HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCHECHTER, JOEL Not
9�ACHU9e�a 00 � S
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
NDOVE o Jay OD
MASSACHUSETTS o N c(Rj'oNS� 'UR
BOARD OF APPEALS °Fo 9�00ktq a2�2
d0 L0 vas
November 17, 1967
Petition No. 19-167
Osgood Street, North Andover, Mass,
John J. Lyons, Town Clerk
Joel R. Schachter
Town Office Building
North Andover, Mass.
Dear Sirs
Upon, application of Joel R. Schechter to the North Andover Board of Appeals for
a Special Permit under Section 4.7 of the forth Andover Zoning By-Uwe Sao as to
permit the construction of twenty (20' apartment buildings, a public hearing was
held on October 9, 1967 by the North Andover Board of Appeals. The hearing was
held in the Town Hall facilities after having been advertised in the Lawrence
Eagle Tribune on the dates of September 23 and 30, 1967 and with all abutters
duly notified by certified mail. The members of the Board present and voting
were: Jambes A. Dego, Chairman; Arthur Drummond, Secretary; Daniel T. O'Learr,
Dodd J. '.Soott and John J. Shields.
The applicant was represented by Atty. Harold Morley, Jr. Atty. Morley pleaded the
petition by stating that there was an ever increasing need for apartments in this
area. The apartments to be constructed were to be of a garden type with ample
preservation of the natural features of the land. The topography lent itself to
apartment construction more so that for private homes. The buildings would be
sufficiently removed from existing housing so as in all Likelihood they would not
be visible. A buffer of existing trees would be left so as to further isolate the
complex from housing on the street to the east of the site. There was water avail—
able and sewerage would be treated by a new process which was explained by Mr.
Clinton Goodwin. It was asserted that the affluent from the sewage treatment
would be clear, clean, safe water,.
Henry E. fund spoke in favor of apartments with respect to their not effect, that
is the income derived tax-rise against their probable expense to the Town in term
of services required. His opinion was asked by the Board as a generality rather
than as an endorsement of the petition under discussion,
In response to a call for persons objecting to the petition, a number of people
were heard. As a quasi—spokesman for a group of abutters, a Mr. Norman Lents
argued that the apartments would be detrimental to the area, that the sewerage
would be a severe problem and that the increased traffic would create a very
hazardous condition on the main thoroughfare. Mr. Lents also cited as unjust
�— November 17, 1967
Joel $. Schechter
the legality of allowing high density apartments in an area of one acre mdni m
zoning. This would mean about twelve families permitted to live in apartments
on a one acre tract whereas only a single or double house is permitted. Thera
were others objecting to the petition with their reasons closely paralleling
those of Mr. Lentz. There was a show of at least 25 hands as being opposed to
the petition.
Mr. Joseph Serio spoke as a representative of the Western Electric Company whose
works is located directly across the street from the proposed apartment complex.
Mr. Serio stated that his Company could not, at the moment, either object or
condone the petition as they bad not completed their evaluation. In a subsequent
brief filed with the Board, the Company objected to the petition on the grounds
of safety (traffic) and were apprehensive over sanitation, that is the proposed
sewage treatment.
Upon a notion by Mr. OtLeary, seconded by Mr. Shields, and so moved, the petition
was taken under advisement.
After due consideration of the arguments of the petitioner and those of the
objectors, a motion was made by Mr, Drummond and seconded by Mr. Shields that the
petition be denied. The motion was carried unanimously.
The principal reasons for denial of the petition are as follows
1. The proposed apartment complex would be detrimental to the area.
2, The proposed development with over two h ndred dwelling units served by one,,
point of egress onto the main tbproughfsre would severely aggravate an already
hazardous traffic condition, This would be compouadet by the probable pick-mp
and delivery of children by school buses.
3. Section 4..74 of the Zoning By-lav states that no special permit for apartments
shall be granted unless the Town can reasonably provide the proposed development
with all necessary utilities and facilities. In this petition sewerage cannot be
reasonably provided.
4.. The proposed Rdisposition of waters would add appreciably to the natural
waterway and could potentially be injurious to landowners downstream,
Very truly yours,
OF APPIPI"
v
s A. Duro, Obairman
JAD:ad
LA4
e F� Mnn9n :b
y.. 185 ;'•
9 •.
► FfACHti3@
►rw
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Date . Bovember P.. .1969
Petition No..19--.1.67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r
Date of Hearing. 0001W 1s. 1%7.
Petition of . .doe1. &.. Se $tis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected . .asst.440. of .Qsgood. St., .150D. tt. .trua the .corner .of.Bradford .St.
Special Permit under
Referring to the above petition fora the requirements of the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North ApAp er.Zoning .By-Uvx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so as to permit—tom. 20. APartm At_ b.u7ld3aga: of .32.=its .eadh.on . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25. acres.ar.1 . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to. . . . . . . .the
Special Permit
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions:
Signed (.l
awe 4., DWo .c . : . . . . . . .
rtbor. . . . nd.. 3saro# q. . . . . .
Daniel.. T.. 0!L"sy. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .
r
Donald.?,. scrrtt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;pbn.J.. SttieId&. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Appeals
Oversized Maps on rile with the Town