Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM & S BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO Y tga•�`••'!ti Fi APMLI" i.. �i 18a$ rr •. rr TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS July 129 1965 Jolm J. Lyons, Town Clerk Tovn Building North Andover, Mass. Dear Sirs The following petition was heard at a meeting of the Board of Appeals on Monday evening, July 12, 1965 at the Town Office Building. Members present and voting versa Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman; William Morton, Secretary; Arthur Drusmond, Robert J. Burke, Associate Member and Howard Gilman, Associate Member. The Associate Members sat in place of Regular Members John J. Shields and James Deyo. M. 4 S. BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. requested a variation of Sec. 6.31 of the Zoning By—Law so as to permit the combination of lots 82 & 83, lots 80 & 81 and lots 78 & 79 to meet provisions of Section 6.62 and to combine lots ?0 & 71 into one lot having less than 10,000 sq. ft. but having the required street frontage of not less than 100 feet on the premises located at the south side of Belmont Street; 100 feet distant from the corner of Patriot Street. This public hearing was advertised in the Nagle Tribune on June 28 and July 3, 1965. All abutters were duly notified by certified mail of this hearing. Mr. John J. Shields represented the petitioner and spoke in favor of and explained the basis of the desire to have the petition granted. These lots were lets of record prior to the present zoning by—laws and owned by Village Land Cowpany. The north side of Belmont Street is zoned Industrial and the opposite aide is zoned residential. Belmont Street is partially severed and watered. The petitioner desires to combine the lots as explained in order to meet the provisions of Section 6.62. A3-1 lots have the required street frontage. There were two abutters present. Joseph Medolo, 24 Marblehead Street, was recorded as opposed. He felt that in the future the-playground area of Grogan's Field would become obsolete and that we should preserve as much open space for recreation and public parks as possible. In Zxecutive session, an analysis was made with respect to the typical lot sizes influencing the neighborhood and it was found that the lots proposed were not in— consistent in size of most of the lots in the immediate area. Mr. Burke made a motion to GRANT the variance, which was seconded by Mr. Gilman and voted unanimously. The Board voted unanimously to grant the petition for the following reasonss (Cont.) Y 3.� r. Amt7m :m i; teas TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS a- July 12, 1965 a. That the proposed lots would not be in derogation to the neighborhood. b. That the lot sizes were not in non-conformity with the typical influences of the neighborhood. c. To deny said petition would result in a substantial hardship to the petitioner. d. That the proposed sub-division will be the highest and best land planning for end use. Very truly yours, BOARD OF APPELO el T. Otlear,�, Chairman AD I �.Noxr'h.?ti w�'y;� l855 7� H6••...••`�ac $ • TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date .;uly 3A,9 .1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . Petition No.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing. .;14T PS. .1%5 . Petition of . . M. & S. Buttd3xig &e Gcrostr�xcticra Co. , ItLe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected .South side,of.Be]moat,St.,, .],UO.ft,. fray.]'at of .$t..-.Rtes .i 78,. 79, 80t $.9 82v 830 70 & 71. Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . North.AZidoYAr.Zo14Ag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . so as to permit. . . . 99*U tign, 01q4.to. et.provisions.of. S.ac. .6.62.. . . . . . . . . . . After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to. .GW. . . . . .the . . . . . . . .Yarianee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a permit to . .M.. &.$. .pia cling.&omstroation, Co., .Ina.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: i Signe D&4*1 T,.Ot7.SAITS.9haSX-Wgt. . . . . r �Ti711am,MartoRt' .$ecr�st�. . . . . . . Aru=. Robiart.d..Burloa, .laaamiata Xwdw BPXa3P1 .Gil A4agWato. Board of Appeals 4 L4.t NORry9 E Fi APRILTm it'0 f IhBSACHU°���` r�ye�'1 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date .JaMar.9'.2Q a. 79.6.4. . . . . . . . . Petition No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing.daT.y3a. 79b14 Petition of. Xw A.S*. Badding.& Conetruction.GompaWs .enc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected. . . 10.0-402. Shtton.Straet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Andover Zoning By—Lames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so as to permit . .tshe .premises .at.100-3,02.04t?9 . Street,. to be .umd. for .the.parpooes .of. a restaurant After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . .QAN7.'. . . . . . .the lae. ?'ed t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a .permit to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions: Signed, �—-.- Daniel T. .O!Learya .Ghairm�n. . . . . . . 