Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hearing on 342 Andover Street expansion after neighbors raise complaints; site visit scheduled
Summary
The Zoning Board continued a contested application on July 28 from the owner of 342 Andover Street seeking to expand parking and office uses at a property with a long history of nonconforming commercial activity; the hearing was continued after extensive neighbor testimony and a site visit was scheduled.
The Danvers Zoning Board of Appeals on July 28 continued a contested application from Guy Costanza for 342 Andover Street after extensive public testimony raising noise, debris, vehicle storage and potential water‑resource concerns.
Costanza asked the board to expand a preexisting nonconforming landscaping use to allow parking of landscaping vehicles in the front of the property (in addition to the rear) and to permit leasing of former dental‑lab office space to other professional or general office tenants. He said tenants have operated on the site for decades and he wants to continue those uses while bringing them into formal compliance.
Neighbors described long‑running problems they attribute to activity at the site: loud noise at early hours and late at night, fireworks and parties, piled building and landscape materials, parked heavy equipment, and what one neighbor described as storage that extended onto adjacent cemetery property. Several neighbors said some vehicles and recreational vehicles had recently been removed; others said a bus and a boat remain and must be removed.
Planning Director Brian Zakeli told the board the property has an extensive administrative history: it predates the current R‑3 residential zoning and long‑standing decisions and conditions govern how the site may be used. Staff and the board noted the site had been the subject of prior approvals and that the current proposal would expand uses beyond what previous decisions explicitly allowed.
Board members heard hours‑of‑operation, environmental (stormwater/watershed) and encroachment concerns from residents and requested additional documentation from the applicant. The board voted to continue the matter to August 25 and scheduled a board site visit on Thursday, August 7 at 6 p.m. The board asked the applicant to remove abandoned/unpermitted vehicles, provide a parking plan showing tenant spaces (front and back), and to clarify leases and tenant lists before the site visit. The board stated it would expect the site to be in better compliance before considering expanded front‑yard parking.
