HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-06-08Monday - June 8, 1964
Regular Meeting & Hearings
Th. Board of Appeals held their regular meeting ca Monday evening, June 8, 1964
at 7:30 P.M. at the Fire Station meeting roM, hecause t__b~_ Board anticipated a large
attendance. The following a~__~bers were present and voting= Daniel T. O'Leary,
Chairing-'; ~Fzlliam Morton, Secretary; Henry E. Lurid, Arthur D~,~ud and John J.
Shields.
1. WALTER R. WOODBUR~: 7:30 P.~.
At this time there were 12 people present, secretary Morton read the legal notice is
the appeal of Nalter R. Woodburn who requested a variation of Sec. 6.3, Pare. 6.33 of
the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of 79,200 sq. ft. of land into two lots,
each containing 39,600 sq. feet on the premises, located at the southwest aide of
Boston Street, at the corner of S,,llivan Street and known as 194 Boston St.
Mr. Woodburn represented ~m-~elf and explained that he rants to divide the land into
two house lots. Another lot was passed by the Planning Board, which measures 44,050
sq. ft.
Mr. Erank Rullo, an abutter, was recorded in favor and said this would help the area
by getting more houses there.
Opposed:
Sam Solomon, an abutter, was opposed. Be said their reasons were not adequate.
asked Mr. Woodtatrn if the house that is on the other lot of land had bee~ sold.
the party here at the hearing? Was this sold prior to this hearin~
He
Is
Mr. Woodburn answeredte~_t the house was sold last Thursday.
Mr. Solomon asked if he was asking for the variance for personal g~,.
Mr. Woodburn said no. The money w~l~ be used for another house in North Andover.
Nothing is being taken a~y from N. Andover. This land has belonged in his family
for many years.
Mr. Solomon asked if he wtl~ continue to live in this area. Mr. Woodburn said he is
going to live on Osg°od St.
Mr. Solomon said he is opposed to outting this land up. It is just for personal gain.
It would take a~ay from the appearance of the neighborhood. He doean~t ~t to see a
precedent set here ~ cutting up this land.
Mr. Fred Bootbm~ said he ~derstands this land is Jointly owned.
Mr. Woodburn said no, he owns 34 acres in the hack, ~hieh is an island, he ~annot get
to it.
Mr. Boothman said he is against cutting up the land in that area, would create a
sewerage problem. There is very poor land there.
Mrs. Fred Chase was opposed for the same reasons.
Mr. ~,llo said some lots in the area have 125 foot frontage , wh~ ~h~uldn~t ha be
June 3, 1~ - Cont.
Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Solomon asked Mr. Rullo if he was Nr~ Woodburnts real eatmte agent. Mr. Rullo
said he is here as friend. That doesn't have anythi~ to do with the hearing. The
Board members said that question was out of order, that it had nothing to do with
the hearing.
2. COCHICHEWIC£ REALTY CORP~: 7:45
There were now approx. 50 people present*
Secretary M~rt~n read the legal notice in the appeal of Cochichewick Realty Corp. who
requested earth removal permission under Sec. 5, Para. 5.1, 5.2 & 5.3 of the Zoning
By-Law so as to permit the removal of fill, sand and gravel fram 76 acres, more or
less, on the premises located at the southwest side of Boxford Street, hounded by
land of Thomas, Farrell, Cole, Kittredge & Chaplin. Mr. Shields disqualified him-
self from sitting on this hearing; it will be heard with 4 members.
Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioner. He explained that they hat been
before the Board for an inform-1 meeting as to wh_~t would be necessary to continue
this gravel operation. Mr. Harry Thomas was the pr~-~ opposition. They have met
with Mr. Thomas and his counsel and there are certain limitations which he would
like to place upon this operation such as:
1. The time of operation be limited, shall not operate prior to 7 A.M. or later
than 6 P.M.
2. Prior to continuing any further operation, that area that Mr. Thomas objected
to be cleaned up to satisfaction. This is now in progress.
3. Retain enough coverage to the area to sustain vegetation, not to require any
more th~. what is there now.
4. Re~n a% all times as least 25 feet from property lines. There is some question
about what distance from Boxford St. Mr. Shields does not intend to do any excavating
near the street.
This pit has been in operation for a considerable number of years. Mr~ ~ent has
hauled fill on many occasions prior to the zoning laws. They want to perform in
accordance with the zcaxing by-laws and follow any reasonable requests made by the
Board. They suggest the bonzt should be in the _~mo_unt of $1,000.
Atty. Finck said they are not against the pit . His client is willing to go along
with the operation as long as he follows the rules, etc. He asked the Building
Inspector if he had any recommendations.
