Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-24Tuesda~ - October 24, 1972 Continued Hearin~ The BOARD OF APPEALS held a meeting on Tuesday evening, October 24, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. at the North Andover High School auditorium. The following members were present and voting: J. Philip Ars~_~ult, Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk~ ArShur R. Drummond, Fr_~k Serio, Jr. and Associate Member Louis DiFrusciQ who sat in place of Kenneth Pickard. Associate Member W~ll~em N. Salemme was also present but not voting. . This is a continued hearing on the petition of John J. Gaffny for a special Permit under Section ~.122~ Para. (14) of the Ze~ By-Law so as to permit the conversion of the Stovo~s F~tlls b,,~l~4mgs to residential use. There were approx. ~00 people present. Ohair~_~_u Arsenault explained the procedures of the B~ard and order of presentations. Atty. John J. Willis spoke and said he is appearing for the petitioner Joh~ J. ~affny who seeks conversion of the Stevens Mills. He expl_~4ned that under the law the Board of Appeals has a limited function,- this is a special permit and the Board only has to find that the permit meets all of the specific regulations of the Zoning By-Law. This is not a variance. Special permits are aa a~lo~ed use and subject to general er specific regulations. They seek to convert Stevens MAi1 as a permitted use. He presented Exhibit "A": The Zoning By-Law of the to~n of North Andover amd read Section ~.122, Para. (14) aloud. He said this special permit ce~£orms with all of the specific regulations in the Zoning By-Law and meets the stat'.,tory requirement and is in harmany with the intent and general purpose of the Zo~4-~ By-Law. There are two things to qualify for the permit; meet the statute require- ments and meet -~ requirements for the special permit. There are~ requirements: 1. Has to be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning By-Law. He presented Exhibit "B" - Page 25 from the Master Plan. Exhibit "C" - news editorial in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, Friday, Oct. 6, 1972. , He said the Special Toga Meeting of Ju~e 5, 1972 changed th~s industrial district to Residence-4+ district; and he presented the z~p4w8 map. Exhibit "D~ was a letter from the Planning Board dated Oct. 5, 1972. He read several provisions of the Zoning By-La~, all of which they meet. He said the specific site is appropriate and is a desirable area for development. There are multi-d~el~ ~ugs in the area.~ He said the people present have referred to this particular section ef the By-law as a" sleeper" . Act;,~l~y, this had been under consideration for over t~o years by the P2~ug Board and Plamning Advisory Committee. An article in the Tribune on May 5, 1972 refers to this section of the Zoning By-law and the possible conversion of Stevens Mill. The uses will not adversely affect the neighborhood. They would be removing a non-conforming industrial use and reverting it to residential use. He. t~ked with the police chief with respect to traffic ~ho said that it wo~ld be no more or less than when the plant was operating. Cars will come and go but not in large volume. October 24, 1972 - conto If industrial use was allowed, there would be trucks, noise, odors, etc. If the building wa~ left to decay there would be vaudalim, it ~ould bec~e an eye-sore, would be ,a fire hazard and hazardous to ch~.dren, The values of the ho~es in the a~.ea would be increased. There would be n~ nmtsonce or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. They have provided adequate off-street parking. The right of way between Ha~kaway Rd. and Phillips Ct. ~ be retained. The facility has adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities. He read a letter from the .Board of Public Works saying that everythimg is sufficient to support a project of this type. He said that after a conference with the supt. of schools it was indicated that with the opening of the new high school there will be a change and readjustment in the allotment to the various schools, They ~ill provide recreations areas, tennis courts, basketball, etc. as required. There will be hydrants and a sprinkler system and there will be ~ drainage preble~. The school dept. report of Oct., 1970 stated that there is one child to every 5 apartment units. There are mere children in the ordinary 2 & 3 tenement houses than in an apartment house. Using the school dept. figures, there would be ~Ochildren fro~this project. 86 duplexhouses can g~ on this parcel and using these figures of 2 ia every 3 units there could be 56 children; fre~ ~9 single family homes there wouldbe 29 children;from 180 to~nh~uses there, would be 121 cB~!~en. The present tax retura from this property is $25,000. The average tax return. for apartments is $?O - $80,000, which means an increase of $50,0OO. The total valuation wouldbe $7OO- $800,000. Stevens turned over to the town all of the rights they bad to flow the lands around Lake Cochichewick, rights to the "Hatch' and a sa~ll parcel of la~d nea~ the bathing beach. They ret~ed the right to use the water as they had been. If this is granted, they will deed the right te the to~n for no cansideration of the use of the water. The tax return an multi-faetily would be $3,795 per unit; en single and duplex families it would be $1,&35. There are approx. 