Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-08-14196 The BOARD OF APPEAL~ held their regular meeting on ~Mnday evening, August 14, 1967 at 7~30 P.M. in the Town Office ~,,~_'~&*,~g Meeting Room. The following me,hers were present and voting~ Ja~s A. Deyo, Chair~,; Ar~ar Dr~aond, Secretary; John J. Shields, D~el T. 0~Leary and Donald J. Scott. There were 17 people present and the hearing ~as taped. 1. ~.ARING: Augelo R. Co~tar~-o. Hr. ~ read the legal notice re~,_esting a Special Permit u~der ~eetion ~8 of the North Andover Zoning By-Laws so as to permit a ~ and tennis club,~ ~ private, nora-profit, ma the premises located at the west aide of Chestnut Street; 300 feet distant from the corner of Rea Street. Hr. Drummond also read a letter from the Building Inapeo%or stating that Dr. Contarinota application ~aa refer~ed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for whatever action they _may eec fit to take under the new section of the Zo-~n~ By-Laws (Section ~.8). - The principal points upon which the application was based are as follcws~ a. The intended u~ will not conflict with the rural area. b. No dwellings are wit~- about ~4 ~ile of the premises. c. Intended uae would i~prove the area and enhe~ce the To~n. d. Provide, more taxes for Town but requires no expenditures. e. This is strictly a family recreation facility with no clubhouse. Dr. ¢ontarino explained to ~he Board that Atty. Robert L. Her~e~ was to speak as representing ~4m but was not present at the mo~eut. The Board members said they wc~ld hear the other petition on the age~_a first thus giving Atty. ~er~an~ extra t~w~_ to arrive and present his case. 2. HEARINGs BenJ-m4~ Hr. Dry,scad read the legal notice in the appeal of Benjamin A. Ealinowaki requesting a variation of Sec. 6.33 of the Zo-t~g By-~aw so as to permit the division of a parcel of land into two lots having the required area but less than the required frontage; on the premises located at the West side of Salem Street, ~00 feet distant from the corner of Appleton St. and known as 373 ~ale~ Street. Hr. Xalinowaki spoke on his o~n behalf and explained that he wanted the land suB- divided in order that his son might be able to b-~d a home on one of the lots. One lot would have 100 ft. frontage and the other lot would have 50 ft. frontage. Mitchell Boo~a~ was recorded in favor of granting. There was no opposition. Hr. Shields noted that this division of land was creating two ncn-cenfor~-~ lots and suggested having a right of ~ay to the back lo% and the front lot would then conform to the require~ frontage. August 14, 1967- CO. to Mm. Xa/~m~ki said he ~s agreeable to the Boardts suggestions and would have new plans drawn up for the Board's consideration. Mr. Deyo asked if an~ i~ediate abutters were present. It ~as noted that there no abutters present. Mr. O'Leary ~ade a tactics to take the petition Under advisement. Mr. Dx-~maond seconded the motion and the v~te was unanimous. 197 CONTARINO: The Board was inforsed that Atty. Hermann wne on his way and would a~:ive shortly. ~b~ Dr. Oontarino explained to the Board t~_at about L~5 faw~l*es wo~l~ belong to the proposed private ~mea sw~g and tennis club. They are asking for approva~ ~der the recently approved By-law which allews for the creatien of this type of facility. He is requesting a spac.'l~J, permit for the construction and establishing of this sw~m~-g and te~-~ s club. (The Board noted that the Town Clerk had received the approved copies frc~ the office of the Attorney Ge~erel). Atty. Herman arrived and proceeded to further e~lala their request a~d presented additional ~opies of plans to the Board. He explained tbnt he ~as speaking in behalf of and as a member of the proposed aw~m~g club. This group is c~prised of ~y neighbors in the area who decided that they wanted to build a sw~w~.~8 club instead of each ~,,~l~ their o~n swimming po&Is at their They do not propose a club house. This' would be private ~.a non-profit and open to a~cae who wants to belong. It would not be detr~w-utal to the area. Thim particular location on Chos~nut Stree% is not near any dwellings. There are no houses on the street. Tho nearest bouse would be about 1/~ ~e away on Rea Street. The nearest house on Ches%nut Street is about 1/2 mt~e away. There are no ~w~linte neighbors that would be concerned with this. This would be a reereatioa area for people that live ~ the area. It will be ncu-profit - there would~be no dr~-~-_- or countr2 club as such. It is set back considerably frc~ the street. They ~ provide off-street parking. N~st of the people involved can ~1~ to the pool so that it w~n~t be a traffic problem. There w~l be instructors for the chtl~en and it will be safe. There ~ be supe,:¢i~ion at all t~W~o He expl~t~ad that there is excavation and truck~mg going ca across the street. There would be no expense to the Town. Everyt~t-g will be paid for by themselves. It will be strictly, recreaticeml. Mr. ChooliJian, an a~rdtter and a would-be member of the club spoke in favor. They will t~ care of expenses on their own. It would be an asset to