Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Exception (128)April 4, 1998 Mr. Robert Nicetta 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Nicetta, Thank -you for your reply to my March 17, 1998 letter requesting you to revoke the two permits [#618: Dec'97 and #75: Mar'98] issued to Donald Pearson regarding the property on 521 Salem St. We share the opinion expressed in your letter that maintenance/repair in order to protect a structure is allowed in 780 CMR, of the Mass State Building Code. The work that's in - progress to add new windows and siding obviously are maintenancelrepair. However, does the request in the application to remodel kitchens and bathrooms, which appears to be granted by the issuance of permit #75, qualify as maintenance/repair to protect the structure? As I mentioned to you over the phone on March 20, this is one of a number of questions we have regarding permit #75. I hope you can understand why, as neighbors to 521 Salem St., we feel compelled to follow the permits issued to the property closely. As you recall, things were also not very clear surrounding the issuance of the first permit (#618 in Dec'97). Mr. Surette, the local inspector, claimed at the time he wasn't aware he was issuing a permit to a two- family home. A two-family home in this district can only exist as a pre-existing non -conforming structureluse. Under the circumstances, Mr. Surette's 'authority to issue such a permit is questionable. As you mentioned earlier this can only be done by Special Permit through Zoning Board action. To restate my point, had I not inquired at your office, the structure would be altered by now. It would now be a two- family rental property - a use not allowed in the district. This use would be substantially detrimental to the single-family character of our neighborhood. What's more, all of this would have occurred with total disregard to the procedures set forth in our town's Zoning by-laws. There are other reasons we feel compelled to watch the matter closely. According to correspondence between your office and Mr. Pearson's attorneys (January 14, 1998), Mr. Surette admitted to Mr. Pearson he "must have missed" the fact that the plan submitted with the application, stated "two-family dwelling". Therefore, the permit is invalid, nothing could be done about it, and Mr. Pearson would have to go before the Zoning Board for a Special Permit. Consequently Mr. Pearson hired a surveyor to start field work and to assemble the necessary plans and the mylar. Later, Mr. Surette called Mr. Pearson and told him that after thinking it over and doing some research, he felt Mass. General Laws Ch. 40A:6 exempted Mr. Pearson from having to appear before the Zoning Board after all. He went on to say that if Mr. Pearson's attorneys wrote a letter to him and cited the relevant statue, he would take care of the issue so that Mr. Pearson could a once again work on his property. You can imagine our shock when we learned our town's local Inspector was completely circumventing the process set forth in our own Zoning Laws, and Mass. General Laws that he was hired to uphold. We couldn't help but wonder what would motivate him to do such a thing after he was informed that the applicant must go in front of the Zoning Board for a Special Permit? Does he feel any responsibility to the abutters of the property, or to any citizen in North Andover for that matter, when he gives a permit to alter a structure for a use not allowed in the Zoning District? Has he ever done this before? Again, the purpose of my phone call to you on March 20, 1998 was to discuss specific questions I have regarding the second permit # 75 issued by Mr. Surette for this property. Unfortunately, you replied that I made myself very clear in my previous letter to you (on March 17, 1998), and you would not discuss this any further with me. I expressed my dismay and wondered why, after simply expressing a different opinion, all my questions now have to be put in writing? Therefore, as you requested, could you please answer the following questions which bear on our decision to aggrieve Permit #75 to the Z.B.A.? As you know, we have to make this decision within 30 days of March 31, 1998. As an option which may save time in this matter, you may fax us your response (681-6433). What was not clear on the application or stated on permit #75, was the request "to remodel kitchen and bath". Here are my specific questions: 1. Is the applicant now agreeing that the structure is in fact a single-family home? 2. And therefore is the purpose of the remodeling to rip out the kitchen and create a conforming structure and use? 3. If not, which kitchen and bath does the applicant plan to remodel? 4. Why is this remodeling necessary to "protect the structure" as mentioned in 780 CMR of the Mass. State Building Code? 5. Is the applicant remodeling the kitchen over the "altered footprint" in the 2nd unit? 6. Or is the remodeling being done to the kitchen in the main house? 7. Is the remodeling on the bath being done on the non -conforming 2"d unit, 8. Or the is it for the "proposed" baths on the first floor as evident on the applicant's plans submitted with the first permit application. And again, how is this necessary to "protect the structure"? 9. When I asked to view the file in your office there were no plans submitted with the application for permit #75. How could Mr. Surette make any of the above determinations and issue a permit without any plans? 