37 children on the street near this area. The educatio,~ cost is $700 each which equals $26,0OO. There is only a $20,000 tax return of all houses in the area. There would be a $75,000 tax return fro~ the multi-family umits. There are ~o apartments in town that can be c~led a slum. Mr. La, ars and ~r. Gaff~y are residents of the town and are concerned over what happens to it. Mr. Landers is retaining substantial abutting land.. Donald N. Keirstead, PlanuingBoard member, spoke and said that Board has been concerned with the high cost ef homes being developed in to~n. Most of the present apartments have high rents. The Pla~ingBoardhas attempted to create lower cost housing for the average working man. They October 24, 1972 - cont. created the conversion prevision so that existing buildings could be used to provide for residents of the to~n. Three deveIopers had approached ~he Board for the conversion of Stevens M~ll s. The Board did not want to see the mill properties deteriorate. This seems to ~e an ~appropriate use and included that area in the Z~n~n~ By-law. This conversion was discussgd at an open public meeting with no one speaking ag-~st it. Joseph Hermann, Assessor, said he had been designated by :the Board of Assessors not to be openly for or a~st this petition but to inform the Board what effect this ~ould have on the taxes. This type of 'preperty if Ieft would deteriOrate very quickly. Presently, apartments are assessed at $~00 per unit. The Assessors would like to see a broadening of the tax base and am~ property that can broaden the tax base would help the town. Fire Chief Daw spoke and said that if the entire building is preperly sprinkled, it would be satisfac tory to the Fire Dept. Mrs. Richard Kimball, president of League of Women Voters, spoke and said there is a need of units for moderate income families in the town. During the past ~ years the League has been evaluating'the town's housing. The rents are estimated at $130 to $180 per~ month for these apartments. Vincent Landers, ~0 Court St., owner of the parcel of land, Lives near the mill. He said he' took over the mill in April of last year and has bean unable to find a tenant for the mill. He does not want to tear down the b,,~l~_~g. If the mill is converted, it ~ enhance the area and these apartments would help everyone. Ralph Norgran, 357 Osgood St., an abutter, endorses the change of making the mills residential. Mrs. Horatio Rogers, 580 Osgood St., said that the presarvhtien of the m4~ means a great deal because of its historic value. She th~ks the conversion would be a beautiful way to preserve it. The e~-eers and architects were alse present. The Board members asked several questions. Mr. Fa~wing, the registered architect, of Boston, expl-~ned that the existing sprinkling system would have to be modified. He expl-~ed that the square footage allowed for each apartment is more than is required by the Zoning By-law. They were unable to give an estimated cost per unit but did say that the estimated total cost of the project would be from $3 - $~ million. They can supply more figures afte~ all of the requirements are determined. Mr. Landers said the transformers would be removed and transformer pads put nearer to the buildings. Mrs. Christine Peabody, 13 Concord St., asked what need would be f~!~ed by this project. Atty. Willis said it will take care of laborers, to~n employees, college grads and people of middle income. October 2~, 1972- cont. Gilda Blackstock, ~0 phillips Ct., said that Mr. Norgren does not reside on Osgood St., he owes the property. Noreen Toomy, 32 Harkaway Rd., said there are 16 children on that road. ~hen the mill was there, they know what time the cars would be going by. With the apartments, there will be constant traffic. Spea~i-ginopposition: Atty. Herbert Ph4~4ps, 91 Main St., Haverhi]_l, spoke in behalf of a large portion of the people present. He presented a petition cont~-~-~ 1165 signatures to be filed with the Board as opposing the ~granting of ~he special permit. Atty. W~llis objected to the submission of pstitiens. Atty. Arsenault asked %hatAtty. Willis writehis objections and give them to the Board. He said somsthing~ill appear in the decision about the presentation of petitions. Atty. Phillips gave each member a copy of brief arguments h'e will present. He said this is a situatiOm that goes to the heart of a to~n. In 1969, apartments were stricken from the Zoning By-law{ there are presently approx. 1500 apart~ ment units existing in North Aadover. The petition should fail because it does not come within the requirements of Section 9.3 of the Zo~n~ By-law. It ~ould adversely afTect the neighborhood. This ~s a traffic h~sard. The petition needs a ~-1 vote and he asks that it be unanimously denied. The abutters to abutters were not notified. It violates the height restriction according to Section 6, page 29 - building cannot exceed 35 feet. He said Mr. Keirstead spoke, but not on behalf of the Planning Board; he does not see a letter delegating him. He mentioned that' Mr. Keirstead said the Master Plan was not John Brown's but the Planning Board's - he does not agree. Atty. Phillips referred to the Master P~_~_~, page 33, ~hich refers to the open space system - the future land-use plan placed the mill in recreation and open space. Page 50, community facilities plan, showed open space and conservation for the mill property. There is a traffic and safety problem. The impact of the new high School will create a problem ~ the area. Industry does not have an impact on the school system. He said many more people would be opposed if more time was given. People who PaY taxes deserve some conaideratienby the Board. No evidence was shown as ~o compliance with the ~etlands Act. This property is still anon-conforming use, he has 2more years. There are other uses that could be done, suCh as a public or private schoolJ Density is an important point. This Board should feel the pulse of the town. He asked them to seriously consider the petition within 9Odays since it was filed in September. October 24, 1972- cont. Raymond Cauty, Phillips Ct., spoke in o~position. He pointed out the large number of children from other