the To~n. This type of club is beco~ popular in areas of other to, ns. Dr. Contarino spoke in favor, saying be is one of the initiators of the program. l~ip Busby, Chestnut St., spoke in opposition. He has lived in the area for about 19 yeax~. He spoke about the traffic and safety factor. There ar~ ~ly gravel roads leading to the area. They are inadequate to withstand any traffic. He doubts that very few pe%ple would ~. The streets are narrow. The trucks in the area are another hazard. He mentioned the parking, area for 50 cars and about land depreciation. He b~ought out that the Board of Appeals had previously denied the s~- petition at an 198 August~, l~7-Cont. earlier meeting in March, 1~7 and one of the reasons for disapproval at that ti~e was that it would be detrimentJ~ and would derogate fro~ the area. He recommends that this petition be demied. ~ Michael Sceaa, ~t~eide P~. spoke in opposition, sa~g that it is i~possible to build and ~aint~ such a fac~l_~ty , it would probably cost about ~22~,000 and he couldn't see how 100 fa~ies could support this. What would beec~e of the land and property in the area if this didn't work out? ~fho would be in control say 5 years frem now? He also mentioned the Hatch Act applying to this area since much of the land was swampy, and there is a brook that runs through it. He asked about leeching fields, etc. He said the road is impassable in the spring. John Carey, Chestnut St., also opposed. Be spoke about the ~__~_~y, impassable condition of the road and said that the Board should consider the safety factor vary serio-~ly. Arthur Gould, Chestnut St: - oppos~l. ~. MeDicaid, 274 Chestnut St. - opposed A. Giuffrida, 25~ Chestmat St. - opposed. Marion Busby, Chestnut St. - opposed. Margaret H~, Rillside Rd. - opposed. Ruth Weaver, 1~? Chestnut St. - opposed. Rita Schena, ~[llaide Rd. - opposed Hesel ~uld, Chestnut St. - opposed All were opposed for reasona previously given by others and also mentioned a fire hasard because of the woods in the area. Atty. Her~ann spoke in rebuttal, explaining that the area was woods when he ~ovad there himself - that i.t is a matter of the To~n growing up - areas change as time goes on. He is concerned that there is a question about the neighborhood being safe for children, etc. There will house~ ~ilt there in ti~e. He doesn't think it is fai~ for someone to question the cost of this. They are restricting member- ship so that it can't get too crowded. About 30 people -~uld be using cars and there would be no real traffio problem. He is very concerned h~m~elf and w~ldnlt beeow~_~ involved if there were any dsngers. They have alet of money i~v. ested and would not let it fall apart or get i~to the wrong hands. The facility Will set back about 50-75 feet f--~a the roadway. They do not propose any exp~nse to the to~n at all. He doeantt see how .they will derogate fr~a the value of the l__~d, in fact that it would add to the value of any one's home by having this type of facility in the area. He can't see how they are hurting an~on~ e. He sai~ they eoul~ have put in a ~c~-~ change and have it changed to business which is done all the t~_ in to~ and then they wouldn't have to co~e before this Board for permission. But they have the best i~tcreste of the town in mind and had a new section inserted into the Zoning By-Law to cover such a facility and get permission from the Board of Appeals. He added that they have studied the traffic problem vary oare~,l~y and thoroughly. ~r. Hamori, Mark Road, spoke in favor, saying that many people are looking for a facility of this type. 199 August 1~, 1967- Cont. Several people asked questions regarding guest privileges, ill~m~uatio~ of sw~w~-g pool and tennis courts, financing, etc. Chairman Deyo explained that the I~vA,~-'~E Of the pre0eet ~as not a factor for Board's consideration.. That the Board can't extend their po~ers as to what will become of the project in later years. Dr. Contarino explat_-ed that anybody that applies can get membership to the club as l~ag as the membership is open. It ~as brought out that the people in ~ha ~_ ~w~diatc neighborhood wer~ not invited to beec~e members of the club. Chairman Deyo explained that the Board can impose sly restrictions in their decision. He then asked William Ohepulis, C~rman of the Planning Board, if he had any e~m~nts to ~. Mr. Chepulis _said that the Flanning Board is concerned and if this would be for the betterment of the Toga. At the t~m the new section to the Zoning By-Law ~as presented to the _Tc~n Neeting, the P~A~g Board had recommended disapproval because they did not like the wording of the section, it vas not specific enough and not restrictive enough. ~hat conditicms can a public board impose upon a private enterprise? The Planning Board has to see that everyone in town is protected. They have to try ar~ set guide l~es. Atty. Her~ann said he looked at different by-laws in different to, ns to see what they had - Nincbes%er, Lexington, Wellesley, Randolph, Groveland, and studied their by-laws. They decided they can give this power to the Board of