10. Why were there no plumbing permits in the file if the inspector gave approval for remodeling a kitchen and bath? For quite some time our neighborhood has been dealing with many questionable alterations and uses occurring on this property, with no knowledge about who/what can be done about it. The property was presented to the Planning Board as a single family home iin1989 to be subdivided, which was finally recorded at the E.N.R.D. in 1991. (see W subdivision plan for English Circle at the Planning Board Office) According to the North Andover subdivision control laws, (sec. 7, I pg. 59, and sec. 11 C p.74) all lots within the subdivision, including ours, must conform with current Zoning By -Laws. This property lost its protected status, or grandfathered use, at that time (whatever the use was, is yet to be determined). The town has not had the opportunity to enforce the current Zoning Laws because no building permits were applied for since the property became part of a subdivision. Since the property recently sold and the new owner has applied for permits, the neighborhood finally has a chance to voice our concerns, and ask some logical questions to learn if this property can be permitted to do the things it is requesting. Without proper enforcement from your office our town's Zoning Laws are rendered useless. (For example, I can't help but wonder if one lot in this subdivision is allowed to use their property as a two-family home can the other 3 lots do so as well?) We are grateful that you were willing to help us in the past by looking into our complaint concerning permit #618, and we hope that you will again serve the citizens of this town by answering our questions regarding the second permit, #75, issued on March 13, 1998. As. you so graciously informed us in your previous correspondence, we are working under the provision of a 30 day appeal period and hope you can answer in a timely manner. We admit that we are not zoning experts and need your imput before we decide whether to move ahead with our concerns to the Zoning Board. We realize your job is to uphold the Zoning By -Laws, thereby ensuring that both the applicant's property rights, and the abutter's property rights are guaranteed. Surely you can understand why we need to ask so, many questions after what happened with the first permit Mr. Surette issued, and we do appreciate your patience. Thank -you in advance for taking the time to help us once again. cc: Walter Soule, ZBA Robert Halpin, Town Manager Very truly yours, Jim and Jane Richard 25 English Circle No. Andover, MA Fax. #: 681-6433 i ,!O CE BRA011�1 W Tow NORTH A'00'0 APR Z9 2 uo PH '4 Received by Town Clerk: TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE Applicant /M 4 .TaA- &1MA4 Address Tel. No. 1. Application is hereby made: a) For a variance from the requirements of Section Paragraph and Table of the Zoning Bylaws. b) For a special Permit under Section Paragraph of the Zoning Bylaws. c) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the Building Inspector or other authority. 2. a) Premises affected are land and building(s) U numbered 5�t Zj' A6f. Street. b) Premises affected are property with frontage on the NorthvY South ( ) East ( ) West ( ) side of �akw Street. Street, and known as No. Street. c) Premises affected are in Zoning District 3 and the premises affected have an area of aS(?iD square feet and frontage of //.:�-- feet. Rev. 06.05.96 5 of 8 3., Ownership: a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all names) : 3 0 r7 9iy/6n �,2G 5oY7 a Date of Purchase Previous Owner 1. If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in the premises: Prospective Purchaser Lessee Other • 2. Letter of authorization for Variance/Special Permit required. 4. Size of proposed building: front; feet deep; Height stories; feet. a) Approximate date of erection: b) Occupancy or use of each floor: c) Type of construction: The principal points upon which I base my application are as follows: This permit violates Mass. General Law Ch. 40 s.6 and section (s) 9 and 10.11 of the North Andover Zoning By -Law which states "The Building Inspector shall not issue any permit unless the plans for the building and the intended use thereof in all respects fulfill the provisions of the North Andover Zoning By -Law." The plans on file with the building Dept. state "Two Family House", a use not allowed in the district. This structure is currently before the Z.B.A. to determine if it fulfills all the provisions of the zoning law. I agree to_pay the filing fee, advertising in newspaper, and incidental expe es* Signature of Petitioner(s) 6 of 8 Rev. 06-.05.96 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT: Required Setback Existing Setback Relief or Area or Area Requested Lot Dimension Area Street Frontage Front Setback Side ;Setback(s) Rear Setback Special Permit Request: Rev 06.03.96 7 of 8 LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST PAGE 1 OF Z SUBJECT PROPERTY - -� - --------------- -------------------- MAP PARCEL NAME !ADORESS I ABUTTERS MAP PARCEL NAME IADORESS i , CERTIFIED BY: DATE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE Rev. 06.05.96 0 U I 0 , i LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST PAGE 2 of 2 ABUTTERS MAP PARCEL NAME CERTIFIED � ASSESSOR'S OFFICE \� IADDRESS --'------'---------- ----'-------- ` � DA Continuation 8 of 8 J� VA lc 16 (V( Continuation 8 of 8 LIST OF PARTIES OF INTEREST PAGE 2 of 2 j � ABUTTERS a �, MAP PARCEL NAME !ADDRESS �' > %LC,! � ,�i .jam.%F / �� �C.; v --- `��—'✓d.'It� _ L,)� ��( --• -- -- /L= I/7° CERTIFIEDBY �' `ASSESSOR'S OFFICE _ DATE Rev. 06.05.96 Continuation 8 of 8