1M 7.3=.M*rton, .Secretary. . . . . . . . . Arthur.Dr ouumd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert.d..Barka, .Axsoc. .at*•Member• A1•fred•Boeg]:in Boarpeals er • yLAA,R + �•NOxry'� A Fi /(VR0.Tf0 :a i y 1855 ;pj� ,T.• `fes w >�ACHU9 NA� „ TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ,� REQ 0 MASSACHUSETTS v 5 VEb BOARD OF APPEALS o 10HN �• a January 20, 1961 Jobn J. Lyons, Town Clerk Town Building North Andover, Vass. Dear Sir: The following petition was heard at a meeting of the Board of Appeals on Monday evening, January 13, 1964 at the Town. Building. Members present and voting were: Daniel T. O'Leary, Chairman.; William Morton, Secretary; Arthur Fond, Robert J. Barker, Associate Member and. Alfred Boeglin, Associate Member. The associate membets sat in place of Henry Tend and Sohn J. Shields. M. & S. BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. requested a Special Permit under Sec. 43, Para. 4.44 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the premises located at 100-102 Sutton Street, to be used for the purposes of a restaurant on the premises, located at the north side of Sutton Street; 400 feet distant from the corner of Main Street and known as No. 100-102 Sutton Street. This public hearing was advertised in the Eagle Tribune on December 30, 1963 and. January 6, 1961 . All abutters were duly notified of this hearing by certified mail. Atty, John J. Willis represented the petitioner. tar. & airs. Lavallee were the only abutters presente" were concerned mainly about where the cars would park, a matter whicb was quickly straightened oat. The Board discussed and voted on thePe tition. air. Burke made a motion to aftaT the special permit. Mr. Marton seconded the notion and the vote was unanixous. This, special permit is granted, for the following reasons: 1. There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in question, which do not generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is located. 2. The requested special permit will not adversely affect the public good to any sub- stantial extent and will not materially affect the general character of the neighbor-- hood4 3. The requested special permit will not be in substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. very truly yours, BOARD OF AFYFALS >_�I fe AD aniel T. OtLeary, Chairman. 77 Form 81 P -,2 (1963) North Andover Planning Planning 34okid �� t NOTICE TO TOWN CLE19 OF ACTION OV PLANNING BOARD ON PIAN IE80RIBBE.0 * Date ofSubmiss on of Plans o Utt*a ftof t ; Xorth AndoWear, mWasswWo s Town Clerk,, Town of North Andover Town Office Building North Andover, Massachusetts Dean ,Sir: We forward to"you herewith the original' and one copy of the plan described below, heretofore submitted to this Board under G,L,,, c.; 41, s, 81 P., v which you may deliver, upon request, to the applicant above named. EXACT TITLE OFPLAN, with date and name of Surveyor:, Plan st OVIAs Lead of X h d Dtildi ft 1 0WOW"U40 Qo.v %"w Anftver,;Masa. neat (4) tats Woo sa�ri�a�t `°��° a►l '$��819 '� %&9CWTas i, It 3* aeerly known as Lots `COs tl x, 7 a 79 80' 1 8s, and 61 !Tran a Plan ©f Laud of Davis to Vwboar Maablue too. s • Press flout lima Andover, Massasliaetts, dated Imo, 19 s sad rooead*d In the kwft Distriot suss hssistry of Doods see ?skills Book T PlUs Plash #2098, ender data of dal43 28\9 149. Title reference: North Essex Deeds, Book , page Attorney for Applicant: The action taken by-this Board union said plan is indico4ed,ppp4 "the , reverse hereof. _ y - t - F r - - Th e North Andover Planning Board has determined that said plan ,does not require ,approval under the subdivision control law, and the appropriate w endorsement has been made upon the- same. t ; (2), The North Andover Planning Board has determined that said plan shows 'a' %subdinisionas def,ned by G.L. c. _41, s. 81 L, and must therefore bt ' re.-submitted to it for approval under the subdivision control law. The North Andover Planning Board has 'determined to take no action upon i said plan. - � Very truly yours, r NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD By T64f 4a� r , Date: 7 ��' =Form 81 P # (1963) : North Andover P]axsn5ng �oartid 71 , s NOTICE �IEVEDTOWN NOT TO RE SUBMIREISSION16PLANNNG OARD CF PLAN APPROVAL �UNZERITHEgSUBDIVIISION CONT REED S � RSL LAW , . Name and Address of Applicant Date of Submission of P n: P. Town Clerk, Town; of North Andover Town Office Building Noorth Andover, Massachusetts- Dear Sir: � Pursuant to the provisions of;'G.L. c. 41, ss.' 81 P and 81 T, you are hereby notified that the plan described below has this day been' submitted to the North Andover Plannii4lBoard for a determination that approval ofthe same is not required -by the subdivision control law. EXACT TITLE OF PLAN, ,with date and name of Surveyor: Flaw Abowbe Lmi yet W 6 8 ft1341ft 6I—M *# A 'Mre .- �Description of land "sufficient for identification": pow 1 '140R fe ,r th�i f aido Vie !' fit ti �� t 3r 4 tape riy know as Tb ' 1, T , T9, '4C, ISt 11,E tree s Plan or Lid of Davis FWWW Raskin* 0,0. a • "aa ftou. s l&*Vvers fte"i "fis, 44*4 *►s 1940 *ad 30~ tit ,as s 91strio4 Frac 1*618*y or s, 11t0 fski", soft s fes„ Into X"g Vadw d&tts.