Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-09-14126 Special Meeti~ Tues. - September 14, 1965 The ~oard of Appeals held a special meeting on Tuesday evening, September 14, ]965 at 7~30 P.M. with the following members pressnt~ Daniel ?. O'Leary, Chairman; ~illiam Morton, Secretary; Arthur Drmmmond and John J. Shields. This meeting was called te v~te on the Line Lumber Cempany petition - the hearing was held em August 23, 1965 and continued on August 30, 1965. The minutes of the previous meeting were read. Mr. Shields made a motion to accept the minutes of the hearing, Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The members again thoroughly discussed the hearings. Mr. O'Leary questioned again about Mr. McAloon signing the petition and that they should have applied under Sec. 6.51 but came in on Sec. 7.4 & 7.5. He doesn't th~nk there is going to be sny hardship involved. Line Lumber Company can sell the land for anything else. Mr. Shields said they can't come in under 6.51 because he can't comply because he h~sn't got 50,000 sq. ft. to start with. The town itself voided that section for this particular lot. Mr. Morton said they had to come in because the State took some of their land and made the lot smaller. Mr. Shields said this is why this Board has been established, to take care of cases such as this. Whatever dedision this Board makes it may go to court. Mr. O'Leary asked about putting it to a vote - if anybody wanted to make a motion. Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Morton seconded the motion. Mr. Shields said that it is parliamentary procedure to have a discussion of the motion. He said at the last meeting the Chair,mn put the same motion before the Board. He doesn't believe that any Chairman should ever put a motion to a vote when he himself is not ready to vote. An individual ~ poll of the members was taken without the Chairman voting. Mr. O'Leary explained that he didntt do it intentionally - it was done in good faith. Nt the time he was very much in doubt and wanted a little more time to think it over. He didn't realize whether or not it was the correct procedure. Mr. Morton said if there was any question in his m~nd, then he shot~ldn't have put the question to a vote. Mr. O'Leary said he didntt like to vote no unless he was sure. Mr. Shields said he was sure it was done in good faith but his reaction is that the Chairman has great power and should not expose himself or the other members of the Board. The question should never be out before the Board until the Chairuan is ready to vote. ~. O'Leary said he was in doubt about them coming in under the section they did, although he is for industry coming into the town Mr. Shields said that in other cases a petitioner has erroneously come in under the incorrect section and the Board has overlooked, it. He questioned as to exactly who Finck represented, except that he presented a signed petition to the September 14, 1965 - Cont. Board ~th a list of names and repitition in handwriting, etc, It Mas never dis- closed to the Board exactly who he did represent. Mr. Morton said the abutters didn't even sign it. Mr. Drum,~ond said the petition has ho bearing at all - itts no good. Mr. Shields said he thinks it is a fraud on this Board. He is deeply disturbed about this hearing and doesn't like some of the things said. The petitioner means nothing to him - he Just wants fair play. It is his responsibility to say something he has heard. He spoke to Mr. O'Leary saying he has always respected h~m as a man and that this might just be scuttlehut, but it is alleged that he should have dis- qualified htmself beca~lse his brother-in-law is against one of the abutters and that an abutter is a close sssociate of his where he works. Mr. 0~Leary said that his brother-in-law does live in that section and that he has not been in contact with hlm, he will vote as he sees it and that's it. Someone does work in the same plant. Others have sat on hearings here under the sam2 circumstances and never d~squalified themselves. He had a disgusting call from Mr. McAloon and was shocked at the language he used over the phone and would not stand for being accused of some of the things he said. He said he Mas honest and acts in good faith. Talk in this town may be coming from high officials but under no circumstances will it make any difference in what his decision is. He has acted in good faith and if the procedure was wa~ng, he is sorz~ and w~l as~t it. Under no circumstances does he want his good name criticized in this town - he has acted honestly. Alot of these hearings have pushed through too fast - more time ehould be taken. Mr. Drtm2~ond said he has worked with Dan manyhours on committees, et~. and there is no question of his integrity and honesty. Mr. Shields then said he would like to speak on the motion. He is in favor of it. He knows none of the officials concerned with it - is looking at the lot of land, 33,098 sq. ft - which was created by a so-called expert planner who has dealt to this town one of the poorest sets of by-laws he has seen, which causes the high number of petitions before this Board. The cost Of that building maybe $100,000, the petitioner wants to use the land conforming with restricted zoning. He sees no increased traffic hazard - the children are from 100 to 1,000 feet away. This building would enhance the entire area. It would not be a detrimental influence to the neighborhood. A denial would work a hardship on the owner because they are being denied the use of their land. He will vote favorably. Mr. Drmm~ond said he agrees with Mr. Shields. The fact that Mr. McAloon signed the petition is all right - it has been done before - Joe's Diner for one. The building would be an asset to the town. There would be no hardship to the people in that Mr. Morton also agreed. He said that granting it would be the lesser of two evils. We need ~ building that will give the town taxes. Line Lumber Co. could store lumber down there and make a mess and the town wouldn't get any revenue. The town is spending money having a Committee trying to get Industry in town. September 14, 1965 - Cont. M~. O'Leary said he is in favor of bringing industry into the town and he has taken the safety factor into consideration and doesn't think it would create more. He has no objection to this outfit coming in. He doesn't think it was properly advertised. Mr. Morton question the application and the way the notice was made out. He thinks it should be up to the Chairman to check and see if the section, etc. is correct. Mr. O'Leary checked the Zoning By-Laws and said he thinks they should have come in under Section 6.51. Mr. Shields said that anybody presenting a petition to this Board does so in good faith. We have acted on and granted others that were made in error. Wh~ be so tecb_nt cal about this? Mr. Drmmnond said let it go to court. Morton asked what Town Counsel Salisbury thought about this? Mr. O'Leary said we couldn't get a quick answer from hlm so we didn't ask, but he has stated before th~ the Board should make their decision and he would take it from there. Mr. Shields said he doesn't think this Board should go to Mr. Salisbury. He stated that every member of the majority vote on the motion should have a right to outline it in the decision. The vote was then taken on the original motion to Grant the variance. Mr. Morton, Mr. D~n~w~ond and Mr. Shields voted in favor of granting and Mr. OILeary voted no. The petition is denied because it is not a unanimous vote. Mr. O~Leary gave the following reasons to deny the petition: 1. The petitioner failed to request a variance in the lot size area as required in Sec. 6, ~ara. 6.51 of the Zoning By-Law of the town of North Andov~r. 2. In denying this petition, there would not be a substantial hardship, financial or ~therwtse to the petitioner. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.