Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-10May loth Meeting Members sitting: John Thompson Serio, Noble, DiFruscio, Jamitkowski, Joyce The clerk read the legal notice and Mr. Thompson appeared before the Board. Land located at Berkeley & Turnpike Sts. Told the Board that there is a void in that section of Rte. 114 and there have been several breaks in the area in the past. The adjoining lots in the area are of similar size and as far as density is concerned the Flatley development is only one lot away. He proposed a modern development using solar heating and there is no adjacent lot by the same o~.mer that this could be expanded to. Would like to combine 4 lots into 2. Berkeley Rd. is a p~per street. He is before the Board for a Special Permit under Sec. 6.8 (2). The ovmer of the land is Elizabeth Elliot and he has a purchase and sales agreement contingent on approval. Mr. Joyce requested Thompson to get a citation from Essex County Reg. of Deeds stating when these lots were laid out which should have been prior to Jan., 1957. The Board suggested that maybe he should be coming iu under Sec. 4.122 (14) or both sections. The hearing will be continudd until the June meeting in order that Mr. Thompson can present the citation. Letter from Planning Board read. OPPOSITION: Christine Ronan, Turnpike St., an abutter - her°property adjoins the 2 lots in question, would definitely be opposed to a duplex, whatever is built there would be very close to her dwelling. Mr. Ronan - the neighborhood does not have any existing duplexes and would be completely alien to what is there now and didn't want to see four rentals in the area. Henry Fink - asked about the 100 ft. frontage and what they were going to maintain for a set back and would he tie into sewerage - yes. Mr. Joyce stated that if we allow it muder 6.8 (2) then he ~ould be restricted to 2 single family dwellings and with a Special Permit if a duplex is ~llowed the use is being expanded. He then made'a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice and Nr. DiFruscio seconded. The Building Inspector reminded the Board that this is an R-4 District and only 150+- ft. from R-5 and who is going to build a single family home on Rte. 114. ?ne area is not p~ime ~.esidential that needs protec- tion. Mr. Jamitkowski felt that the protection of the single family home is important. Mr. Foster then said that the To~.m is becoming snobbish. Mr. Joyce added that he is taking adw~ntage of the law by coming in for a Special Permit inasmuch as he does not have to prove headship. Mr. Thompson said the size of the dwellings will be compara- tive to what exists there now and he will not buy the property if he can't put up duplexes. Mr. ~,ompson was asked if he wished to ~ithdraw or continue the hearing - continue the hearing. He ~as told that the Board desired to view the site. Mr. Di- ~;ithdrew his second and Mr. Joyce withdrew his motion. ~Ir. Joyce then made a motion to continue the hearing until June and Mr. DiFruscio seconded. The vote was un~. June 14th ~eeting Judge Thomson appeared for Mrs. Elliot who is the ovmer of the property. Showed plan recorded in the Registry dated in 1~30 of lots 152 and ~53- TheBoard concurred that it is a Special Permit he is requesting. Discussed whether or not anything other than a single family dwelling on each lot could be built - is he restricted by 6.8 (2) or can the Board allow duplexes? Serio and Joyce felt that it could not be done, he can either put 2 single family homes or ~ duplex. John Thompson said that the majority of houses on Tolland Rd., etc. have more than one family living in them and are also on smaller lots. Mr. Joyce commented that they are single appearing homes with dutch flats, l,~r~. Elliot stated that these are the last lots available for building in the area. Judge Thomson felt that the course of action here really amounts only to what already exists~ and differed with the Board on their interpretation of Sec. 6.8(2) - the Building Inspector has no right to refuse the erection of the dwellings. He felt also that it is in the discretionary power of the Board to allow the building of duplexes in order to make this area consistent ~¢ith the existing uses and not leave it isolated - you are allowing not a change but a similarity in an area, he said. A literal enforcement of the ZBL ~.;ould involve some substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner ond it would not be a detriment from the public good nor the zoning law; you are not bound literally by the last 2 lines of 6.8(2) and would be improving the area. Mrs. Elliot spoke ~n favor of the petition. Member Joyce made a motion to take the matter under advisement. 