-o! ftly 20o 1,%94 Title reference: ,North.Essex Deeds, Book , page Attorney for Applicant: .. Very truly yours; Applicant r -00 3 •e� s/ A►nu.Tr' �; 1553•; !VD A '�ACHu� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS awn" at 190 01mum AIM** dak I � # bbWd 0 #34* � 00 ot0rmmmlf 't. Do% emimma w 44am Am V0040004 *04 Us 110014"aw o 4*11, o mod fowftufts W41 of do a X14 444tot~ "ll imlrm�► * 'I'd" 6 op" ► t� � � o SUM d fat + *r tert t t'ti 14 not bo OKUP1441- ball4l o s Sir from the ,mmt mot , Qw 1y "mt of the sovi o tho rounution v It v notod to Ow Dowd Owt Um Fath d +sd We WOblea 1t ti' 004 t lti r + ' Ertl t to Idles jw"tleav tod #mas~ttes lwoe*4w" In +m d to a xtvwtw&Uy ll - s 00 some ma 44980"0 Ile fto 04 ~sdft" • ' lsvol'" aim" 1� t ' t � IN Ut 40 w ift MAU* ponies 015'7 DMt3A 1 a® w 't 0 T,� wft ld bar to &U ftu besomat to be UO3mod to the OVUUOI plans Ofte straotwo svfttod TWIN OO SPW4 ikity o"t"Nod $A I wa W"64000 are b"" MSO + ° IM611" Ast ot Vesa$ I OdWO4014 k. k►t ► to X o Pa*u L#Nw ar* lmuftdww* No Mosho fM persammof uno"S" passwo Tout Us am to be 4"Ambod so mw loww le"16 M1*600"" $0040 so "on be *Stu"# as UVAMO VOWOWOO A t ""44044 60 89 to 30 vt%b tho Uw4uw ot 00 orstluty Von a 4 ; yy as Nod i F• AiNll7� iio I i:, Lass TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date . t3etAbar_ 1A'. :&%7. . . . . . . . Petition No.. .iYr 'm! . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Hearing. . . .tember. . . . . . . t 1*7 Petition of . . M. & S. Building & cs�truction f e. Tmme.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premises affected . 9D -40tc Str"t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and "W Perm fi Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirementvfof the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . srth. Ao rZodgy �w .: . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so as to permit. . . . g. .GaKPlsz! ' 'PW9.b91141.498.s..of W WOODS*.1 . 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to. . qAW. . . . .the luriaWo 644.SPOGUI.Pftwit . . . . . . . . and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a permit to . . . . X.. 8e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions:. Se® desisian. Signed Jams. A.. .Dept.0 . . . . . . . . . Saniol T. 011a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r Itob®rt J. .Bwkst. Apoetsto VAmbw 4. Board of Appeals APRILM Ri SACH j TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS titft sift* 606� go* mw* �a�rlt �» E� diOMl�t txvlt oo h *"** o� thy' MWIS to acid at *6 x a 4 a14 �+e�aMip�asrll�a� to 'papa Orth, Andbftrd at *&U fair spe"al r"t Mdor i d aa►a ? of fho WWth ft4wor fq�-lsw bo as 0 to V*Wt a owelas of tw b l „ " d fjlaa`d by the ftildI oet4wr or an soartmot kmao wait a# ius"a afarto a la116110 haaaaXrlw awpa hold an 'smotem6or lo, 19670 by am pw1h Andower Board a s. MW hoaq Ing was' hold Is #ha 'left OMse faviliht osr. statutory 1kosoa o wovon by wopw `ate to the * e, and al + rs W se att *d staalls llto of tho Board peel VWO 4000; Am amwos ChaiaDagwpt„ ArtbW --do s tol'V« d0 i, sad As"ola tit nays hobark o "a itiwwd 1111.004, utter two ait o is o absomo# of p oast t aanraa s" efeM ,1„ olds &add bald livott 'qhs VPU*Mnt Woo V n atted Or Atteftey JWm Is If #+ ani#o plau thads the o ooslaamt of'* team*# sopavaied by brat lls, %*1oh ted laaa►lmtdo'l aaw, sftfto Ilya is watss desiviod for o0ovemor of a smaximus or two parsons with va, l+apaaaara a iand"eu am that aaaa ova iw# of 1 2 7 Lte location is a parcel of lend zoned for Indu strYs fAd Ated ore the north side of Sotto t Street and bounded by the .awsheen River; the location being an area wherein the Immediate Eteighborhood influences are of older type v a,ltiple dwelling its fringing the physical condition of obsolesoeerfae. ithile rzoned for industry# Paragrraph 4,7 allows permissive ase of the lend.. for multiple Trental unite to be built thereeyn. Attorney Willis presented and discussed at length the features Of the detailed set of architeetiaral plans prepared by Philip Byrnes Registered .Architect# liasnsed for the State of Massachasettse It was further pointed out that# in cooperation .with the ob,Jactivity of the Fire Chief and the Fire Department of Worth Andover# !Mass.# the Petitioner was to .install a fully autocratic sprftkled building with an automatic fire slam system connected dir`eetly to Fire lieadguarrters. A lengthy presentation doVoloped with respect to the actual wording of our By-law wherein a minima of 3500 sgUaPe feet of Land is required for each apartment units without *O tsi- de3ratioct as to Wwtheur or not they, were +ane moon units ar seven room units, It was pointed out to the Board that an apartment of 454 square feet of livable area or 2500 square feet Of area would require the same Amount of leads which imposed a hardship in the and use to the prosont petitioner, Likowiros it wens pleaded that the present By-law limits 12 units per struetswe, without regard to the over-all sizer of the units, Likewise# it was 'pleaded that units, as proposed, would, require much less s4%8Ve f'oo't livable area thou if they were built on the basis of seven roams per apart- mont, And with the interpretation of the design of the strusturOs , it was pointed out that there would be 14 units in one struetura# and 15 units In the reesaini.ng section of the aeWlaac,' Mich