Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-02-28Monday - February 28, 1972 Special Meeting - 6 Re-zoning Hearings The PLANNING BOARD held a special meeting on Monday evening, February 28, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. in the Fire Station meeting room with the following members~ present and voting: Charles W. Trombly, Jr., Chairman; John J. Monteiro, Secretary; William Chepulis and Robert J. Burke. Donald N. Keirstead was unable to attend due to illness. This meeting was called in order to hold public hearings upon six petitions for re- zoning. There were over 100 people present. 1. HEARING: Edward J. Phelan. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Edward J. Phelan to re-zone a parcel of land at Belmont and Marblehead Streets from Village Residence to Industrial "L". Mr. Edward Phelan spoke in his own behalf and as representing the Edward J. & Jane Phelan Trust, owners of the property. He explained that their plumbing, heating and air conditioning company is located in the old building near Grogan's field which has been there for man~ years and has always been used for some type of business use. He said they need office space and they would extend the building at the ramp area; there would be no other major changes, except to improve the property. Theirs is mostly contract work and there is not much traffic. It is presently a non-conforming use so that he can't expand unless the area is re-zoned. Mr. Alfred Hepburn, 51 Columbia Rd. and Robert Blaine, 82 Belmont St. asked several questions and were concerned because of the playground nearby and the number of children in the area; also that if the property ever changed ownership almost any- thing could be there if the area was re-zoned. Mr. Chepulis explained the Industrial "L" & "S" classifications. This would be extending the Industrial "L" area~ as it is zoned directly across the street. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Burke seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Warren J. O'Brien and others. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Warren J. O'Brien and others to re-zone from Village Residence to General~siness a parcel of land on Massachusetts Avenue at the corner of Danvers Street near Rte. 495. Atty. Robert J. White represented the petitioners and showed a plan of the area involved. He explained that there are 3 houses presently on the premises that would be removed. This would be an extension of an already existing business zone since Webber Lumber Co..iirectly abuts the property. He said O~Brien, Ursillo and Cook are the 3 present owners and occupy the homes. There is an option on the property with a zoning contingency. The following people spoke in opposition: Mrs. Mary Barron, 129 Massachusetts Ave. Mr. DeMarco, 31 Fernwood St. Evelyn Swarbrick,~ immediate abutter, Mass. Ave. John Lawlor, ll6Massachusetts Ave. Kenneth Chenard, 14 Eimwood St. Paul Anderson, 12 Elmwood St. Ben Perrone, Harwood St. S. Fichera, 20 Elmwood St. William McMahon, CommonWealth Ave. Mrs. Napolitano, Elmwood St. Claire Blaine, Belmont St. Edward Scanlon, PerleYRoad February 28, 1972 - cont. After questioning, Atty. White said that a gasoline station is proposed by Socony- Mobil. f'n '1, ~:,1 owin Everyone that spoke in opposition gave %heZreas~ns: 1. There are many children that live in the area, the playground is directly across the street and would create more of a traffic hazard than already exists. There have already been several accidents in the area with children being hurt. 2. The neighborhood is basically a single family area and not a busLness area. The only people that will benefit from this will be the gas company and the 3 people owning the land under option. 3- There are already 17 gasoline stations in North Andover~ 2 of which are in the immediate area - the town does not need another gas station. on an 18 hour day. Mr. Chepulis questioned the accuracy of the traffic survey. He also noted that the plan showed a 50 ft. high sign. He explained that once the area was re-zoned to businesst arching could go in besides a gas station, even a hamburger stand. A petition was also presented to the Board with signatures of people opposed. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Burke seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Davis & Furber Machine Co. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Davis & Furber Machine Co. to re-zone from General Business to Village Residence a parcel of land at the corner of Water and Church Streets. Atty. Domenic Scalise represented the petitioner. He said that 3 lots comprise the area and had been before the Board of Appeals for subdivision. There are 3 houses on the lots that have been there many years. The G.I. Shoe Fix is in the corner bldg. ~avis & Furber Machine Co. wants the area zoned Village Residential; they plan td sell the houses. Two people asked questions just to clarify the area con- cerned. