Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-06-20170 June 20, 1956 ~_blic Heaxi~ North Andover Zoning By-Law to be held on any ~ amendment proposal. ~ecause of the l~mth of the text, and because each of you present now has or should have a complete copy, the Secretary will not read the text aloud, unless you so request. X suggest that we first cons{der Sections 1 & 2, then Section 5, then Sections 7 through 12, and then come bac$ to Sections 4, 6 and 3. This order of business is suggested so that we may if P~ssible cover the entire matter tonight. The sections named first may entail the least discussiea. The m~st time thu~ will be available for the matters of most interest to the most people. I will now ask _Honarable Arthur A. Thomson to inform you of the procedure for the June 30th Town Meeting. Judge Thomson: "In or, er that proposed changes become effective provided they are favorable voted upon, I have discussed ~rlthtthe Pl-~g ~ the metho~ of presentation at the coming To~n Meeting on June 30th." Y '--.' "It is induced that the Warrant sb,ll include more or less of a general article, sort of introducing these various proposed zoning c~--~es.~ ~-By reason of that article, they will be permitted at the Town Meeting any amendments or any changes by the meeting of a twc-thir~s vote as desired." "As a result of this Hearing tonight, with reference to propos~i changes and as a result to any~ecommendations that m.y be made at the Town Meeting by the Planning ~oer~, the recommendations being reqnired by the statute, there will nevertheless be an oppurtunity at the Town Meeting on June 3Otb to vote or suggest any changes ~t may be desire~ at the assembled meeting." Mr. Chairman took the floor and co~,anced with Sections 1 & 2. There was no discussion pertaining to these particuslar sections, so the Chair~- preceded with Section 12 an~ then back to Section 9. Attorney Arnold Salis~ary- "~ Under present zoning by-laws, do we have any Associate Members?" ~r. Cha~a~ -" It does not provide for Associate ~ers.~ Mr. Salisbury answered to the effect, I am afraid it does. Mr, Chairmen read Article 11, then Article 6, Section 1 concerning the duties and limits of the Boar~ of Appeals which has 5 members two of wh~memhers must be on the Planning Bo~, inclu~-g Section 30, Chapter 269, Acts of 1933. Mr.~ Finck related the Board of Appeals has Associate Members, an~ at this point, Attor~ ey Salisbury stated that the Planning B~rd should also have Associate Members. The Bcar~ was in agreement, and w~_~l examing the situation. There was no discussion pertaining to Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12. ~ Section 8, "BUILDING ~JIHTS PERMITTED" was next on the agenda. The Chairm~n r~k the provisions were designed by present fire-fighting equipment, and te promote indust~ ' development. Section 6, LOT AREAS AND LOT WIUI'HS REQUIRED AND SPECIFIC F~EPTIONS follewed. Mr. Secretary stated the question arises as to whether ali of the people in the ~earing tc~t 1,71 Ju~e 20, 1956 Public Hearin~ understand what Seotio~ 6 is, and if they do not, we will explain it for you. He w~nt on further to say the first three principles of the Town, Village Residential, Country Residential and Rural Residential. In Village Residential the Pl_~tmg Board reoom,~nds 15 thousand square feet. Country Residential 25 thousand square feet and in Rural Residential 50 thousend ~qmare feet. Mrs. ~Questen questioned what was the reason b_~blnd the large lot sizes. ~r. Ohair~sa- Leaving Village Residential areas, there are no facilities for sewerage. ~fr~AS~cretary stated the requirements of lot sizes are based on facilities presently av_~.tlsble, which is better for the health, welfare and safety to the ccmmmmtty. Mrs. MeQuesten asked the Board if she could build on her property under the new by-law? Chairv~n - You could build, if you wished on an individ,,Al_ lot less t~m~ the required footage~ umless you do not own either side o~ the bacK. Mr. ~ecretary stated as follows: The Town Meeting in April of last year the citizens approved 20 thousand square feet for lot sizes to prevent development in areas and over tax present facilities. The By-L. aw adopted could not have less than 20 thousand square feet, and land could not be sold in an adjoining area that was less th_~_t 20 thousand square feet. Mr. Osgood went on further to say if there should be any difficulties, one conld go to the Board of Appe als. Mrs. McQuesten arese, "why should ~ be penalized.' At the conclusion of her statement, she was told it was definitely ~ot a penalizement. Mr. Chair~a~ replied the only solution to orderly development is to increase lot sizes, and if such occa~ion arises, the Board of Appeals will take .the w~tter into consideration. Mrs. MeQuesten, - there should be a definite set of rules in certain instances, so the Board of Appeals does not have to be relied upon. Mr. Secretory, - exceptions are handled by the Board of Appeals and it is i~possible for the Planning Board to go through the entire town and pick out individ,~l lots. Judge Thomson - express that in Village Areas lot sized be designated to 15 thousand square feet, 20 thousand sqnare feet if improper. If one were to own 20 thousand square feet in a Village Area, and if this zoning law adopted, he could build on 15 thousand sq,~ feet and for the 5 thousand left it would be useless, with ~es~ect the owner has to pay taxes. He might go to the Board of Appeals and very frankly, his ex~'ience with the Board of Appeals has not been very favorable. He ~xptAined a client of his was prohibited to sell a lot even though, it was regis.