In cawarison with the ones twos and tbree bedroom units would# In ***ones# be considerable leen square footage for the proposed type livable unit .ttorasy Willie further pleaded the need for this type unit since the area has not had any built and there was a need for sea*& '.the petitioner submitted an extensive statement of facts to sur<pporrt that the granting at the variance and special permit would not street generally the sonIng district in which it is located, other than to upgrade same; that 'literal esfe t of the epplieabla soning restrictions wood result in a sesrstantial hardship# finan- cial and otherwise; that the relief sought will be desirable and without substantiaitl detriment to teas public good$ that the relief sought will not nallnen' substantially derogate frau the Intent and impose of the Zoning if ng BY-law, Speaking in favor of the petition was the Chairman of the Industrial Commision, NrV Rdward Phelaas eend.tho OhM.U4wu of the hoard of Asoossorrs# Mr, Koury Lund, who expressed thein opinions that the granting of the variance gad special permit would in actuality be an asset to the Town of North Andover* •Dp4ldlflti 11I #1567 poaratwttu; ate' Us tow .eta 4000140041 0041 la tamw 0 Ifto it#loa. Vero no +o ttit±wrat r►+a ssd as, as boar"O to "No POWASOW; aaattios, dta ► st�t►+eM►dsds. was naft m waaartod to $a* tk# V061*140 04 spsoial o tsat►ttiltttrw sMotlaW at *0 XOSUM user d.,of AMOUR► dta peg*do an 2.907 too v alta Int! "toao% Momb ars oadM� �aa't +�. s aa+ . � s�tt#,awtt* atoe+rtadwdb taMaa�tsar or ttw tho "Roos tt spoot Z Assume an Utiwar 4•oda bo OraMod stall that a trtpraait t OOP tiaaa ,T oft 1as1 .l tavlds bo ttto, pa"tib +or; its sate lwae :the owlowOt WO +tat ala Salt owes," aw with tho plow O"tt*d to the 8a wd, ,ft swt3oa W" satrJlsod with fOU04 d "time is arri"Otixea ol etzoarri :i ptttawararatd# taaditIons to tm booed le a Owl &Rolrt40 t That t pact t att+rp or its "apo, Mau lawttau a OlUr aattowtiospar +amort' 41"t+ttit ila attwat aE tlt a, w �atdet~vtu�i 4W$ 1�#a 'taati" atwd aafro tltsiw o tats tasat ► tthe vivo' $ oi' Aatdw#4 w# XattrsiWt ot«t#* VlWtp itt"attttawwtlon With tha►" ft$% arttwtt O ltto sat sr sprizatclst systomep tho jF#t3.t sAiW# or itat aatA&%$v IMAOUt sa astomatio f1to arstssa !aa orf ad,w tb* w�+ 'tar tions of tho Vitro � arWitotttiit" aatd AowsptSUlltj to ti►r►w * Dep rail VOW Of WWtk Aadhrsp, X"46646410*09 phi aar taeipal tt°aaeaaat taa► dlt"+teatipg til► apowisl po"dt aitd WAVIsMOSS » as fOU009 afToot g tsw UO asubw dtsrtt of its I&SAh it to 141044144 2) rhat dontarl of 'lino vaplou s "t 'mad oposM ja tttt walA aroa dt iat a tt ttiatttel hwtr etol sae o rs t+s,r to tett Fet t1+l000 tit ftwtat p tt st`" d be doativoMo, said vU s 6bo- st+tuaitial' d ttt 'tor ptdtUs 40040 h his #tats vartaatnoat sed 4"614 posit do not attar or sabstsa►tia ly dolt sdte a Ut in'%"* 0 PWPWO Of at I%F'WUUO 7 tottly 481000 A* ^II M & S Building & Construction Company, Inc. COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DICEIMNIN13 AND ERECTION oUrdOCK 8-1806 90 SUTTON STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. STATEMENT OF FACTS IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION OF M & S BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. 90 SUTTON STREET NORTH ANDOV.M, MASSACHUSETTS oy RfCEIVE8 o SEP 2 7 A ro u7 CQ JLn OHN N CYpNs `o HORS a��22d IZ 42 g`0` Date of Hearing: September 18, 1967 Date of Filing Statement : September 27, 1967 I i The following statement is filed with the Toning Bcard of 1�ppeals, North indover, Massachusetts, and is also filed with the Town Clerk, North Andover,Vassachusetts. Authority for submission of this statement is contained in Section VI of the current and applicable "Rules and Regulations," Picard of Appeals, North Andover, Massachusetts . SECTION I The subject petition is for a Special Permit and Variances in connection with the use of the land as a site for a proposed multiple dwelling complex under the provisions of Section 4.7 of the Toning By-law of the Town of North Andover, Massachusetts., said Section being entitled "Apartment Developments . " Section 4. 7 provides for apartment dwelling developments in any zoning district. The locus under discussion is zoned "Industry, " and as such is a non-conforming parcel of land created ncn-conforming by the adcp- • tion of the current Zoning By-law itself. The land is cf twc Aistinct lots of legal record : Lct 2 contains 13,660 square feet, known as 90 Sutton Street . This lot was laid out and has been of record in excess cf 50 years . Lct B contains 47,680 square feet, is an interior parcel of landwhich is bounded on the northwest and north by the thread cf the Shawsheen River. Title to this parcel is by Land Court Certificate of a 1928 decree, and was separately acquired by your Petitioner in 1966. From the Site Plan and Plan of Land by Brasseur Associates, sub- mitted as an exhibit to your Board:, there is indicated thereon a sewer easement . In 1966, your Petitioner granted an additional easement and right of way to your Tcwn and to the Massachusetts Department cf Public Works for the purpose of alleviating a very critical, live sewerage condition that was posing a very serious health