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unarlimous. 4- HEARING: Davis & Furber Machine Co. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Davis & Furber Machine CO. to re-zone from Industrial "S" to Village Residence a parcel of land on Water Street and Clarendon Street. Atty. Domenic Scalise explained that this area had been divided into lots for the presently existing houses and a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals. That Board had granted the variance subject to the area being re-zoned to Village Residence, which Davis & Furber is now attempting to do. February 28, 1972 - cont. William Bamford, 168 Water Street, spoke for a group of people that would like to purchase the houses from Davis & Furber and asked what assurance they could have that the area would be re-zoned. The Board members explained that it depended upon town meeting action and that they'should be sure to attend to vote for it. Mrs. Ethel Petreau, 150 Water Street and Barbara Eldredge, 142 Water Street also spoke for the re-zoning. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Chepulis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 5. HEARING: Davis &Furber Machine Co. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Davis & Furber Machine Co. to re-zone from Country Residence to Industrial "S" a parcel of land on the easterly side of High Street and Prescott Street. Atty. Domenic Scalise explained that Davis & Furber wish to make the entire parcel industrial because there is just a small fringe area that is presently residential. The area contains approx. ~ or 5 acres. Edward Scanlon, Perley Road, asked what John Brown recommended for this area. The Board informed him that it is recommended for Village Residence i or 2. Charles Foster, Bldg. Insp., explained that this strip of land was originally to be used as a buffer to the present residential area. Atty. Scalise said that the company has no thoughts of selling the property at present and he doubts that they have any plans of building on the industrial area. It would probably stay as a buffer zone. James Poor, High St., objected; there would be an increase i~f industrial traffic. Mr. & Mrs. Henry Libbey~ Prescott St., objected; there are many children in the area. Mr. Libbey presented a petition with signatures of people opposed. C~ Mr. Hepburn said he thinks Davis & Furber is going to sell the land to someone for an industrial park and he is against it. Ed Scanlon said John Bro~n's recommendations should be followed and leave the area as it is. Mr. Burke made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 6. HEARING: Davis & Furber Machine Co. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Davis & Furber Machine Co. to re-zone from Village Residence to Industrial "S" a parcel of land on the westerly side of High Street. Atty. Domehic Scalise said this is another parcel that Davis & Furber wants to ex- tend to industrial zoning. Ed Scanlon said John Brown's recommendations should be followed on this parcel of land also. He said industrial traffic could go into that area from Sutton Street and create serious traffic problems in a highly residential area. There is a 50 ft. entrance to the property from Perley Road which could create a problem. February 28, 1972 - cont. Wilfred Windle, Perley Road also brought out the fact that trucks could go in from Perley Road. Leonard Windle, High St. was opposed for m~ny reasons. He thinks Davis & Furber is trying to make an alternative package for sale of the property. There would be many hazards if the area is zoned industrial. If Davis & Furber has any feelings for the abutters they would leave the area residential. There is no hardship involved. The market value of the Davis & Furber land would increase and the value of the residences would be decreased. This would bring more industrial traffic to an already hazardous area. The planning consultant recommends the area to be village residential and it should stay that way. He presented a petition signed by a number of neighbors in opposition. Charles Foster agreed with Ed Scanlon, that John Brown's recommendations ~or that area should be followed. As a member of the P.A.C., he is opposed and recommends that the Planning Board take under consideration that John Brown has designated other large areas in town for industrial use and that this area should be lef~t residential. Mrs. McQuesten, High Street; Mrs. Libbey and James Poor were also recorded as opposed. Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Strobel, 3~ Columbia Rd. were ~lso opposed. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to take the petition under advisements Mr. Burke seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Chairman Trombly stated that the Boar~ ~ould vote on this evening's petitionSat their next regular meeting on Monday evening, March 6, 1972. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. (Charles W. Tromhly) Chairmmu Clerk