Mr. Foster the Buil~n~ Inspector said he had the following recommendations to
1. The slope of the floor of the excavation should not exceed a 5% grade.
2. Where the excavating approaches lot lines a slope or pitch of 4 - 1 be maintained.
3. A proposed plan of drainage be submitted to the Bldg. Insp. and Board of Appeals.
Such plan to .be approved by both before a permit is issued.
4. The portion of the area in question fronting on Boxford St. be restored as nearly
as possible to its original condition as regards slope, top soil & drainage for a
depth of 30O ft.
June 8, 1964- Cont.
5. The lot lines should be clearly mA~ked in some m~ner.
6. All Junk cars and non-registered vehicles be removed f~om the area as sho~n on the
plan submitted before a permit is issued.
The Board should set a distance back from the lot lines where the excavating could start.
Mr. O~Leary asked Mr. Foster what he would suggest.
Mr. Foster said a distance of 25 feet would be acceptable. Some sort of drainage plan
should be submitted since portions of the area are sva .~py. Could tell from the plan
what direction the water would be going. Give us some sort of plan for our records as
to drA~ nage.
There.~shSu~d :he restrictions making the time of operation during the day.
There should be enough top soil to sustain vegetation.
Mr. O'Leary asked what about over-loading trucks? Atty. W~2]is said that is a motor
vehicle requirement.
Mr. O'Leary said we have pits operati_~_~ in to~n with spilling on the roads. Atty.
Willis said the Registry would take care of spillage control. Mr. Shields intends to
comply ~ith all rules and regulations.
Atty. Finck said they have agreed to fix up the front prior to any excavating. Have
it made a part of the agreement to stake it .out. How much does ha intend to do at a
time?
Bldg. Insp. Foster suggested to the Board that the area that would be excavated be
the ~,ount of the bond. The Board should limit the operation, that top soil and
drainage be taken care of.
Atty. Finck said the area is pretty wet, what about the flow of ~ater? How far can
he go?
Atty. Willis said they intend to keep the top part much as it is now. The slppe
suggested would l~t any taking of b~ll~. One of the conditions will be to re-fill
where he has taken out. It is a wet area. We have areas of s~, there is no
drainage. The petitioner shouldn't have to drain a s~mp.
Mr. Foster said the Board should have something else besides a plan of the outline of
the land.
Atty. Willis said it becomes a civil matter if he drains.
Mr. Foster said one of the main features of a plan should be that it show that the
area will be drained in some manner. The Board and the Bldg. Insp. should inspect
the plan.
Atty. Finck asked what ~uld be done with the boulders and debris. Mr. Foster said
they should be buried in some ~anner.
June 8, 1964- Cont.
Mr. Lund made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Berry speaking for an abutter, Mr. Chaplin asked about the swamps & drainage.
Mr. O'Leary asked what Cochichewidk Realty Corp. consisted of.
Mr. Jay Shields said it consisted of ht--~elf and Gerald Xent. The cars belong to Eent,
but he will remove them; any material that canlt he used will be pushed t-to the swa~.
They will leave a natural brook.
3. HEARINGS: 8:00 P.M. - Alyce R. Colgate; Leonard Oates & Stafford, Stonehouse & Gilman:
There are now approx. 125-150(~eople present. Mr. Shields is sitting on this hearing,
making a full board.
There are three petitions for an apartment development for three different parcels of
land, but the three parcels are combined to make the apartment development.
Secretary Morton read the legal notices for the three petitions.
Chairman O'Leary rem~nded those present not to make any c _o~motion since it would delay
the hearings..
Norman Stafford spoke saying he was in favor of theeentire program.
Atty. Willis asked how the Board was going to hear these petitions? Mr. Morton made
a motion that it he considered as one parcel.
Mr. Leonard Oates said he was in favor. Atty. Willis said he has a legal stenographer
present for his own benefit.
Atty. Harry Silver, representing Mrs. Colgate, spoke in favor of the petitions. He
said this land has been proposed to erect ~ modern multiple housing ,,-1ts. Mrs.
Colgate is a wido~ and the land was left by her husband. She has made application so
that multiple housing units can be .out up. It isnlt going to be an eyesore to the
community. He is impressed by all of the people present and showing such a great
interest. It is intended that this particular unit is go, n8 to be a modern archi-
tectural apartment building and is going to be occupied by people who want to enjoy
the better things of life. Will have garbage disposal, automatic dishwashers, etc.