menace to the Town of North Andover, and resulted from the diverting cf the Shawsheen River at the time, and in connection with the ccn struction of Interstate Highway #495• 'wo monetary consideration for this additional easement was ever sought or received, but was granted within the context of civic pride of being a responsible part of North Andover, and to expedite the corrective action requires] without cost to the Town of North Andover. II i SECTIOT? II Under lection VI of the current "Rules and Regulations" of the Ncrth .Andover Zoning Boar? of Appeals, Sub-section B refers to conditions especially affecting the property for which a variance is sought . The particular property, as well as the majority . of adjacent prcperties, is located at a sensitive entrance to the Town of North :andcver .from the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts. The properties, in general, are estimated to be of an age running from 125 to 150 years, and are without question the oldest structures in the community. Most of the properties are currently utilized as residential, and in all cases known to this Petitioner within at least 300 to 500 feet have been built as, or have been converted to multiple dwelling units. Within 200 feet, there is a four family unit on an 8, 000 foot lot . All residential units referred to are cwnel under absentee ownerism with present-lay lan,'lcrd connotations . The exception to this general classification is a small. structure cn the subject land which is to be removed, end which is currently being occupied by the Petitioner. In aa $i.tion to the resLdential properties, there is an obsolete, former ratlroal station and a commercial activity which has repeatedly ever recent years been a thorn to many agencies of the Town of Ncrth �Md.over, as well as to their duly elected represen- tatives . generally speaking, the imnediate area is one that bcrt'ers qualification if located in a more urban community as an area that woulr? qualify for urban redevelopment resulting in the demolition and re-building of the area. Therefore, it is contended that any new complex, andespecially of the type proposed under subject petition, will have a definite effect of upgrading the area, and unr?er no condition can it be termed as having any detri- men tal effect whatsoever. Therefore, it is contended that the prcposer4 complex will not adversely affect generally the zoning district in which it is located, but will, in effect, enhance the zoning district . SECTION III Itis contended throughout past decades, andwithin the history or real estate ownership, that owners of property have every legal privilege and right to develop their property to the highest and best end use, and with the normal decay and obsolescence that has set into the immediate area, it is the objectivity of the Petitioner to im rove not only its land, but enhance the area. Ana if . such p y rig hts are deprived from a landowner, a substantial hara ,ship together with excessive use of police powers will result . This harAship, in adalticn to being substantial, will be financial in that failure of granting this petition, resulting .from literal enfcreenen t cf the applicable zoning restrictions with respect tc the lane and complex for which a variance is sought , justifiably elaborate,' as follows : zII • The acquisition of Lot : B was predicated upon its utilization In connection with Lot 2 to bring this land to its highest and best use. The Petitioner knows of no other feasible way of developing a useful end use of Lot B. Prior to entering into G contract with a Registered architect, the Petitioner conferred with the Building Inspector for the Town of North Andover and received an opinion that if the proposed complex were to be designed in accorrIance with cer- tain fundamental structural and fire-wall features, not other- wise required under the Building Ccde currently effective for the Town of North And over, ?Massachusetts, he wcula construe such a design as, in effect , being two buil:'ings . This Petitioner has every right anrl. responsibility to confer with the BuilAing Inspector in connection with his requirements and his interpretations, as he represents the final authority within the Town G(>vernment in matters pertaining to construc- tion and interpretation of design. Following said conference and general outline of requirements, your Petitioner engaged the firm of The T)esign Architects, Inc . , Philip J. Byrne, Registered Architect, licensed under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to design the proposed complex, incorporating therein the recommendations and suggestions of the building authority for the Town of Ncrth Andover. In engaging this architectural firm, your Petitioner incurrerl. an obligation in the dollar area of $10,000. 