Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-09-15Monday- September 15, 1969 Regular Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, Sept. 15, 1969 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building with the following members present and voting: Arthur R. Drummond, Chairman; Daniel T. O'Leary, Secretary; Donald J. Scott; Donald J. Leonard; Philip Arsenault and Assoc. Member James A.Glynn, Esq. There were 35 people present for the hearings of the evening. 1. HEARING: First Methodist Church and others. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of First Methodist Church; Emil J. Camuso, Mary Camuso, Joseph M. Zappala and Philip J. Gallant who requested a variation of Sec. 4.1 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit a Beauty Culture Business, Boutizue Shop and Retail Wearing Apparel and Accessory Shop and rent hall for private social functions, on the premises, located at 158 Main Street. He also read the Building Inspector's letter of refusal. (Mr. Arsenault not sitting on this). Atty. Donal~ F. Smith appeared on behalf of the First Methodist Church and Atty. Robert Minasian represented the other applicants. Atty. Smith noted that the building presently is solely suitable for a church. The present owners have been unable to find a church group to purchase the same, for about two years. Zoning for a church constitutes a financial hardship and the allowance of the variances would permit the sale o~ the property and return the building to a useful purpose. The structural changes on the exterior would be minimal and allowance of said variances would not derogate from the spirit and intent of the Zoning By-Law. Atty. Minasien spoke of the reliability of his group with their types of business in other locations. He said he did not specify which sub-section of paragraph 4.1 he was seeking to vary but needed the entire paragraph because the premises are located on the fringe of a residential district and is unique inasmuch as it can be used only for a church and no other parcel in the area at present experiences the same problem. No variance' would be granted which would be detrimental or injurious to adjoining property and this locus is on the fringe of a business and industrial area. This is a case that falls squarely within the guidelines set up by the Massachusetts legislature. There was no opposition. Mr. Scott made a'motion to take the petition under ad- visement; Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Benjamin C. Osgood - Swim& Tennis Club. Mr. O'Learyread the legal notice in the appeal of Benjamin C. Osgood who requested a variation of Sec. 4.8 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the con- struction of a Bath and Tennis Club. Facilities will include 2 adult pools, 1 children's pool, 2 tennis courts and a bath house with sun decks on the premises located at the north side of Raleigh Tavern N.; approx. 600 feet from the corner of Farnum Street known as 16 Raleigh Tavern Lane N. Mr. Osgood explained to the Board that the area was zoned rural residential and that the project was to service not only residents of Raleigh Tavern Estates but those of North Andover as well and he expected about 150 memberships to be sold. It would cost about $85,000 for the project. He pointed out that a facility of this kind is not detrimental to the area in any way and would give needed relief to the already overcrowded public facilities and that all structures would be well September 15, 1969 - cont. hidden from the road so as not to detract from the residential appearance. Speaking in favor of the petition was George Fart and Sidney Coleman. Abutters speaking in opposition were George Taylor, Michael O'Keefe, Stephen center, Roger Pelletier and Mr. Stevens, 146 Farnum St. Mr. Leonard made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3. HEARING: Ralph C. Bevin. Mr. O'Leary read the legal notice in the appeal of Ralph C. Bevin who re- quested a variation of Sec. 6.61 and 7.23 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the keeping of a garage in its present location lO feet, 2 inches, from the side lot line on the premises, located at the east side of Prospect Street; 200 feet from the corner of Chadwick Street and known as 69 Prospect Street. He also read the Building Inspector's refusal. Mr. Bevin spoke in his own behalf and stated that about one year ago they had filed a similar petition with the Board and then withdrew it and are now appearing be- fore the Board. ~e and his wife stated that there exist in the immediate neigh- borhood many structures on adjacent lots that are much closer to the lot line than this garage and also that there is much hard feeling among many of the neighbors. A list containing 15 names of neighbors in favor of granting the petition was submitted. Arthur Kent also spoke in favor. Atty. Herve Moisson, Richard McDonald, Timothy Murphy, George Guillemette, Ray- mond Cyr and Frank Grande were opposed. Atty. Moisson presented the objections of his clients along with photographs. Although there were no personalities engaged in, it was very much evident that a neighborhood verbal battle was in progress. At the request of the Chairman, Building Inspector Foster was asked to substantiate the conditions as reported in that area. He did not represent either the petitioners or the abutters and without referring to any particular property o~ners by name related conditions in that vicinity and suggested that the entire area should be re-surveyed. Mr. Foster had ordered Mr. Bevins to apply to the Board of Appeals for avariance. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Leonard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. FLATLEYAPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT: Atty. John J. Willis and Thomas J. Flatley appeared before the Board relative to the bonding required for the apartment development. The bonding company was hesitant to having it for a period of 5 years and have broken it down to 3 stages of construction and would be dependent on renew-Lug . Mr. O'Learymade a motion to amend condition No. 3 of the original decision by adding thereto: "The bond shall be filed in three installments of $60,000 each, to cover each stage of work as it progresses, none of which is to be released until a particular stage of work is completed." Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.