apartment complexes in the town. He said that the children from Heritage Green now go to school in buses. The new high school will bring more traffic; there are no sidewalks. It is net a proper location to bring in children; there are bodies of water close by. S%even~ Oorne~ is a 6-corner intersection, is dangerous and there are ne sidewalks. It will adversely affect the neighborhood. The people plead with you to de~ the s~ecial permit for con- version. William Crowe, 320 Stevens St., came from Long Island, 'N. Y. and saw it turn to a city from apartments being built and changing its character. Steven Guerrera, 8~ Academy Rd., questioned w~at would happem to this 20 years from new. He stressed open SPace and conservation and suggested that the mill b,,tl~t~g be used as a ~set~m. Fred Blackstock, ~0 Phillips Ct., said he worked in Stevens Mill for ~0 years until it closed. He speaks for many concerned residents of the area. Apartments were taken out of the Zoning By-law and the people don't want them hack. This conversion circumvents not allowing apartments. Other communities have converted in this same way but not successf,,11y. Further apartments should not be a~lowed. This could probably mean more new schools. There would be a traffic problem, echool buses, children walking, etc. ~roper consideration should be given this matt~~the Board. John ~e~, 122 Stevens St., said he did not receive notice. Ne asked if the project is in keeping with the master plan. Ne said Stevens St. should be widened, sidewalks should be put on Stevens St. and other streets. The traffic problem would be worse tbm~ the already existing one. What would be the cost of services required by the town. There would be additional requirement of fire and police protection and town services. Will the developer provide services forever? There would be au increased burden to the library. There would be pollution effects. Are the water mains adequate? Has the town studied the sewer system? This should be analyzed for the next 20 years, not the present. There are many unanswered questions. Who are the financial backers? This should be presented to a town meeting; the project ehould be analyzed by town officials. Jim Noble, 11 Edmands Rd., said the nmnbers don't seem to add up. Is this project going to come vnder ~D or some such program? Joan Fiorino, 288 Pleasant St., objected and said she had not received notice. Chairman Arsenault said he wants to limit the rebuttal to the issues covered by the opposition. Atty. Willis said that there is provision in the Zoning By-law for apartmonts - R-5 is zoned for apartments. There are ne other buildings tn North Andover that can be converted. The plans show the installation of utilities. The Board has 60 days to make a decision; the law was amended. Accor~,~g to the state, Osgoed Street is a main highway. Sidewalks will be provided on beth sides of Osgood St. There are five houses on Harkaway Rd. and they are the only ones that have a legitimate excuse for traffic. They are going to provide a facility where aL1 children will be able to use them. Cars cannot be elimimsted. They are not changing the environment - are changing the use. The water facilities are adequate - there is am 8" water main on Harkaway Rd. and a 12" main on Osgood St. October 24, 1972 - cont. Stevens St. has 108 lbS. static pressure; OSgeod St. has 114 lbs. static pressure. The Zoning By-law requires a certain number of parking spaces per unit and this requirement is met. Notice was given publicly in the newspaper. The Superior Court saYs that's all that is necessary. The Board notified those abutters deemed necessary. The fact that there are people present even though they were not notified shows that they are aware of the meeting. · The petitioner will maintai~ the roads, pick up rubbish, plow snow, etc. Apartments show $106.55 profit per unit; other $39.77 profit per ,,~t. Mr. Keirstead spoke on a point of clarification; he was the acting chairmen at that particular meetimg of the Planning Board and it was the ~m~'~mous vote of the Board to support this petition. Chairman Arse~ault read the letter from the Planning Board to everyone present. Michael Schena, 102 Hillside Road, wanted to clarify some points and vas not speaking for or ag~i-st the petition. He said there seems to be alot of opposition in ~town to Just anything. The Planning Board and P.A.C. worked hard for many hours on the master plan and zoning by-law. Doesn't sge anyone present that came to · any meetings - don't wait until it~ in your back yard end then complain. He is comcerned where the children of the town are going to live. Atty. Phillips montioned What requirements had to be met under Chapter ~OA, Section &. This project violates pre-requisites. This building is be~-g put up to make a dollar. Section 9.31 of the Zoning By-law has not been met. The Board can't find that this specific site is an appropriate location or will not adversely affect the neighborhood. There is a hazard, an increase in facilities, etc. He asks that the Board deny the special permit. Atty. Willis doesn't think he should be denied rebuttal. He said there is no location that is better suited than this area. The Board has dual responsibilities to the abutters and to the petitioner. The Board cannot be influenced by numbers or emotions. If this complies with all of the regulations, the Board must act favorably. Atty. Phillips said he objects to any heresaY evidence in ~riting. ChairmanArsenault said the Boa~ ~ consider written objections of the petitioner and the opposition. Mr. DiFruscio made a motion to take the petition m~der advisement; Mr. 8erio Seconded the motion and the v~te was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at il:30 P.M. Chairman (J. Phi~p Arseaault ) Secret