Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-11August 11, ~ 9?5 - Monday Red,Ilar Nesting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, August l~, 1975 at ?:30 ?oMo in She ?o~n Office Meeting Room° The following members were present and voting: Alffred E. Frizelle, 7ice-~hairman; Nilliam No 3alemme, Clerk; Ja~es Do Noble; Louis DiFruscio and Walter Jamitkowski° Chairman l~rank Serio arrived later on in the evening. DSM Realty, Inc. - Atty. Palys asked the BOAP~D for a continuance until the nex~ meeting. The BOARD advised him to withdraw the request without prejudice and re-file when they are ready. Mr. Palys agreed to this procedure. PUBLI~ REARINGS: a) CHRISTOPHER ADAMS - ~rth Removal: The clerk read the notice requesting a Special permit under Sec. 5 of the Zoning ~y- Law. Mr. Adams represented himself. Mr. ~izelle asked him i~ he w~s acquaiflted with the new By-_~w aad that we are now following this. The last permit was terminated by the BOARD~ich means that he has to re-~pplywhich is wh~t is ooourir~at this meeting. The problem is that when yon re-apply, Mr. ~izelle told Mr. Adams, yon must abide by 5 points as set forth in the ~y-Law. Ne have to submit this to other Town boards. Mr. Adams stated that he did not think hew asking used Properly and at the last meeting was not given the right to use his acreage. Mr. Salemme and Mr. Noble stated that the tree stumps were still visible at the presen~ time. Mr. AdAms said that he wonld put the stumps in the back and fill in. Mr. Salemme commented that he would not sign ~hingt~cause there are still things to ~ done at the site such as the putting down of loam. Mr. F~izelle told Adams that the Planning Boa~ had held hearings with regard to the new ~y-Law and it w~s voted in at Town Meeting - this is the law. Mr. ~rizelle advised that he maywithdraw withont prejudice and re-apply when he meets the provisions of the By-Law. ~r. A~ams stated that he would withdraw. b) %~EBBER'S OP NORTH The clerk read the legal notice. Atty. John G. nem~y cf l~i~ch~urg, ~. represented Webber's. Requested a Variance on a leaa-to type storag~ shed 60 f~. in size which would be constructed 17-18 f~. from the ex/sting abutter's line. They plsmmed to build it on this side of the existing building to keep the aesthetics, he said. Mr. Lem~y presented a set of plans to the BOAP~ showing a frontal view and stated that it will be open from the right side of the building to properly service the customers. They are also plaaning to sprinkler the latilding for additional fire protection and put in a t~Affer of scotch pines as a screening for abutters. The shed will be used for storing cement and millwork. They are asking for a variance on the set back provision and felt that literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance wonld involve hardship in that they conld~not properly service the customers in this area. E~_gene Rosinsk/ and a representative from Nebber's were also present. Member Frizelle questioned how the building got to be 3 feet from the ex/sting lot line and w~s %old tha~ it w~s an existing building at ~he ~ime it was purchased and it was nearly renovated. There are homes directly in back of the existing main building owned by DiFalco (Lemay presented a letter which stated that they have no objection %o the building plans) and ~ Silva. Mr. Di~k'uscio asked abont where the opening on the building would be and ~he answer was that the 60' side wculdbe open with the front and rear being closed. August 11, 197.5 - cont. Anthony Ursillo, 119 ~ass. Ave. - Stated tBat his land abatts Webber~s fro~ Danvers on for approximately 100 ft. ~nd there are no problems or noises of any kind. Mr. ~ L, Silva, Elmwood Rd. - Agreed with Mr. Ursillo and ~tated that when ~ene Roeinski approached them they had reservations. He M a list of.provisions which he stated Webber's had agreed to meet (dated. June 27, 1~75, on file). Mr. ~zelle's opinion was that he did not know whether or not these comments are applicable to the granting of a variance because this is between the Silva's and Webber's. The BOARD is restricted by statute as to time and use for zoning purposes. The Silva's never received an official answer to this' letter from Web~er's. Some of the things called for are go- ing to be hard to live up to, said Lemay, and we are not actually agreeing to this docu- ment although we have incorporated some of these things already about which we have mentioned at this meeting. It would