00. The plan submitted to your Board represents one of the first sets of plans for apartment dwellings to be presented in accordance with the State Statutes requiring that all apartment dwelling plans be designed by a Registered Architect. Therefore, in the event of the denial of the subject petition, the Petitioner, in aqo4.iticn to restrictive uses for his land which must be construed as substantial hardship, shall sustain substantial financial hardship. SECTION IV Facts relied upon to support a finding that the relief sought will be desirable and without substantial detriment to the public good require very little justification since there is a crying F nee, for the type of rental unit proposed. Today, in the Town of North Andover, to the best knowledge of the Petitioner, there has been built, rental unite consisting of 4 to 7 rooms, comprising 29 3 , and 4 bedrooms which, per unit, will accomodate from 4 to 7 persons . The type of unit under consideration is one that will accomodate either 1 or 2 person occupancy. Marketing research, bath by the Petitioner and lending institutions who have indicated . a strong acceptability to finance the Petitioner's project, indicates that there is a complete lack of facilities for people in the area of 1 or 2 persons desiring minimum accomodations. It is inconceivable that a structure as proposed, which will add to the tax base of this community and enhance the immediate neighborhood, can in any way be construed as being detrimental to the public good'; IV • to the contrary , it is providing a. higher standard of habitation facilities then currently exists for a segment cf the public who are seeking housing of this type. One of the several reasons put forth as to why this type of housing has not heretofore been adopter' by privatel financed housing units are the excessive requirements of Section 4, 72 and 4. 73 , requiring a minimum of 3500 square feet of lanr' per dwelling unit, and a ceilh; of not more than 1.2 units per building. It is contended that such limitations are inconsistent with reasonable and practical interpretations of requirements for rental unit . This contention is baser'. upon the fact that a livable unit of 450 square feet , or a livable unit of 3,000 square feet has the same requirements unser said zoning limitations . The Petitioner desires to call to your Board' s attention that last P?ay , unanimously , your Bcard vcpted a proposal wherein there would be a scaling of land area to the number of rooms for various size apartment units , and also adoptel. a resolution that the number of units per building should be changed to prcvid.e a greater number of small units per building as comparedwith a limitation of 12 per building. Your attention is further invited to the sponsorship of this Article in the Special Town Meeting held in June, 1967, and that your Chairman, together with one of your members, did attend a public hearing held by the Planning Bcarri, with both members of the Board of Appeals speaking in favor of the adoption of the 'article. Your attention is invited to the fact that the Planning ;Boar(? has never rejected. the Article, that their recommendations to the Town Meeting were that the Article should receive further stur9y by the Planning Board, and that upon said recommendation, your Chair- man withdrew the proposed Article on the basis that nc two Tcwn &cards shoui.,' engage in a differential cr a controversy at a Town '�'eeting. Ycur Petitioner invites your attention to a letter dated. May 26, 1959, by Arnold R. Salisbury, Town Counsel, Town of Ncrth Andover, ITassachusetts, wherein on Page 2, your Town Attorney states "Your power to grant variances stems from the Genercl Laws of the Commonwealth, and not from the town by-laws . Section 15(3) cf said 40 A. :gain quoting : "Local boards of appeal commonly unleresti_mate the extent of their statutory power of variance, which can never be lesserned by Gny provision of a local by-law. 11mero v. Bear(? of Appeal of Gloucester, 283 Mass. 45, 52 (1933) . In effect, t enables aboard`of7ppe als to waive and render ineffective any or all limitations expressly placed by a town upon the use and enjoyment of any parcel of property, provided, of course, that all of the required underlying facts are duly founO. to exist;" . i V • SECTION IV Your Petitioner relies upon the fc'.lowing facts to support a fin-ling that the relief sought may be given without nullifying or substantially - erogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning by-law. It is contenrled that by the r1esign of the propose,' apartment complex, it is in fact two separate, distinct buildings within the interpretation cf authorities of such construction; specifi- cally , by reason of complete fire-wall stoppages divifaing Equal amounts of units on each floor to be supplier? with said fire-wall protection ani additional egresses as distinguished from an acceptable plan under the specific written worl of the By-l&w in question. In the development cf the end result of the proposed building, your Petitioner held conferences with the Chief of the Fire Department of North tindover, :"°Sassachusetts, with the view of determining his desires in connection with fire protection devices. Your Fire Chief discussed various types of alarms an? detector systems, and also made a recommendation that the very best type of fire protection devices for public safety would be a fully • automatic--sprinkled building. Your Petitioner, prior to the scheduled hearing.; did make a. decision to install a completely automatic sprinkling system throughout this building in accordance with the