2nd by Noble and unanimous vote. Charles Poster said that, historically, the Board of Appeals in issuing a Special Permit has not limited it to single family homes - ex. J. Shields, Francis St. and voiced agreement with ~,~r. Thomson. Decision: DiFruscio still troubled and would like to investigate; Joyce bothered by the last 2 sentences of 6.8(2). Motion was made by ~r. DiPruscio to g~ant the S,P. with the following conditions: 1) that the 4 lots be divided into Lots A & B as shmm on plan dated April 1976; 2) not more than one duplex unit shall be allowed on each lot; 3) that the const~ction of the 1 duplex upon each lot is allowed but the o~,~er forfeits any rights under Sec. 4.122 (14) of the NA ZBL dated 1~72 as reprinted, July 1974; 4) the o~mer shall not etqoand to larger th~n a duplex house on each lot; 5) must tie in ~,~th municipal water and sewer facilities. Mr. Noble seconded and the vote was unan. Nay 10, 1976 - Monday Regular Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a regular monthly meeting on Monday evening, May 10, ~976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Prizelle, Esq., Vice-Chairman; R. Louis DiFruscio, Clerk; James D. Noble; and Assoc. Members, Walter Jamitkowski and Ralph R. Joyce~ Esq. There were approximately 18 visitors. AUGUSTINE DE PARIS - Elm & Water Sts.: The Clerk read the legal notice. John J. Willis, Sr., Esq. represented the petitioner. The subjeot building presently consists of two apartments off Elm St. The addition is proposed to only service the area on the lower floor (commercial) and the 1st floor apartment on the Elm St. side. Mr. Del~ris' daughter needs more space for bedrooms so that she will have 3 bedrooms in her apartment. Because 6f this it is necessary to build a foundation to get in the extension on the second, floor. Historically, some time ago this matter wms before the Board of Appeals at the direction of the Planning Board who refused to sign this plan as Not Requiring Approval because at the time the plan submitted showed 3 existing lots, all of which were zoned General Business. The existing lots extended over tb Church St. At the time Davis & Furber had a real estate holding corporation called Village Land and they. planned to transfer all this to D & F. Each one of these lots were. acquired as distinct separate lots. The lot in question was occupied as a large rooming house. He also pointed out that the rooming house was demolished but they retained a 6 stall garage which was located to the rear of the lot line. Once this entire parcel became in common ownership, the operation of the joinder provisions of our ZBL resulted in maintaining it as a single lot. Then a portion of that did not conform with the ZBL. In all the research I have done, stated Nr. Willis, in no place does the ABL make reference to the consolidation of lots in anything but residential districts. He then quoted from 6.8 which follow~ from G. L. Ch. 41, Sec. SA. There is no requirement that they join together and obviously we are not involved in a subdivision and, subsequently, granting out of the existing structure owned by Mr. DeParis was a legitimate sale. The BOARD reviewed the deed. The By-Law we are operating under was not approved until some 3 months after this land was transferred to Mr. DeParis~O provide adequate quarters for his daughter and additional income on the lower level. It is an existing non- conforming use insofar as it does not comply with the regulation requirement of dimension and setback. The use has been in existence since 1943. Essentially, we are not chang- ing any of the non-conforming features of this building than what already is there. We are changing the square footage but not the ratio from what is now existing. Mr. Willis went on to suggest strongly that there is no joinder and Mr. DeParis is entitled to a hearing for the granting of a variance. It is his intent to upgrade his property. Immediately in front of this parcel the Town has been using a substantial portion of his land to expand the width of Water St. to diminish the hazard. The section on joinder is not applicable, this should be treated as one lot; there is no way he can expand his daughter's living quarters because of odd shape of building; the hardship is that this location is not economically attractive because there is no expansion potential. The Chairman read letter from Planning Board dated May lOth. There was no opposition. Charles Foster, Building Inspector addressed question to Mr. Willis regarding 35% maximum lot coverage and would the addition put him over that - Mr. Willis said he couldn't answer that because we are talking about a non-conforming use. The BOARD calculated it and came up with 25%. The