Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1954-02-15February 1,-1954 Cont. 2-The Board further feels that until such ttme as they have becoms acquad~ted with the complete physical developments of the Nestern Electric Co plant as to the beautifying of its grounds and the attractiveness of the buildings~ they sould not permtt an~ change in zoning on the easterly side ef Osgood Street opposite the said Western Electric Co for business purposes. 3-The Board also feels t~t the approval of business uses in this area should be seriously considered by the townspeople in its overall planning for zoning arease ~ A motion was made by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Gilman and it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 P.M. The Board will meet again on Feb. 15. for another Public Hearing. Si~~irman Sign~~Cle rk The meeting was scheduled to be held in the Court Room but due to the nnm~er of persons present permission was gained to use the Brads~reet School Auditorium and the meeting held there. The meeting was opened bY the Ohairman at the Bradstreet School at 8:00~ P.M. This was a Public Hearing M~mbers present: Nicholas F. Nicetta, CB~rm~n~ Howard Gilman, Secretary~ RicDawd G. Whipple, Frank ~. Driscoll, Jr.~ and Frank W. Lee. An application was received ~rom O~y B. Howe requesting the approval ef the Board for a proposed emendment of Zhe Zoning By-Laws of the. Town to change the c!_~_~sification of a parcel of land on Chickering Road. from a General Residential to a Business District. The boundaries and description of the above mentioned land were published i~ the Evening Tribune ~ February 5 and February 13, 1~54. The Public Hearing was also advertised on those dates. Mr. Howe was present and stated t~at he had a sketch of the building he had proposed to build, This wo~ld ~e his own residence in addition to the ten rooms which are to be leased. He stated that these rooms would have wall to wall c .a~peting~ tile baths and would not be a dump or a chicken coop. He said that they would be rated un.der Quality Courts and the AAA. He also stated that the greater part of ChickeriDg Road was now devoted to business and that the proposed motel would, serve a great demand in this town for accomodations. This motel would be set far enough back so as hot to mar the scenic beauty of the surrounding area such as the dump which is now on Chickering ~Road and which in his opinion was Nr. Rockwell's cont. ribution to ChicMering ~oad~ Mr. Brasseur, Engineer who drew the plan~ was present and stated that this Town needed this type of business as there were no decent accomodations for visitors. He stated that prior.to the t~-~ Chickering Road was built~ this land was all pasture and still is .except for a few business establishments and fewer residences. He stated that this particular, spot was not ideal for. building homes as it was below the level of the road. ' He also stated that persons with f~m~lies would not be iDterested in building homes on a highl~ travelled highway~ because of the speed. He stated that the proposed ~motel would accomplish three things. 1-~t Would provide lodgings .for out February ]~, 195~ Cont. 87 out of town visitors~ wou~d bring revenue i~to the town with no school taxes attached and would utilize otherwise vacant land. Attorney Robert V. O' Sullivan~ representing the Chickering Road Associates, objected for his clients to ,the approval of this petition. He stated that the people who had bought homes in this vicinity had gone to considerable expense and felt that they sould be protected from the invasion of businesses in this area. He stated that Mr. Howe had applied to the Board of Appeals for this same motel and although that Board had approved~ the abutters had taken this case to court and the court had upheld them and reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals. ~ This case was also denied in Andover. He stated that Chickering Road is the entrance to the Town of North ~ndover and that it makes the first impression of the Town on the visitors. N~. SulLivan also stated that this proposed building would be very close to Merrimack College and that approximately two millions dollars would be spent on the college Prpperty. He stated that when the Zoning By-Laws of the Town were adopted in 1943, all the Bast side of Chickering Road was zoned as Restricted Residential and the west side as General Residential and that there enSj had been a few changes in the intervening years. He stated that the Planning Board had th~ power to amend the Zoning By-Laws onSj .in order to promote the health~ safety morals ere. of the Townspeople and he felt that the mere economic gain of an i~dividual should not be cause for re-zoning. Mr. Sullivan also pointed out that although the present intention was to erect a motel it w~ght never be built and that ar~g could go into a business Zone if it was so changed. Mr. Sullivs_n stated that when his clients bought their homes on Chickering Road they had reason to believe that it would remit n residential and he felt that their privacy would be invaded if this change were to be permitted. Mr. Sullivan also stated that he felt that this would be spot 'zoning he stated that this was not legal.