Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-19Tuesday - December 19, 1972 Special Meeting The BOARD OF APPEALS held a special meeting on Tuesday afternoon, Dec. 19, 1972 at 3:0OP.M. in the Town Office Building meeting room with the following members present and voting: J. Philip Arsenault, Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; Arthur R. Drummond, Frank Serio, Jr. and Associate Member Louis DiFruscio. The Board had called this meeting after the special town meeting in order to see what town meeting action had taken place relative to the amendments to the Zoning By-Law concerning conversions. The town meeting had voted to strike the conversion section and insert a new section allowing conversion of dwellings up to five units. There were three people present; Atty. John Willis, Jay Willis and Mr. Ronayne, of Stevens Street. The Board met to decide what to do about the signing of the plans for the Stevens Mill conversion. Chairman Arsenault said he had checked all of the rules and regulations and could find nothing that makes the signing of the plans a requirement; however, the Board is obligated to file the decision. He said he would write the decision and file it with the Town Clerk. He explained that town meeting action makes this a non- conforming use. He doesn't think more conditions can be added other than what was voted at the time of the original vote. Chairman Arsenault told Atty. Willis that he would not be allowed to say anything, in fairness, because the other side is not represented. Member Beliveau said he is opposed to the petition; that he has had several changes of heart since the vote was taken. He apologizes to everyone for the trouble. He said the reason he did not si~n the plaus was because of the town meeting, which he feels would give us the voice of the town. If the town meeting had voted other- wise, he would have sio~ed the plans, but the Board should be the representative of the people and they voiced their opinion at town meeting. North Andover is a nice town, has a good tax rate, a good school system, is a nice looking town, etc. He has compared North Andover to other towns and communities and thinks North Andover is anice place. The apartments that are presently here are good apartments and he doesn't think we need any more apartments. He realizes he has made a mistake and he will not sign the plans. At first he was opposed to the conversion, then when changes were made, he was for it but now he doesn't think North Andover needs any more apartments. The building is sound, but it's too big to be lived in. Most of the rear of the building is parking area not open green space. He felt this was not discussed enough when the new Zoning By-Law was adopted; the people were not aware of what could take place. Nothing was said about the potential of conversion of Stevens Mill. The townspeople are against apartments. This part of the Zoning By-Law was a "sleeper". The average person in town does not know what is in the Zoning By-Law. The Zoning By-Law is only a few months old; the town made a mistake when this was voted in, that's the reason they voted it out. He feels very strongly against it and would like to change his vote. He said the Board should reflect the will of the town. A few people should not place this burden on the town. He feels we would be going beyond the powers of the Board of Appeals. Dr. Beliveau then made a motion that, because of town meeting action, we vote to reconsider the last vote of the Board granting the special permit for lA& apart- men~s. k December 19, 1972 - cont. Member Drummond said that the people at town meeting were all of the abutters and their friends, it is not a vote of the overall town. We did not bungle this; we did what we had to do according to the statutes. Member Beliveau said he feels we have made a mistake and we can reconsider the vote and do what the town wants. Member Drummond said we have made our decision, let the courts decide. Member Belive~x said if we denied the petition, it would be clear cut, then let it go to court. Chairman Arsenault said we have an obligation to act on this petition and the fact that the town meeting took place does not change our obligation. He per- sonally doesn't think this is a qood thing for the town but there are rules that we must act by - you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Our rules provide for reconsideration of decisions and a decision was made,now we must act on the motion for reconsideration. Mr. Serio seconded the motion and the vote was Members Serio, Beliveau and Arsenault voting yes and Members DiFruscio and Drummond voting no. The motion failed because a vote must be unanimous or ~-l in order to pass. Chairman Arsenault said he doesn't see anyway around the rules; we must now write the decision. The Board then proceeded to discuss how the decision should be written and what it should contain. Chairman Arseuault stated that the Board has to make affirma- tive findings that all conditions of the Zoning By-Law have been met. The Board discussed additional conditions to be placed and unanimously agreed that the chairman include them in the decision. Atty. Willis said anything that happened after the November 13th meeting should not be included in the decision - he wants fairness. He does not object to some- thing being said about the plans but if this is going ~o court, can you imagine how it will look. Chairman Arsenault said he did not agree with Mr. Willis. He will record that a vote was taken to reconsider; all actions taken before and after the decision are pertinent. Atty. Willis said make it a part of minutes but not the decision - it's not fair. The additional conditions to be included are as follows: That the petitioner shall be responsible to maintain all roadways in the project and that said roadways or streets servicing the building shall be msfutained as a private way and town acceptance shall not be sought. This maintenance shall include street lighting, plowing, rubbish collections and garbage disposal. That a bond in the amount of $25,000 be filed with the Town of North Andover for the provision of the recreation areas and recreation facilities as shown on the plan submitted. December 19, 1972 - cont. That the subject permit is issued to the applicant, John J. Gaffny, and shall not be transferrable or assi~qned. That a fire lane be provided from Stevens Street to the southerly corner of the build~ng. That the building be entirely sprinkled, as stated by. the Fire Chief. Member Beliveau objected to the new plans because they did not comply with the Board's vote of 76- one bedroom and 30%- two bedroom apartments. He found the ratio to be71% and 29%. A copy of the decision will be sent to each abutter also, as required by Statute. The Board found that the requirements of the Zoning By-Law under Section 4.122, Paragraph (14), sub-paragraph B. Application, numbers I through il, were in order. Sub-paragraph C. Conditions precedent to granting of permit: No. l, Land Area - are in order. Lot area is in excess of the requirements. No. 2. Parking - in order; meets all requirements. No. 3. Construction. The proposal contains no major exterior structural ch~uges. No. ~. Design: In order; meets all requirements. No. 5. Sewers: The Board of Public Works stated the facilities are adequate. No. 6. Water: The water supply is available and adequate. Under Section 9.31 -Condition for Approval of Special Permit, the Board finds that in its Judgment all of the following conditions are met: (1) (a) The site would be more appropriate for this type of development than townhouses, which would be an alternative to the development of this area. (b) The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood. (c) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. (d) Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The meeting adjourned at 5:OOP.M. Chairman Secretary