BOARD originally turned it down because the Chairman at that time ruled that it was in common ownership and it fell so far short of the area require- ments. ~ay 10, 1976 - Cont. During Board discussion they cited that when it came to the attention of the Planning Board that D&F'.was planning to divide their land they could not find an exception to area requirements. There is no exception to our definition of lot. Nr. Willis had been quoting exceptions to area and frontage.. This is why the Planning Board was concerned ~nd why the previous BOARD OF APPEALS refused the division of land. Mr. Willis stated that he maintained the argument that they have 3 separatelots of land, it does not become a common lot. It was a 3-~ vote of the previous BOARD OF APPEALS. Mr. Frizelle made a motion to take the matter under advisement. Mr. DiFruscio seconded and the vote was unanimous. L & L No. Andover Trust - C. W. Trembly, Sr. representing. The Clerk read the legal notice. Mr. Trembly told those present that when this building was. erected as a "Carroll's" the setback was 50 ft. and the existing setback is 55 ft. The law was changed a couple of y~ars ago to lOOft, so that ar4v change in the front of this Build- ing makes the entire building within the 100 ft. Carroll's has made a contract with the B~rg~rKingpeople to transfer all their stands to 2urgerKing and showed a snapshot of the proposal. The vestibule, if permitted, would fall within the verticle line down to groundwi%hin some 4"; technically, we are going out from the Building 6 ft. and from the hanging of the roof 4". If granted, the corner will be 50 ft. from Rte. 114. Ne fur%her stated that' the granting of this variance will not derogate from %he intent and purpose of the zoning act because when it was built it cempliedwith the ZBL. Atty. Talsky and Engineer Eazen were also present representing the company. Mr. Joyce asked if the larger ed Carroll's sign was going to remain - this would be demolished and the entire thing would Be mansard roof. Mr. Frizelle reminded Mr. Trembly about having to go By Sec. 9.5. Trombly stated that this would be an improvement to the l~ilding and a denial would be a substantial hardship to the owners. The setback was changed after original construction and all we are doing is putting a patti%ion down from the ceiling to the ground. No part of 'the structure will be closer to the road than the roof is now. The Building Inspector inquired if there were any other reasons for the vestibule other than it Being a trademark - Talsk~: the .reason is not only aesthetic but has the effect of nullifying the condition of cold in winter and hot in sucre The Chairman read letter from Planning]~ard dated May lO~h. There was no opposition. Much discussion about setbacks, sign by-laws, etc. Notion then made By Ja~tkowski~e grant' the variance; second By Die'rustic. Jamitkowski amended his motion to take the mmtterxmder advisement for purposes of ffur~her discussion and input. Second by DiFrusoio and unanimous vo~e'. Frank B. Smerczynski - Middleton Line: Noble read the legal notice. John J. Willis, Sr., representing recalled that with the re-zoning in 1972 there wms considerable discussion regarding Rte. 114 and this particular parcel Because it was isolated and had Been zoned into Industrial I]and, (all the land adjacent to the Missile Site Rd. to the Middleton Line). Mr. Smerczynski owns this entire parcel which is bisected By the N. A.-~ddleton line. The land in Middleton is rural residential and in N. A. was already being used forE astern Tanks the little corner was thought by the PLANNING BOARDthat it ought to be re-zoned also. So, Smsrozynski ended up, by provisicms of a legislative act, with a nm-conforming lo~. He has less t~a~ the required area and %o Be in accordw~th our ZBL you must stay 50 ft. from a residential zone and, if in two separate towns it must be considered as all in N. A. Charlie ~oster stated that he, as Building Inspector, could not act ou the land in Middletou because it would be applying our zoning to their land. He was not opposed to the petition but knew there was a problem. 