be totally unenforceable from the Town's point of view, said Mr. F~izelle. Mrs. Ann Silva, E~mwood Rd. said that she would like to ~peak ~ith ~ebber's before she agrees with an~hing. ~les Foster, Building Inspector: Questioned wh~t had happened to Danvers St. It con- nects with Mablin Ave. on our zoning map. Mr. Lema~s%ated that they can't do a~hing with the land if it is ?o~n owned but that there is an easement on the first section of Danvers S~. coming in from Mass. Ave. Mr. Foster also brought out that it looks like a portion of the building that is under construction is going on this street and yeu don't have frontage i~ you don't~have Danvers St. to supply it, he said. Lemay thOUgh that they h~d used Mass. Ave, for setback provisions. Without Danvers St., where is the front- age for the lot, asked Mr. Foster?. Before one can be issued a building permit there Bas to be a variance ~n the~frontage. Mr. Noster felt that they had a very good hardship case in that the frontage was reduced by the State. ~o problems: if Danvers St. does exist they are building on a paper street and that is illegal - if it does not exist then they don't have the adequate frontage, Mr. Frizelle asked how wide the driveway was a~A~C~ene Rosinski answered that it was about 30 ft. Mr. Lemay then requested the BOARD to take whatever action on the variance. Mr. Foster commented that he would have to stop ~he construction right aw~y. A motion ~as made by Mr. Noble to take the matter under advisement and seconded by Mr. DiFruscio. The vo~e was unanimous. c) M~.INACE VALLEY NA~IONAL BANE: The clerk read the legal notice. The following mem- bers heard this petition: Messers. Serio, Frizelle, DiFruscio, Noble and Salemme. Mr. Eennsth Fowle represented the ~ and requested a variance from Sec. 6.3 to enable them to construct an addition on the ~ater St. Side of the building. They intend to extend ~5 ft. out toward the parking lot. It will be one-story cna slab wi~h rooms for interview space and safe deposit booths and a small area for employees. Mr. Fowle stated their reason as it being necessary for the proper flmctioning of bank business. Also, there is not any o~her place that they can build because of the drop-off in ~he rear of the building. Elliot Farnsworth, the ~nk's contractor, was also present. The Building Inspector stated that the building was erected prior to 19~ which established the p.~esent frontage and asked for a statement as to hardship to justify the variance. Mr. Fowle stated that the entrance 2o the driveway would be nullified if they constructed something in the back and the cost of construction would be prohibitive. ~nis addition is in the best spot on the lot and better for bank personnel. They will have the same number of parking spaces that they have now and the styl~' of construction will be the same August 11, 1975- cont. az ~he e:~sting bu/ld/ng. James McO~be, the ~nly abutter, w~s IN FAVOR of the petition. ~nere was NO 0PPOSY~ION. A motic~ was made b~ Mr. ~izelle to ~ the variance because it appears that the conditions as set forth in %he by-law have been met. Mr. DiFruscio seconded and the vote was EDN. & NINA EA~ASH - Decision: Requested a variance from Sec. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and Table 2 of the Zoning ~y-Law. ~ne BOARD members had viewed the si%e. Mr. Frizelle noted that the lot is uniquely shaped and m~n~v points of hardship were cited; Mr. ~lomas, an abutter voiced opposition. ~hat we have lef~ are two under-sized lots and a dis- cussion was held by the ~XIARD regarding lot area, side set~ack, etc. Mr. Jamitkowski commented that the members mus~ either consider making a personal judgment or our position on the BOARD as meeting the intent of the Zoning ~y-Law. Hhe Building Inspect- or asked how the variance would effect the appearance to the Passer-by. In his opinion, it would not m~ke any difference. Mr. DiFruscio's motion to G~AN~ the variance was seconded by Mr. Jamitkows~i. Mr. Frizelle stated that the matter troubled him in that if the BOARD literally enforcs this, will it be a h~r~ship? Pie could not see where it wOUld be a financiai hardship. He suggested to the BOARD that one mus~ not look at this emotionally because the variance requested is for area, Side and rear. ~e vote on the motion was taken with Messers. S~lemme, Jamitkows~i and DiFr~scio in favor and Messers. Frizelle and Noble opposed. Mr. DiFruscio made a motion to reconsider but received nc second; the motion was