~ered in the !_~_nd court. It is very easy to say each of these soming by-laws are for the safety and health for the com~nunity. I do not quite folly, this for the instant i~flux of younger people in this day, and in the recent years, w~ have acquired new citizens. ~ew homes cc~e into the c~m~nity and desire to build a home economics, because of this situation they should not pay a prohibi- tive tax. The recent home-owners have pride in keeping up the property. It enhances the beauty of the neighborhood, and =-~_~$ the Toga attractive to others. If lot sizes are 15 thousand square feet in Village Areas,I express aa an opinion, it is too large a lot size for an average individ,,al. We will induce to prohibit some responsible and substantial people that will be s~Asset to our ~ommunity. 1'/2 ~une 20, 1956 Public Hearing If lot sizes are extended to 15 thousand square~ fleet, it is a lot to take care of, and the lots will be run do~n.., Re knows the Planning Board ~st th~k ye should curtail development, but now we have industry, and it is m~ humble opinion that we should not preclude of people that will build homes, taxable h~nes if they are permitted to btt~ld hc~es on 10 +~housand square feet. At the conclusion of Jt, d~e Thomsons rnmn~ks, Mr. Chairman replied the P]~-~ Board recommend 12,500 square feet.~ Mr. ~hip~' aros~ and expressed that over 300 foot depth in Rural Areas is much to large, and for what reason did the Board demand such a heavy requirement of depth, Attorney Finck, - lots are appro~t.~tely an aero or more whey sold at the present time. Hr. Blackwell illustrated a map and stated most of the land proposed by the Board be zoned Rural Residential. According to the Assessors record, s, ownership of 25 acres or more per tract. It would seem, he replied, therefore, that 1 1/8 acre size lot req,~e.~t, in a theory, that is normally 25 acres per ownership as a resonable size. Mr. Bradley express~ the Board has worked ~, but on the other h~d, they can make mistakes as we all can. -The welfare o~ one ~vid,,a~ cannot he forsaken for the To~n. He represents, Mr. Mrs. ~n, whose land is zoned Country Residen+.~*~ requi~ng 125 foot frontage. He stated it is strange and difficult for them because the area they o~n, is surrounded on3 sides by an Industrial Distric$. Mr. Chairman questioned the distance o£ the Industrial Area frc~ the Sbann land. There was some discussion as to the distance, and Mr. Bradley replied, regardless of the frontage, it is industria/ly sul~ounding the property in question.. Attorney Fin~k queried if the land is subdivided and approved conditio~n~ly by the p]a~g Board. Mr. Shann replied it was. Hr. Secretary- The Planning Board faces the problem of dividing the To~ in the wisd~a it can find, and the Planning Board is presently consider~_~g 12,500 thousand square feet. The Beard:~id not take ~r. Sb~s land, but land on the map after a great deal of tb~k- in . Mr. Shann in answer to a ~uestion concero~n~ health facilities~ repXied three tests which total approved twenty including the whole 15 acres were taken, and every test was better thn~ the requirem~_nts. They were made on a 20 thousand footage req-uire~ent by .the perou- lation tests, which is concerned with the a~ount of lee. Un.me. Mr. Secretary - that elementary each district must be bounded by another. Mr. Bradley stated he believed two areas ware sufficient, and there was no reason ~- S~--'s land could not be continued out to Osgood Street. A question arose f--x~a the floor regardt~ plans c~ Boo+~n- Road, which area was approved by the Board. The plans were recorded at two lots of land. Does the requirements require 20 thousand feet. Mr. Bhairman replied it did. Mr. Secretary - the_adoption of 20 thousand sq~,-~e feet at a Special To~n Meeting, people voted for it at the meeting than at the ~nnual To~n ~et~-E. It was ~ the rec_n,~endation of the Pln-~4ng Board to the To~n, and criticis.~ is not with the Board, but to the Tc~n. 173 June 20~ 1956 P~._blic Hearin~ A resident of 33 Elm Street state~ he was ~-*luenoed to bu~ his property base~ cn tha 20 thousam~ square feet, and does act wish to reduce that figure in Village Areas. He would not oppose it, but would 1 ~ke the Beard to keep the frontage requirements than the total area of th~ let. Mr. Barker - 50 thousand square feet was too much, and belie~e~ between 30 thousan~ and 40 thousand square feet is large enough for a Country Residential Area. It was stated from the floor in such instances in Country Residential Distriets, the Marbleridge Road section, down to Salem Street have a requir~i frontage. In Rural Residen- tial areas it requires an aero or more to build, and due to the irregular shape of lots it wi]_l be a ker~ship to s~bdivide the lan~. Judge Thomson - As it may apply to Village Area or Residential Areas, if you will