10, 1976 - oont, Regarding the 100 ft. setback, Mr. Willis said that they had run into some difficult Building land due to ledge and s~amp and cannot go back another 25 ft. He is, as proposed, going to Be exactly the same distance back except for 4 ft. as L. B. Day's Building. The building will only be 24 ft. Mr. S. and his neighbors intend to petition the Middieton Planning Board to zone this area similarly as in No i. Parking wouid be %o the front or to the side and the entrance would Be in the front as it presently exists. ·here will not be any substantial traffic problem and if built as proposed i~ will not require any filling in. Mr. Foster felt that it was a perfect example of hardship wherein his land is bisected bye to~ line. Letter from P~O ~0ARDw&s read lr~the Chairman. No,. opposition. Frizelle made a motion to take the matter under ~dvisement. Second By Noble and unanimous vote. J0~ ~I~OMP$O~ - BerEeley St.: (Member Joyce sitting for l~rizelle) the ~lerk read the legal notice. Mr. Thompson appeared Before the BOARD and stated that this section is somewhat of avoid on Rte. 114. ~he adjoining lots in the area are all approximately the same size. Density wise, the Flatley development is one l~t~away. There is no adjoining lot By the same o~er that this could be expanded to; this is 4 lots being combined into two. Berkeley is a paper street. Desires a SpeoialPermit under Sec. 6.8. Elizabeth Elliot owns the land and Thcmpeon has a P & S agreement contingent on BOARD approval. Mr. Joyce requested Thompson get a citation from Essex C~unty Registry of Deeds stating when these lots were laid out. For rest of text see attached sheet. ~ilber~ Rea Earth Removal Permit - continued Hearingm letters from Nighwa~ ~urveyor, Con. Com. and Planning Board were read. H. Morley presented written proposal as to ultimate use of the land as on file. Letter from Chief Lawlor was read. Charlie Foster was most happy, he said, to see them going through the right procedures and that the pla~ sho~n was an excellent plan. Recce~nended that the permit be issued. The permit shall stay in effect as long as it eomforms to the ZBL and is reviewed By the ~OARD yearly. Mr. Rea said that the area deaoted on the plan as "siltation basin" will grow until the pit is closed up. Motion by DiFrusoio to reduce the bond to $10,000 and ORAN? the Special Permit for continuous operation effective May 14, 1976; 5 acre parcel to be worked at this time is Area #3. Noble seconded and the vote was unanimous. ROBE~? DULUDE: the Clerk read the letter from Atty. Thomas Caffrey, 300 Essex St., Lawrence who represented Dulude, 16 Court St. explained that in 1963 when he obtained the variance the no~ice was recorded at the Registry But not the plan. We now need signatures from the BOAP~D 0FAPPEALS and the Planning Board for recording purposes. They desired a new linen with new signatures. 30ARD advised him to have a new linen made up with the proper signature Blocks and signifying that it is a true copy of the original. SUBCOMMITTEE I~? (~C. ADAMS: DiFruscio reported that the plase could Be reseeded and rock pile removed. Mr. Foster, Building Inspector, agreed even though there is a little grass growing. Motion byDiFruscio that the entire area shall be seeded with grass or legume according to the ~y-Law and remove the existing pile of debris on the left ha~d side of the lot as viewed from the street. Before said grass is pianted it must meet the approval of the Buiiding Inspector. This should be accomplished By June 4th. Eztention of bond gra~ted until Oct, 3[kth. Second By Noble and unanimous vote. Mawr 10, 1976 - cont. ~-BM1TTAL O~RULES &REGS. RE EARTHIf~OVAL PERMITS: RALPH JOYCE - tabled until next month. BOARD to review. IIEREF~ OO~. PLAN: Members viewed plan; C. Foster to denote the lot line in red and matter tabled until nex~ meeting. DECISION~ L & L NO. ANDOV]~ THUST- Motion tryFrizelle to GTutNTvariance of Sec. 6.3 and Table 2,footnote 1 as follows= buildin~ was constructed in 1970 (setback allowed at that time) but now non-conformin~per 1972 By-L~w; vestibule is to be constructed within the present extension of the overhang roof on %he building; petiticaer has shown that & denial would result in a financial h~?dehip since to require strict con- fomance with the By-Law would require a remodeling of the entire Building; petitioner has shown tlmt it will not(derogate fro~ intent and purpose of the By-Law since the proposal is only to chan~e the face of the building and the granting of this variance will not create a substantial detriment to the public good. Approval granted pursuant to Sec. 8.2 (1) of the By-Law Because such vestibule is to be built upon same l~t occupied by the ~uilding~ith a non-conforming setback on the date that it became non-conforming per Sec. 8.2 (2), such alteration will not exceed the aggregate of more than 25% of the original use per Sec. 8.2 (3), amd the change will not lengthen She economic life per Sec. 8.2 (4). (NOTE~ BOARD considers that there is a question as to whether petitioner need be before the BOARD since the proposal to add a vestibule falls within the present roof overhang cited in ~2 above.) BOAED members to view John ~hompson's site on May 22nd at 10 A.M. Also Smerczynski. The meeting adjourned at 11 P.M. 0hair.aa Secretary