The apartments will be very modern. They will not do anytB~g that will disgrace
the area. At present, this area is nothing but an empty field. This development w~ll
add alot to North Andover which has bery fine citizens. The land is there and the
dem=~d for this type of housing is here. It w~ be a benefit to the t~n and to the
taxpayers. Two or three other land owners are interested in the same thing. Mrs.
Colgate's land depends on what happens to the other land. (H~ showed a sketch of
one of the buildings.) He respectfully asked that the Board act in favor of the
petition of Mrs. Colgate.
Mr. O'Leary asked for those opposed to speak.
Atty. Willis spoke representing a number of objectors, who are immediate abutters
involved. N~ presented the following list of names:
June 8, 1964- Cont.
Mary Carney
Carl Lind~rs
Joseph Pierre
John Simpson
Armand Janco
Raymond Guay
Frank Androski
Ernest Fortin
Francis Lor~,,~
Earley
Robert Blomquist
Leonard Somers
Donald Xeistead
Bernard Lord
Woodstock Rd. Rabert Skinner Woodstock Rd.
74 Woodstock Rd. James Deyo 64 Woodstock Rd.
Woodstock Rd. Samuel Nicolosi 46 Woodstock Rd.
88 Linden Ave. Harry Arakelian 82 Linden Ave.
11 Sylvan Terr. Harry Dobson 72 Linden Ave.
68 Linden Ave. Rosemary Seymour 36 Linden Ave.
30 Linden Ave. Arthur Fortin 22 Linden Ave.
14 Linden Ave. George Shackelton 226 Greene St.
347 Mass. Ave. Augustine D'Angelo 357 Mass. Ave.
Robert McCarthy 381 Mass. Ave.
387 Mass. Ave. Ralph Pearson 395 Mass. Ave.
401 Mass. Ave. Lorraine Fisk 407 Mass. Ave.
415 Mass. Ave. Edward Grigoli 421 Mass. Ave.
429 Mass. Ave.
Atty. Willis named the members of the BOard that were sitting on these petitions, for
the record. He said this wes a request for a Special Permit under the provisions of
Section 4.7 of the Zoning By-Laws. He said the courts have deterred-ed that in order to
get a special permit one must not and cannot deviate from the requirements of the By-Law.
He asked to examine the plans presented by the petitioners. He said the submitted plan
showed land on the Stafford, Stonehouse & Gilman plot, that they have placed an~ apart-
ment house directly across the property line. The zoning law says it should be at
least 30 ft. from the street and 25 feet from the property line. On the Colgate petition,
the layout does not give Mrs. Colgate any outlet to any area. In order to have multiple
dwellings, there should be available 3500 ft. for each unit. Lot ~2 shows 12 apartments
on 42,000 sq. ft. The Zo~om By-Laws require adequate off street parking in addition to
3500 sq. ft. This parcel does not comply with respect to. sq,,~we footage area. The only
lot that complies is lot #3. Oates has no access to his parcel, only a 4C-foot right of
way from Mass. Ave. - Mr. Oates has retained a 20-f~. easement and has retained a portion
for the greenhouse - this constitutes a sub-division. The plans do not indicate any
provisions for sewerage, water, drainage, fire hydrants, etc. The B.P.W. has indicated '
that the sewerage on Linden Ave. is not sufficient to handle this project. They would
need a lift station. There is no drainage on Linden Ave. which would be adequate.
They would have to get a permit to enter the State drain on Mass. Ave. It is some-
what akin to the town to keep some open areas. It is attractive now and gives the
children an area to play. There is nothing here that would result in a f~encial
hardship. This petition should be denied. Mr. Colgate set up this area as single
homes. None of these people would have bought homes here if they knew Mr. Colgate
would present such a development in their back yard. It is up to this Board to find
that it would not be detrimental to the area. On three sides it is surrounded by
single family homes. Multiple dwellings are placed in other areas, not in a highly
concentrated residential district. There is not a need of apartments in ~ town.
Mr. Fart has 60 apartments; R. & S. Const. Co., 200 apartments. Mr. Fart has not
yet filled 11 apartments and they have been completed for 6 months. This Board is
sitting on a petition which will affect their fellow townsmen. The~ By-Law says
you cannot have a building more than 2~ stories high; these plans call for 3-story
buildings. This involves 40 homes, all single f~mtly homes amounting to over
$100,000 in taxes a year; you must consider their plea. (Applause).
Atty. Willis then introduced Mr. ~ Ralph A. Lord, 92 Exeter St., So. Lawrence,
who has been an appraiser for over 32 years. Over the years he was employed by the
follow~_ng: The Cc ........ of Mass. Dept. of Banking, the city of Lawrence, State Dept.
of Public Works, Atty. General's office, V. A. and F. H.A. Both Mr. Shields and
June 8, 1964- Cont.