Appeals and trust their Judgment that they will do what is best in the interests of the tows. Mr. O'Leary said he u~derstands that there ~ be a membership of 125 people. Is - there going to be any limit? Atty. Hermenn said he doesn't foresee the membership go~ up - bat the Board eau restrict it. Several questions were asked by the Board members. Atty. Hermenn said the pool area and te~-t~ courts w~11 he.enclosed. Probably a chain ~ be put across the road~y. He said he would rather the Board didn't ~.ke any restrictions l~mtting the time of operation. He said there ~ould probably not be much there at night. Ne refreshment stands are plAn-ed. They plan to operate 7 days a week; They are not incorporated yet but plan to use the name of Chestnut Sw~a A,~ ~acket Club. The permit would be ~ranted in the ,,w~ of the petitioner. He hopes that in the wisdom of the Board they would not ~e~e the permit a non-transferable per'mAt. They ca~not incorporate before they o~n the land. They have not taken title or acquired the land yet. An engineer has indicated that this land is feasible. He said that the present plans are flexible and subject to any restrictions the Board may put on. Ns said the plans showing vending machines were su~mitted in error. This particular lot is par~ of a parcel of Greenwoed'.s land. A discussion was then held between Atty. Herma-_- ~ Mr. Shields regarding the surface and passability of Chastnut Street and ~side Road. 2OO Atty. Hermann continued to explain that it ~11 cost anybody to.br~_,g a g~est, that membershipprivileges will be quite restricted. Mr. Shields said he was stiS_l somewhat confused beoause of the projection of the expenditure of money. He has not seen any exhibits of ~hat ia to be b~4~ there. He still doesn't know how the operation is going to be conducted. ~r. O'Leary ~ede a motion to ~a~e the petition u~der advtse~ant.. Mr. ShAelds seconded the motion and the vote was JULIA FIONTE s Mrs. Fionte presented additional plans for the Board's signature sines she had failed to record her varicnee withi~ six month~ of the appr~al. The Board signed the necessary plane. ALBERT STEINBERG: Mr. Steinberg appeared before the Board and said that he-has plans to ~'~_ the apartments bigger and better. He presently has plans before the State for septic approval. He wants to revise him plans and get the approval of the Board. )ir. Shields said that this permit as granted was in technical default. He w~e a motion to resoind the per. it and invite Mr. Steinberg in when he is ready for a new permet and re-apply. Mr. Steinberg said that he has alot of money invested and that it is not fai~ to tell him now that his plans are out. He should be permitted to go ahead on fha original permit. He wo~ld liks at least 6 month~ more on his permit. The Board explained that that a new hearing would be necessary iff he changes his ori ,_aal plan,. Mr. Steinberg explained that there are three things involved - the State permit, sewerage and plans. Mr. Shields made a motian that the permit granted in 1963 for Albert Steinberg be resc~dad without prejudice by reason of non-performance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. Mr. D~.,~d said ho would like to allow him six more m~mthe. Mr. O'Leary said he wo~__d secoade the motic~ with the aw~ndment of six m~nths. He doesn't l!~_ to rescind anyone,s permit. Give ~im an extension and than see if ha dees ala3ct;hinE. Mr. Drummond exp~Ae~e4 that Steinberg has come before the BPW for an extension of the sewer. Mr. Shields said he would amend his motion a~d allow for 90 days a~d then review it at.ce there is a pessib{'lity of sewer extension. He said he would withdraw his motion pendAnE f~rther discussion with the Board of Public Works. The Board discussed the petition of BenJam~. ~O_inowski. Mr. Shields spoke about granting an easement or right of way to get to the interior land instead of ~ing a lot with 50 ft. frontage. The Board can't grant it the way it is now. 201 August 14, 1967 - Cont. A letter will be sent to Mr. Xalinowski requesting that he appear before the Board at their next ~eeting with his engineer 4~ order to discuss the easement or right of way. O ONTARI~O ~ The Board discussed the hear~ug held for Angelo Cos+torino for a ~imsing tennis club. The Board felt it was a very disorg~-~zed presentation~ that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, that there was no f~nancial hardship involved. The condition of the roads with expected traffic increase and the probable degrading of property values were the deciding points. Member O'Leary made a motion to the petition, which ~as seconded by Member Scott. Four members voted in favor of denying the petition and Chairman Deyo abstained from voting. The principal reasons for den~ing this application for a Special Permit are as follows, 1. The installation of the Swim and Tennis Club would have created hazardour traffic conditions on the adjacent roads. 2. The existence of such a facility would have a degrading effect on the value of the adjacent property. The meeting adjourned at 10130 P.M. JAD - AD