fire underwriters ' specifications . After this determi- nation had been made, your Petitioner returned to the Chief of the Fire Department and stipulated to him that he intender? to install the automatic sprinkler system. At the time of this conference, your Petitioner inquired. about the installation of afire alarm bcx to be installed on the exterior of the building, whereupon the Fire Chief immediately recommended that the Petitioner should install an automatic fire alarm system tied in with the sprinkler system with an automatic alarm to be sounded at Fire Headquarters in the event of detection or defectiveness which in any way may involve public safety. In addition, a fire alarm box was planned. for the exterior wall of .the proposed structure for manual use by the public, which in addition to the building would be used for the Immediate neighborhood in the event there were need to call the Fire Department . Immediately upon this suggestion by your Fire Chief, your Petitioner unhesitantly committed this installation. an educated estimate of cost in connection with the installation of this fire and sprinkling system reflects additional cost of approximately k20,OOO. 00. It has been adopted consistent with the desire of establishing a first class building, a desire to cooperate with all Town Officials, and a recognition that such an installation • is substantially beneficial and should be adopted in connection with multiple dwellings in this town. VI • This fire protection cooperation is not provided for under the By-laws of this town or within the State Statutes wherein it is compulsory, but your Petitioner recognizes its feasibility Gnd r1tsplays this cond'it ion as gocra faith in the development of a structure that will probably enable your Fire Department to attain higher standards of fire detection systems in future buildings of this nature to be erected in the Town of North Andover. To further support a finding that relief sought will be desirable anrl without substantial detriment to the public good, your attention is invited that un('.er the present Zoning By-law, your Petitioner could build a building of the same square foot size or even con- siderably larger, containing 12 rental units that would house a greater number of residents than the proposed complex under ecn- sir?eration. Statistics indicate that the type of unit proposed under consir?eration will have a population of approximately 11 persons per unit . This when computed woull inrlioate approximately 22 persons as a mean average population. In a 12 unit structure comprising 3 be,aroom rental units which currently exist under cur Zoning By-law, an(. have been built in the Town of North 11ndover, it has been estimated that there are 41 - 5 inhabitants per rental unit, or approximately 55-57 residents in the one building. Your Petitioner reviews the fact that in such a structure there are no fire-walls separating and constituting two structures, which on a total estimate for 29 apartments in the two structures, would reduce the mean population to 22 inhabitants per section . Neither has the building of 12 units herein discussed had the, additional protection for the public ge od, the extensive fire prevention an!'. fire protection devices and systems which are proposed for the Petitioner' s complex. In connection with a support of a finding that will be without substantial Detriment to the public good, the most serious consi- (?-ration arises. At the present time, subject ,property is pro- ,:�ucing a tax base income to the Town of North Andover of approxi- mately °„.300. 00 per year. When andif this projected apartment unit is completed, it is estimated, based upon the estimatedcost of construction, that the tax income to the local community would be somewhere in the neighborhood cf : 6,000.00 per year. Your Petitioner has held conferences with your Board of ilssessor, and the type of building to be erected reflects an estimatedeconomic life of not less than 50 years. An estimate of cutting the 50 years to a mrre 25 years, it is easily calculated that the estimater' income on this to be upgraded parcel of land could yield an income of approximately 150 ,000.00 as a 25 years' projected tax base improvement . Therefore, it can be conclude' that in the event this petition is denied, substantial letriment to the public gccd will result . 7 uch has been written by authorities that the only assets that any community possesses is the land within its gec- graphical boundaries and the improvements that are placed. thereon. • VII Present lay objectivity cf most town government representatives Is to increase its tax base. Only through prudent exercise of the powers granted tc various town boards and agencies can the tax base be expanded . The Board' s attention is invited to a letter to your 9oard dated AuSust 5, 1959, from :irnold H. Salisbury, Town Counsel, Town of Worth Andover, Massachusetts, where cn PLge 3 your Tcwn Counsel stated "Petitions For Variance .