club, with memberships. The facilities would be used principally from October to June. They willkeep the trees and greenery and build on approx, lO%of the area. There will be no problem as to traffic and parking. There would be a maximum of 20 persons playing on the courts at one time. The facility would cost around $~00,0OO and have no plans for future expansion. tennis club and nothing more. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. They will Just have a Mr. Dx-,mmond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. J.une 1~, 1971- cont. Chairman Arsem~ult read a letter from the Planning Board in which they made recommendations as to the petitions before the Board of Appeals. The Planning Board Was opposed to the tennis club because they are presently engaged in the formulation of a Master Plan, a great part of which will be concerned with the future development on Route 114. This also seems to be a profit making business rather than a private tennis club as required by the Zoning By-Law. Atty. Hyder said the letter is just a letter of opposition. Under the Zonf=g By-Law, the petitioner h~s the right to come before the Board of Appeals. 3. HEARING: Anna Garon & Salvatore LaRosa Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Anna Garon and Salvatore LaRosa who requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 & 7.23 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a lot of land into two parcels, both h~vi~ug less than the required area and frontage, and the erection of a dwelling on the newly formed lot nearer the rear lot line than the req,,i~ed 30 feet; on the premises located at the west side of Lexington Street at the corner of Concord Street and known as 24 Lex- ington Street. Mrs. Garon explained that she would like to give land to her son-in-law; her husband died and she is alone and the son-in-law could be nearby to help her out taking care of the property, etc. Mr. LaRosa explained he is asking for a setback, area and frontage variance. He showed a plot plan of the general area in which there are other small lots. He said it would be a hardship if the variance was not granted. Sewer facilities are available, and the street is paved. Mr. McAuliffe, Bunker Hill Street and Mr. Marti~, Concord Street, abutters, said they had no objection to the division of the land. Dr. Thomas Ceplikas was opposed in behalf of his mother who is also an abutter. He said the dwelling would be directly across the street from his mother's home. The entire lot has only lOtO00 sq. ft. and already has one house on it. He doesn't have enough area to start with since 12,500 sq. ft. are required with 100 ft. frontage. A traffic hazard would be created from parked cars on the narrow street which is not a hot-top road. A fence is presently there over 6 ft. high and on town property by 1~ feet. This petition was rejected by the Board before. He also understands that they plan to move a two-story house to this lot - the McCarthy house that is presently on Mangano's land at the corner of Concord Street. This is too great a deviation from the Zoning By-Law. Bl~1lding Inspector Foster pointed out that there are other lots in the area that are 50xlO0. He also said this is a corner lot and amy side can be chosen as the frontage. Mr. Garon stated that the fence is going to be taken down. Mr. Pickard made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ~. HEARING: George H. Farr. Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of George H. Farr who requested a variation of Sec. 6.33 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots, both having the required frontage but one lot not having the required area; on the premises located at the east side of Salem Street approx. 1500 feet south from the corner of Foster & Boxford Streets. June 1~, 1971 - cont. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioner and explained that Mr. Farr has a first class development alomg Salem Street and has contributed approx. $11,000 to the town to ex%end the 12" water main along Salem Street. He is requesting the division of a parcel of land into two lots. There is a house presently on lot ~3 which meets ~11 of the zoning requirements; however, the second lot is vacant and lacks only area. The lot contains 41,525 sq. ft. and ~000 sq. ft. are required. There is a frontage of 266 feet, which is more than adequate since only 150 feet are required. No one else spoke and there was mo opposition. Mr. Serio made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 5- HEARI~: Arthur J. Dufresne Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Arthur J. Dufresne who requested a variation of Sec. 6.32 & 7.22 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots, each having less than the required frontage and area; a~d the erection of a dwelling on one of the lots formed, having less than the required lot line setbacks; on the premises located at the south side of Adams Avenue at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and known as 547 Massachusetts Avenue. ~r. Dufresne appeared on his own behalf and he expl-4ued that he wants to give his son a lot of land so he can build a house. The land was purchased manyyears ago so that the children could build there but when the present Zoning By-Law was adopted it changed the lot size requirements and now he is coming to the Board to allow the division of the land. His son Robert, explained that water and sewer facilities are available. Selectman Arthur Kirk spoke in favor of the petition because he feels that there is a hardship involved. Building Inspector Charles Foster explained that there are many small lots in the area; that this is a problem area and that none of the lots there meet the requirements. In fact, the lot immediately abutting the Dufresne lot is 50xlOO and he would have to issue a b~ildln~ petit if applied for. Selectman Joseph Guthrie would like to see them be able to build and thi-ks that there is a hardship; they have to move from where they are presently Living. There was no opposition and no abutters were present. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board then discussed the petitions of the evening. 1. RF~IE: The members seem to feel this is not a proper petition to come before this Board. Mr. Dm,mmond made a motion to take no action for 60 days; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion. Dr. Beliveau then made a motion that the variance be dismissed because it is not a proper petition and not within the Board's jurisdiction. This should be a matter for re-zoning. Mr. Serio seconded the motion. Four members voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Drummond abstained from voting. June 14, 1971 - cont. 2. Henry Hyder, Jr. - Tennis Club. Mr. Pickard made a motion to grant the permit in principle subject to conditions to be made at a later date. The matter was discussed further and the members felt that the conditions should ~be spelled out at the same time of the granting. It was decided to defer action for 30 days and invite the petitioners back to the next meeting for more specifics and also view the premises. 3- GARON & LaROSA. Mr. Drummond made a motion to DENT the variance. Mr. Serio seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board feels that to grant a lot with an area of 5,040 feet in a Village Residence district where 12,500 sq. ft. are required would be in substantial derogation of the Zonlng By-Law. ~. GEORGE H. FARR. Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Board found that the lot in question has more than adequate frontage, 266 feet, which is more than the required frontage of 150 feet. The lot would be only 2500 sq. ft. less than the required area which would be something less than a 6% variance from the area requirement. The Board felt this was not a substantial change from the required area. The lot is unique owing to its peculiar shape. An economic hardship would result if the petition for a variance were denied. 5. ARTHUR DUFRESNE. Mr. Dr,,m~ond made a motion to GRANT the variance; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and three members voted yes and Dr. Beliveau and Mr. Arsenault voted no. The petition is denied since a majority vote of the Board of Appeals is &-l. The three members that voted to grant the variance found that there were other small lots in the immediate area. They also felt there was hardship involved because the land had been purchased a number of years ago for the purpose of building a home for his children and that because of the adoption of the Zoning By-Law they were prohibited from building on the lot. They also found that the lot in question had access to municipal water and sewer facilities. The two members that voted in opposition found that the creation of a lot with an area of 6200 sq. ft. in a zone where 25,000 sq. ft. was required would be too substantial a variance from the By- Law. The meeting adjourned at 10:~+5 P.M. Arsenault) (An~m Dona.hue) Secretary