- Mr. Sullivan urged the ~Board to der~ the approval of this petition and so recommend to the Town Meeting. Attorney John Karelitz~ represented Mr. John G~iffim He stated that when Mrs. Griffin came to this town to look for a possible site for her home she had been assured by the Assessors office that her land was residential district and would remain so.. His client now to her surprise finds that there is an attempt to change Chickering Road from a Residential to a business District and he wished to be recorded-for his client as ~bje~ting to bhis petition being approved. Mr. Karelitz further stated that this change would B~t be fair to the other residents in this area and he felt that this was a case of spot zoning and that this was not legal. Mr. Karelitz also stated that there was no assurance that the proposed buLlding would ever be erected and if this parcel was re- zoned for business at, thing ~ould happen. Mr. Karelitz then asked that the Board act for the best interests of the inhabitants of the Town and deny this petition. Mr. Samuel F. Rockwell was present and wished to be recorded as ebkecting te the approval of this petition. Ne stated that when the Town of Nort~ Andover established a Planning Board it was intended to protec~ the residents of the Town. Ne s~ted that he was aware that there is need of Business for the convenience of the townspeopl6 and he felt that it should be kept in the bUsiness section of the Town and that it was not at all impossible to +_~ke more room on Main Street to e~large the present business district. Mr. Robert Dulude~ Mr. Jean Osgood, Mr. Foeretar~ Mr. DeFue~o~ Elizabeth Demario, Mr. joseph BarBe~arro, Mrs. Norman Binns, Mr. Mallory and several others all objected to the Planning Board approving this petition. Ail felt that the proposed use was und~sireable and would devaluate the surrounding properties. Ail objectors stated that when they bought their property they were given to understand that it wes located in a residential area and hoped that it would be kept as such. A motion wes then made by Mr. Whipple, seconded by Mr. Lee ar~ it was u~nt-~usly voted to ~ake this petition under advisement. An application was received from John J. $1ipk~,sl~' requesting the approval of the Board for a proposed amendment of the Zonin~ By-Laws so as to permtt a change of olassification of a parcel of land on the easterly side of Ohickering Road from a ~eneral ~esidential to a Business District. The boundaries and description of the above mentioned property were February 15, 1954 published in the Evening Tribune on February 5 and February 13, 1954, The Pmblie Hearing was also advertised on those dates, All abutter~ were notified. Mr. Joseph $lipp was present an~ stated that he was one of the hairs ef this prsperty amd ~_ha_.t they had owned it for about 25 years, He stated that it was located very close to a business area on one side and an industrial area em the other. Mr. $1ipp stated that the proposed buyer intended to put up a building that would be a credit to the Town and which would also bring in good revenue An taxes without a~ expense to the Town. He stated that Zoning had become effective ~ore than ten years ago and that ~ny changes had taken place in the Town since then which necessitated ~king provision for w~re business to locate here.. Mr. lillia~ A. McAloon spo~e in favor off this petition .stating that it was an ideal location for this type of business. Mr. Eppo lalvius, Mr. Sa~el F. RockwellsMr~. Helen DiBurro and several others opposed the approval of this petition on the sa~e grounds that were given for the objection to the other parcel ~roposed for a change on Chickering Road. &ttorney Earelita, representing Mrs. Griffin also objected for his client stating that +.his was just another case of sp.~.t so~i~g was wes not legal. Mr. Brasseur, Engineer who drew the plans s~ted 'that ~_Bis !_a~d was not ~aitable for residential purposes .but .would be ideal for the type of building which was proposed. He stated that this was swa .