* These probably constitute E, great bulk of your worl� and call for quasi-judicial action by your Board. Since your power to grant varie.nces from the ter=ns of the Zoning by-1«w will, whenever it is exercised, actually nullify some provision of the By-law with respect to a ;):articular parcel of land or building, the statute (C.L, c.40<' l �(3 ) lays clown rigid rules to guide you, and. the Supreme Judicial Court has said that the power should be used sparingly, Tunzill.i V. Cussussa, 324 Mass. 113 , 116-117 (lc49) . Fcwever, it shoul ' be used in appropriate cases, since E, primary function of your Boaro. is to accord relief to landowners whc would. suffer real hard.shipif zeninS regulations .were to be completely inelastic. " SECTION V Your Petitioner is relying upon the following facts to support a finding that the relief sought may be given without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. It is contended that upon the formulating and adoption of the present Zoning By-law no consideration was given with respect to the size of units in ratio to the amount cf square feet of land requirements. It is inconceivable for an apart- merit unit of 4'0 feet of livable area should anrl. must require the some square footage of an apartment of 3000 square feet cf livable area. It is inconceivable that the preparation of the apartment by-law considered the total occupancy of inhabitants per apart- ment . An apartment designed fcr two inhabitants would require the same provisions cf an apartment designee' for 8 inhabitants, or for 6 inhabitants, or for 4 ' i.nhabitants. It is inconceivable that in preparing the apartment develop- ment by-law that the same provisions would apply to a building desigmed to house 20 inhabitants vs . a buil(�ing designer'. to house 60 inhabitants. In light of the foregoing, it is contender?. that Section 1 .72 and Section 4.73 has been adopted without the projection of the entire scope of rental unit design, types, numbers, and. • the progress being made by private industry. VIII As mentioned elsewhere, this variance is sought by a private petitioner using private funds, which in turn will yield an income to the tax base for the inhabitants of the Town of North Andover, Massachusetts. Your Petitioner points to the fact that in the Town of North Lrndover, recently completed andrecently occupied, is an apartment complex which had a lana-ta'.ting, depriving the town from receiving; future tax benefits, which was built totally from public funds, and now places an additional burden on the average taxpayer, which has rental units not inconsistent in size with those pro- posed by your Petitioner, which has approximately only 40% of the land area as provided for and imposed upon private in'ustry under your Zoning By-law, and which will, un,4er a rental occupancy, continue to be subsidized by publid funds . Your Petitioner believes that the foregoing is an excellent example of support for a favorable finding in this connection. Your Petitioner calls to your attention that the variance sought une.er this petition may be granted without nullifying or substan- tially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning by- law, and that your Board. has set a precedent for the granting of such a variance. Your attention is invited to the variances grante(l. to the Walker Realty Trust, also in a downtown area wherein the square foot of land requirements were waived under the same conditions as are sought under our present petition. SECTION VI In conclusion, your Petitioner contends the following: a) That there are certain conditions especially affecting the parcel in question which do not generally affect the entire zoning district of which the parcel is located; b) That unless the variance and special permit are grantee, the applicant will suffer substantial hardship, financial and otherwise; c ) That the requested variance and permit will not adversely affect the public good to any substantial extent; quite the contrary, it will be beneficial to the public good. d) That the requested variance and. special permit will not be in substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of the Zcnin, By-law. IX e) It is contender. that the dominant "intent or purpose" of every zonin<, regulation is the promotion of "the health, safety, convenience, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the Torn of North Andover , Massachusetts. " It is therefore contended that the variance and special permit sought under this petition are for the promotion of thehealth, safety, convenience, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of (Toth rlxnrover, 'TZassachusetts . f) It is contende(. that the Zoning Boar? of Appeals cf North _'-in-lo ver, llus2tchusetts, has the enabling; powers to waive ane-' ren-'er ineffective any or all limitations expressly place( by r town upon the use an( enjoyment of the Petitioner' s lana1 and property, Ana that relief on the arbitrary, excessive, ,,.n( IT- proper limitations shoull be effected by a favorable ,3ecision of the_ Zoning Board cf Alppeals of Ncrth Andover, Massachusetts. f / OflkLIAM KRUSCHWITZ A- Q a �q R IS, 770 t . I 4 kp� i I, i c / b 1 S UTTON 'PL AN os A/O/RT/-/ A MOaVE14R, SCALA ) '_ 2o ' JAN. ! 9G + rrad ZJ..%Nv h - ofJULr� -D - will N C IF Wil@ ARM ol ILA O G ^1 t s �r y X d Y k ffi p w: n r ; 3^w .moo a Lp•. akin ti} y r.i r v 9' ry a 3S R a c v k' Q t N r Oversized Maps on file with the Town