Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-09-16Monday- September 16, 1968 Regular Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, Sept. 16, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the North Andover High School Auditorium. The following members were present and voting: James A. Deyo, Chairman; Daniel T. O'Leary, Donald J. Scott, Arthur R. Drummond and Philip Arsenault, Esq. There were approximately 300 people present for the hearings. 1. HEARING: Eugene S. Oldfield. Mr. Drummond read the legal notic~ in the appeal of Eugene S. Oldfield who requested a variance under Sections 6.61 & 7.23 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of a 2-stall garage closer to the side lot line than the allowed distance of 12 feet, on the premises located at 20 Sawyer Road. He also read the refusal from the Building Inspector. Atty. J. Albert Bradley represented Mr. Oldfield and stated that the garage has been moved somewhat nearer to the house than the original petition. There would be a hardship if the garage were moved farther back on the lot. Alot of garages in the area have garages as close and even nearer to the lot line; it would be in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood. No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Albert C. Day. Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Albert C. Day who requested a variance under Section 7.5 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of a roofed-over area, 50' x 180' as an addition to his existing plant at 2350 Turnpike Street. He also read the refusal from the Building Inspector. Atty. Anthony Randazzo represented the petitioner who stated that the proposed extension was necessary to the operation. It meant cover from snow and rain for the trucks and the assemblies made in the main plant. Because of the topography of the land, it can only be constructed to the westerly side of the plant. Atty. Leo Terrazano, Margaret Simon and Frank Smercyzinski spoke in opposition, against the expansion in general; also to changing the grade of the land in building close to the lot line. There were also objections over not being notified of the hearing until a few days prior to the hearing. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Pearl Currier. Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Pearl Currier who requested a Specdal Permit ~der Section &.7 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of three apartment buildings consisting of 12 units per building on the south side of Prescott Street; 500 feet dist8nt from the corner of Chickering Road and known as lll Prescott Street. September 16, 1968 - cont. Atty. John J. Lynch represented the petitioner. He explained that the apartment complex would be developed by John Walker, 125 Sutton Hill Road. The proposed three buildings would permit utilization of a parcel of land that has no frontage on any street. These would be ~ part of the Meadowview apartment complex by Walker Realty Trust. The only services that would have to be provided by the to~n would be police and fire protection. They would maintain their own streets, garbage facilities, etc. He presented a petition to the Board signed by abutters and residents of the area in favor of the apartments: Harvey, 8had~rick, Lund, Mellian, Chapman, Barrington, Kennedy, R. Jack Howard, Wilkinson, Anthonyt Lydia Carse, Batchelder. The following were recorded as opposed, not to this particular petition, but to apartments iu general: Elaine Griffin, Norman Lentz, Edna Witzgall, M~s. Robert Leyland, Leo Labbet Robert Gartside, Anthony Lennon, John Cushing, William Gerraghty. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. &. HEARING: Thomas J. Flatley & Daniel Puccio. Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Thomas J. Flatley and Daniel J. Puccio requesting a Special Permit under Section ~.7 of the Zordng By- Law so as to permit the erection of &9 Town House type apartments, as shown on plans submitted, to contain a total of 588 apartment units on land consisting of 75 acres more or less, on the premises located at the east side of Turnpike Street; 2,000 feet distant from the corner of Andover Street. Atty. John J. Willis represented the petitioners. Mr. Flatley was also present. Mr. ~_llis showed pictures of the exterior of the buildings which were of English Tudor design. There would be a 50-ft. roadway and access roads go to the six complexes which will be built in cluster fashion. They would built one cluster a year which would take six years to complete the complex. He said Mr. Flatley has about 12 developments in Mass.and are of the highest quality. He said alternatives to the use of the land would be less desirable than apartments. If private homes were to be built there would be some 103 houses, which would mean children, streets, sewerage and other expenses for the town. The school dept. uses 3.5 children per home as a rule, and figuring at that rate would mean the town would need a new grammar school and a half. The projected taxes to the town by this development would mean around $268,000. Leo Lathe, Meadow Lane said he was not opposed to apartments and not against growth in North Andover but is against chaotic growth. He cited many statistics and was worried about the impact on the school system. Others recorded as opposed were: Eleanor Guglielmino, Andras Hamori, Anthony Lennon, Robert Leyland, George Stern, Bob ~mdell, Mary Lyons, William Kruschwitz, Eobert Gallenstein, John Cushing. Mr. Willis then stated that Mr. Flatley requests that his petition be withdrawn without prejudice, inview of the feeling that has been shown during the evening and because of the special town meeting set for September 30, 1968 which has an article aimed at slowing apartment growth. September 16, 1968 - cont. The Board voted unanimously to accept the withdrawal. Mr. Willis introduced Mr. Flatley, who thanked the people for their time and for any problems that might have occureed. He wished to make one point before departing that there are "good apartments and bad apartments, good doctors mud not so good doctors, and good builders and not so good builders", say~ug that his reputation as a developer was of high caliber. The audience applauded Mr. Flatley. 5. HEARING: Melamed & First Hartford Realty Corp. Mr. O'Leary disqualified himself from sitting on this petition since he is an abutter to the property involved. Associate Member William Deyermond sat in his place. Atty. Charles W. Trombly spoke, representing the petitioners. He explained that this matter had been before the Board previously but due to technicalities was withdrawn without prejudice on July 15, 1968. It is proposed to develop the entire area and they are now asking for 160 apartment units. The entire development would be of 300 apartment units. The developer would have all of the expenses of facilities, utilities, roadways, etc., there would be no cost to the town. The complex would be an asset to the town in providing ueeded tax revenue, the proposed developer is responsible and able to construct an appealing, desirable complex. Several people were recorded in favor of the petition: Mr. Stankatis, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Burke, Andover Street. Atty. Donald F. Smith spoke in opposition as representing most of the residents of Carty Circle. He said the Board must consider the safety and welfare of the town. There would be traffic problems, drainage problems, school children problem. Several other people spoke in opposition, repeating many things that had already been said. Mr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Deyermond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. OLDFIELD: The Board discussed and voted on the Oldfield petition. Mr. O'Lear-/made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unartimou s. The Board discussed and voted on the Day petition. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was ~ in favor and Mr. Arsenault voted no. The meeting adjourned at ll:OOP.M. JAD Chairman Clerk