~py ground and that ti would be very difficult to have a dry cellar in this area.., A ~ottcu was made by Mr. Whipple, seconded ~y Mr~ ~ee and it was voted to take this petition v~der advisement. An ~pplica%ion was received from Albert A. Steinberg requesting the approval of the Board for a proposed a~endment of the Zoning By-Laws for a c~a~ge of classi- fication of a parcel of land located on the northerly side of Osgoed Street and the westerly side of Clark Street from Restricted Residential and Agricultural to a Business area. The boundaries and description of the above property were published in the Evening Tribune on .February 5 and February 13, 1954. The Public Hearing was also advertised on those dates and the abuttere were notified. Mr. Rlpah Braseeur represented the 'appliCant and stated that this land had been vacant for years and although Mr. Ste~inher. g had no definite business in ~ind at this ti~e he wished to have this land re-zoned to have it available for sale as a business property. He stated that this was pasture land and was right next to the airport and was not suitable for residential purposes~ but would ,be ideal for business purposes. Mrs. Norman Greenwood represented the ~reenWo~ estate stated that they would eventually cut up this estate into house lots. She stated that they had no say in the matter of the airport that the Cit~ of Lawrence Just ~oved in. She wished to recorded as objecting to the a~proval of this petition. Mr. Nor~a Fle~ing~ Mr. Forgetta, Mr. George. R. Barker and ~therS all were opposed to the approval of thio petition. Ail felt that the applicant should at least state what typ~ of business he intended to have there. Mr. Steinberg then stated that this l~nd was rather wet and not suitable for residential purposes. He started that he had nothing ~p_articular in m~d at this time but felt that if this la~ was re-zoned~ it would facilitate the sale of it. Motion was made by Mr. Whipple, seconded b~. Mr. Driscoll and it was unam4w~usly voted to take this petition under advisement. February 15~ l~Sh Cont. ~u app]Acation was received fr~m ~eor~e IL Ba~ker request/n~ the approval of Board for a proposed amendment of the Zoning my-Laws for a change of elassificatlon of a parcel of land located on the easterly ~de of Osgood Street from an cultural to a business district. The boundaries and description of the above land were pablished in the ~vening Tribune on February 5 and February 13, 1954. The Publis Hearing was also advertised en *~hose dates and the abutters were ~otified. Mr. Barker was present and stated that this land was directly opposite the new Western Electric site and that the Board had re-zoned o~e side ef the street he could not see what was to be gained by holding out on the other side of the street, ~e stated that there would probably ~ot Be any residences built opposite the new plant and that this Is_nd had always ~o;n held as fa~a 'land 'and t_~_A% this was a good opportunity to put She land to good ~e. ~e stated that he proposed to put up a fill~,~ station ~n this location and that this business would serve a large n~aher of employees at the new plant. Mr. Olenio who is a direct abutter stated that' he had been refused at the previous meeting and he felt that if re-zoning ooul~ be accomplished for a ~lti-~illion dollar outfit he felt that the local people should be givis the sa~e chanee to put their property to better use and So better advantage. Mr. Norman Fleming stat~ that ~he felt that this should not be granted saying that there are already enough filling stations in this town and that it would only damage the present businesses. Mr. John Osgood objected to the approval of this petition stating that he felt this was spot zoning and that if the Board felt that some re- zoning should be done it should be done by survey and not a s~all piece at a time. Attorney Karelit~,. representing Mrs. Griffin objected to the approval of ~s petition and stated that if the applicant went Before the Board of Appeals he could then build his filling station without re-z~ninge Mr. John ~illis~ Chairman of the ~oard of Select~en then reminded the meet~ that it would take a two-thirds vote of t~e T~wn meeting to acce~plish a re-zoning, Motion was -=de By Mr. ~hipple, seconded by Mr. Lee and it was un~-~w~usly voted to take this matter under advisement. A ~tion was then ~ade by. Mr. ~ltipple, seconded by Mr. Lee and it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10~50 P.M. and to hold a special~ meeting ~n February 23, at ?~30 P.M. to vote on the ~atters presented at this meeting. Sign~Oler~