refer to the map,~it goes around south of Sut-bon Street known as the Peer Field. W~ is, it designated as Vtllege Residential when the ~_-_~d was taken by the City of Lawrence for air-port expansion? How can it be said reasonable an area of land taken for extension for the air-po~t be a VLllage Residential Area? He:' stated it may not he controlled by the Mr. Blackw~_11 replied the question of jurisdiction of the P~=~-tnE Bear~ in zoning would be adopted or not for an area to be controlled by the air-pert Commission. The Planning Board eon be sure to recommend to the Town either to zone or not to zone any part of the Tows. The particular situation cf that lend is that the air-port Cemmissio~ Consult- any provided eom,~ ssion it was not wise for the air-pe~t as a whole for that t~_wt~ for an extension of a run-way, more nearly par~ll el to the river an~ par-11 al to the corner of Sutton Street. Mr. Blackwell recommended it be zoned, and wo~ld like to defer further discussion of the Vtllage Area on the map until Section 3 is dis~,-ssed. The gentlem_a~ from 33 ~m Street - In the words allowe~ in Section A.15 which include radar, etc., this group wo~ld all=~ 15thousan~ feet ~ocycles, and that sort of thing should be looked into clearly as it may cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Black ~11 in reply - The Xegisiative provided by the statute that pub].ic facilities nee~ not abide by so~r~ regulations, if after the Public Hear~, the State Public ~orks Commissio grants them license~ the thought was electric power li~es, electric transmission iines. Father fr~ Merr4m-ek Co]_lege - With radio and T.V. facilities in Mex~m~ck College woul~ the by-laW not interfere with the~? Mr. Chairman au~vised b~m, it was perm~ ssable in schools. ! Attorney McNiff - referred to Sections 4.36 and 4.04 which has no reference to ~wellings. He state~ if it was permissable to put dwellings in a B~siness District, it ~ho~ld be allowed in an Industrial District. Attorney ~alisbury - referred to ~ection 3.84, parcel of lan~ at Turnpike ~n~ Hillside Road, the owner of this parcel being W~3~iam B. Keut, whom he represents, wishes it te be re-zoned ~or Business. Mr. Kent does net wish his lan~ to be zoned In~uetrial. 174 ~une 20, 1956 p~lic Hearing Dr. Rogers - Would like the Board to consider puttAng a triangle of land on the wes~ side of Osgood Street, Betweea Sutton Street and P~l~oad right ef way Ante Rural Residential instead of Co, try Residential, which includes apprexi~ely 4 residences. Mr. Barker- ex~we~ to stop the 'Industrial Distric* below ~kis house. Mr. Blackwall answered Judge Thompson's and Hr. ~hanm's questions. ~he 'ma~ on · illage Residential Districts Is zoned Vi~_lage Residential, (farmfieldS). It seems it would have been a ch~ge in the intontie~s of the Air-por~ Oommission as to actual use of that land. It see~d advisable not to leave a hole An the zo-~g map. He thought it wise in that area considering sewerage availability and traffic facilities , because Moody Street has the last sewerel~-e ex*~ending in that area that the Village ReSidential District boundary is 3.53 by 125', easterly from Moody Street center line e~ to include An Village Residential all the se~res tha~ t ~w~re there. Mr, Di~auro- Enough sewerage, and if we had lot sizes $,~l~ed, wereould have mare sewerage.' A gentlemen, arose and expressed the land near Peters, Turnpike Streets and Ohiaker/~ Road should be kept as it is presently~ Mr. ~iff - Section 3.4, wobbling is legally ambig~a~t. Secti~s 3.5 and 3.51, An ¥~qqage P~sidential An behalf of 2~ or so Do~m To~ Merchants wish to extend the business depth 350' from Main Street. The Board would have to change Section 3.51, where it~ reads easterly by a line parale~_l to form center line of ~ Street etc., There was further co~..~nt concer~Ang the ~iangle on Peters and Turnpike: Streetd. One of the residen+~ was strongly opposed to a~y business operating ~n that district. ~r. Dt~cio . was opposed also. Hr. Driecoll - does not think that peopose who h~ve lived in the Town for 10 years should control when some people have been residents for 50 to 75 years. 1/c~iff - The Main Street Merchants are opposed to zoning the triangle of Peters, T~rnpike Streets for ~usiness. He was informed that the Board will take ~he matter under a~visement. ~e~iff - Instep/ of 225' depth downtown would l~ke it exteded to 350 ~ · He stated it would then w~e the residential property ava~.able to the merchants for business expansion. Mr. ~icetta replied the land w~3~ ~be taxed for business if this is done. MoNiff - referred to the new freeway being built, which crosses N,,~- Street, with further depth they will be able to expand. Mr. Blackwe~_l replied he thought the present downtown area expansion is folly. He not recommend zoning business at different spots, it should be zoned An one general area He suggested voting in the neighborhood of the Driscoll, Burke, Fre~*~ and Rennie. Mr. Difruscio was opposed, and also Mrs. MeQueston who thinks the presont down town should be extended. Father from He~=Imaek 0ollege - expressed to the citizens of ~or~h Andover that there is a large investment on Wilsons Oorner and if areas are zoned Industrial around the College