lost and, therefore, the variance D~. UNITED FREIG~WAYS - Decision: All members have viewed the proper~y. It was noted that the BOARD is acting on the site with the big pile of woodchips. ~ne Building Inspector Sated that since he was absent from the hearing he would ;like to ,give the BOARD some background. He said he was aware of a problem there for some time. Mr. Rea and I, he said, ha~ conversed about relocating and the possibility of re-zoning. As f~r as Mr. Foster could determine this use was not allowed anywhere in Town. He stated that his feeling in the whole matter was that when we inaugurated our Zoning By- Law we did not ma~e any allowance for outdoor storage of any kind and it is something that sh~ld be incorporated. He mentioned further that he had talked to Mr. REa and his attsrney at length and felt it was an opportunity for the To~n to control an opera- tion within an Industrial District and asked him to present his petition so that his entire operation would be covered for that area. ~nere had been some rumblings from the neighbors, but never ar~vone who was definitely opposed to it as long as it was controlled. Bear in mind, said Mr. Foster, that this is an Ind. area and Rte. 114 is not mainly zoned for residence use. He felt that the people who were in opposition were just opposed to Industrial District on Rte. 1~ rather that aci~ally this prope~y. Mr, Frizelle question- ed the credibility of the petitioner because, for one reason, he ~ated that he covers the lime and many people at the public hearing spoke and said that they had never seem a covering on it. Member Frizelle voiced his opinion that he felt Mr. REa was doing more than just s$~ring w~odchips - he is processing. Actually, his operation has in- creased in size as well as having more material there he had more equipment and, even though, the use might be allowed it has expanded. Is it a l~wik~ non-conforming use? Mr. Salemme made a motion that the BOARD OF ~S rule that this parcel of land is an illegal non-conforming use and that the application be DENIED under the provision of Sec. 8.2 of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Jamitkowski seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. August 11, 1975 - cont. Mr. Noble made a motion to DENY the variance requested under Sec. ~.129 (14) of the Zoning By-Law and Mr. S~lemme seconded. The vote was unanimous. CHRISTOPHER ADAMS: During a discussion held by the BOARD, Mr. ~rizelle read the lates~ decision to refuse an extensic~ on the earth removal permit. The Building Inspector said that Adams has not really dome an~hing except tr~ to burn the stumps. The BOARD requested a letter from Mr. Foster stating such. A motion was made by Mr. S~lemme to designate the Chair- ma~ to write a letter to Mr. Adams in reference to forclosim~ the bond within a 15-day limit in aocor~uce with our decision of Nov. 22, 1974 and advise him that he is given until August 29th to complete the work. Also, the Chairman shall write a letter to the insurance company informing them that we anticip~e we may have to take the bond. The motion was seconded by Mr. Noble and the vote was u~s~uimous. Mr. Serio sat in on the following BOARD business. _Lotto? from Armold .S~.lisbur~, dated August 8, 1975 Re Dr. Patterson was read by the Chairman. The Covenant, which is on file, was also read. The Building Imspector felt that a zoning violation cannot be legalized with a covenant. The razing of the garage was on a plan ~aich the BOARD filed, was recorded, and is par~ of the decision. Member Frizelle said he felt that this was a compromise - if it was not in the written opinion he questioned its validity. Upon motion of Mr. Noble and second by Mr. Frizelle to send a letter to To~n COUnsel statingthmt after discussing the matter with the zoning enforce- ment officer it is the unanimous opinion thmt this matter of a covenant is nos properly before the BOARD and we are, therefore, returming it to you to discuss with the zonimg enforcement officer for the proper action ~he vote was unanimous. A copy of the letter is to go to Charles Foster and Charles Trombly, Sr. _L~..tter fr.~a Arnold Salisbu~7' Re Prescott St. Nursin~ Home. and dated August 11th was read. Town Counsel's ruling was that no further hearings will be necessary. A motion was made by Mr. Di~ruscio to accept the letter and file it with the special permit. Mr. Salemme seconded and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 11 P.M. ~Ih-smk Serio;