Mr. Lurid said he is a qualified appraiser.
Atty. Silver objected to having Mr. Lord speak.
the Board.
Says Willis is doing this to impress
Atty. Willis sa~d he is presenting this man to show that a development of this nature
would not improve this area but would he detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Lord said the area was camposed or'single f,mfly residences and if this type of a
development were allowed the marketability of these homes would be depreciated.
Atty. Peter Spero~s representing Leonard Oa. tes and Stafford, Stonehouse & G11-~
spoke, saying he would like to ask a few questions for the record. He spoke to Atty.
Willis saying it is your opinion that if this development is erected it wtll affect
tb~ value of single f~mtly dwellings. Do you have any tangible manifestation that you
can base your opinion for North AndoVer. To which Atty. Willis answered No. Atty.
Speronis said we are considering this project as a unit and not what each one owns.
The plans indicate the type of apartment ,mtts they intend to put on these parcels of
land -~d they intend to comply with the Zoning By-laws.
Atty. Willis called on some ~m~diate abutters to speak. Ralph Pearson,
Androski, Mr. Guey, J~me~-s Deyo and Mr. D~Angelo all spoke against the development.
They felt it would de-grade the area, want the area to stay as single f~mily resi-
dences, it would he detrimental and devaluate the property, would mea_~ additional
traffic. Mr. Keirstead spoke saying that according to the ~m~usions on the plans,
they propose 3-story apartments.
Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Mo~ton seconded
the motion and the vote was ur~mous.
The Board then returned to the office to consider the evening's ~earings. It was then
9:30 P.M.
1. Walter R. Woodburn:
The Board discussed the petition and voted as follows: Mr. Lurid made a motion to
GRANT the variance. Mr. Morton seconded the motion. Four members voted in favor and
Mr. Dru~nond abstained from voting. The usual reasons for granting apply.
2. Cochichewick Realty Corp.
Only four members sat on this hearing. Mr. Shields disqualified himself. The Board
discussed the petition and the recommendations of the Building Inspector. Mr. Lur~
said there was no great problem since both counsels were s~tisfied to agree on the
regulations drawn up. Mr. Drummond mede a motion to receive the recommendations of
the Building Inspector. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was ur~lw~us.
Mr. Lurid made a motion to GRANT the special permit. Mr. Morton seconded the motion
and the vote of the four members was unanimous. The following restrictions w~11
apply.
1. The slope of the floor of the excavation should not e~eed a 5% grade.
2. Where the excavating approaches the lot lines, a slope (or pitch) of 4 to 1 is to
be maintained. Ail excavating must stop 25 feet from the lot lines.
June 8, 1964- Gont.
3. The petitioner sh~ll maintain normal, natural drainage of the area.
4. The time of operation shall be restricted to the daylight hours; 7:30 A.M. to
6:00 P.M.
5. There sE remain enough top soil so as to sustain vegetation.
6. The portion of the area fronting on Boxford St. sb~ll be restored as nearly as
possible to its original condition as regards slope, top soil and drainage, for a
depth of 300 feet. This work shall be done within 30 days from the date of bond issue.
7. A 30-day time period will be allowed in which to remove all cars, junk and parts,
during this t~me the Building Inspector w/il make recommendations to this Board as to
their progress; otherwise, the permit may be revoked by action of this Board.
8. The petitioner will file with the To~rn of North Andover, a perfor~-~ce Bond in
the amount of $1,000.00. The special permit is to run for one year and unless there
are any complaints from the Building Inspector, the permit will be aut~omatically
renewed.
Reasons for granting earth removal permit:
1. The present condition of the land in question is unsuitable for residential or
agricultural purposes.
2. The petitioner's request is reasonable and to deny it would constitute a serious
hardship, since it would deny him the right to use his land as intended by the Zo~g
By-Law.
3 Petitions for Apartment Development:
Mr. Shields made a motion to deny all 3 petitions for the apartment development because
it is positively detrimental to the neighborhood and they fail to meet the requirements
of the Zoning By-Laws.
Mr. DD;~,,,,,~nd seconded the motion and the vote wss unanimous,.
The reasons f~r denial are as follows:
1.' The development as proposed, would he detrimental to the neighborhood.
2. The petitioner failed to meet ali requirements under Sec. 4.7 of the Zoning By- Laws.
The Board signed the following bills:
Boynton Press - envelopes -
John R. Hoaking, supplies
Anna Donahue, services
5.50
4.15
40,0o
$49.65
A letter will be sent to Fire Chief Daw thanking h~ for the use of the meeting ro~m
for our hearings.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M~