Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-08-03Monday - August 3, 1970 Regular Meeting & Hearing The PLANNI~ BOARD held their regular meeting on Monday evening, August 3, 1970 at 7:30 P.M. in the To~n Office Building. The following members were present and voting: Charles W. Trombly, Jr., Acting Chairman; Chairman William Chepulis, Jr. arrived later in the meeting; John J. Monteiro, Secretary; Robert J. Burke and Donald N. Keirstead. Due to the large number of people in attendance, the Board voted to adjourn the meeting to the Fire Station Meeting Room. There were more than 75 people present. HEARIRI~: Eileen Donovan - Re-zonlng, Peters and Turnpike Streets. Mr. Monteiro read the legal notice upon the petition of Eileen Donovan to change from General Business to Country Residence, a parcel of land at the corner of Turnpike and Peters Streets, cont~ning approximately 3.1 acres, more or less. Atty. Robert J. White, of Haverhill, Mass., spoke as representing Mrs. Eileen Donovan of 35 Peters Street. He stated she is Joined by many concerned citizens of North Andover who feel they have been deceived and this was the reason for filing this petition. More than 3 years ago this land was country residential. At 1967 Town Meeting the developer made specific intentions of what he was going to bring to the area; all have proven to be untrue. Instead of a small colonial type de- velopment he is now doing something entirely different. The people want to right a wrong that has been done. Their representation has proved to be false and the people are concerned with the effect this will have to the neighborhood and to the town. They want this lend put back as it was before it was zoned business. This is a case of gross deception and the town has been harmed by false representations. They got virtually a midnight buildlug permit and everything was done in a hurry. He questioned what would be done about the traffic. They should preserve the values of the property and the people who live there. This is not something for a person to make a "fast buck". This is not a "blue chip" development - the only chip will be potatoe chip because a hamburger stand is going in there. He is sure many people here feel the same way. (The people applauded the speaker). Atty. John E. Fenton, Jr., spoke as representing the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. He said the Tribune has made a large investment and are very concerned about the de- velopment of the area. They are concerned about the misrepresentation made at the 1967 Town Meeting. The Tribune does not object to commercial development, but the development should be harmonious with the area. They feel strongly about the moral problem concerned with this case. The town should do something about situations like this and do it right away. He recommends this site be changed back to residential. (The people applauded the speaker). Atty. John J. Willis spoke as an interested citizen, saying he is in support of the petition. He said North Andover ought to develop commercially but in a proper way and the developers should live up to their representations. This situation has destroyed any possibility of any future zoning chanses beneficial to land and not affecting surroundlug areas for the next 35 years. (He also received applause). Dennis Connelly, 127 Turnpike St., said he agrees with~ what the other people have said. He said they have a beautiful area and is disturbed at the type of con- struction that is going up at Peters & Turnpike Streets. August 3, 1970 - cont. William Gerraughty, Carry Circle, asked what would happen with what is there now. Mr. Monteiro explained that there are 3 permits and one is valid. There is a question as to whether the other two permits are valid. Atty. White said that according to Town Counsel one permit, is valid. Mrs. Langevin, 150 Hillside Road, said she is concerned as to how someone that is legally right can be morally wrong. Atty. Thaddeus Palys, of Lawrence, appeared in behalf of Red Squire Realty Trust and Argisil Realty Trust, owners of the area and stated that the meeting and any action taken by the Board would be illegal for 3 reasons. The advertising dates in the Eagle-Tribune of July 9 & 16 were not in accordance with the Planning Board meeting of July 6th. Mr. Keirstead should be disqualified because of his action in having the notice published on dates other than what was voted at the meeting. Mr. Monteiro should be disqualified because he spoke at the North Andover Taxpayer's Association as a member of the Planning Board in opposition to Mr. Green. He stated that in a decision dated Feb. 6, 1967, the Planning Board voted to approve the re-zoning of this same parcel of land to General Business and their reasons for recommen~ug approval were that this area was not suitable for residential develop- ment; that it is in a completely business location and that the re-zoning would be beneficial for the area and for the town. He said there has been no change in the character or condition of the district in which this is located and does not warrant re-zoning to Country Residential. He referred to the charges made to his client and stated that the re-zoning was based on contemplated plans and that more than 3 years have passed since the re- zoning. The economy has changed; market value has changed. They are attempting to develop as closely as is feasible to the proposed plans of Feb. 1967. He said' the state proposes a truck turnaround across the street from the area and they are planning to take land from that area and the Methodist Church area. General Busi- ness is the best land use for this area. Atty. Palys read a letter to the Board in behalf of Mr. Green. In the letter he explained what he had presented at the 1967 Town Meeting and how after three years certain changes took place in the retail business. He says the building will be of colonial design and all tenants will be of "blue chip" quality; that it would mean new tax income for the town; employment possibilities for the residents of the town. He plans to erect a cedar fence between the pond, Mrs. Freeman's home and the store building. The letter was submitted as part of the Board's records. Atty. Julian D'Agostine, of Acton, Mass., appeared in bob-l* of L. & L. North Andover Realty. He said that first everyone must realize the position of his clients coming into this transaction; they had nothing to do with the original re-zoning. In good faith they proceeded to involve themselves at a substantial cost in development when they found this piece of land that is zoned for business. He said attorneys Fenton and White represented the question of keeping obligations. He c~nuot properly answer what moral obligations there are but there is a zoning obligation of the town. This may be an example of how in the future the town can rectify this type of thing by restricted agreements, covenants, etc. The problem here is that North Andover has a Zoning By-Law with certain requirements and August 3, 1970- cont. conditions and his clients relied on those terms and conditions and proceeded in good faith. He cited Chapter ~OA, Section 7A which clearly protects the area for 3 years after a plan has been endorsed by the Planning Board as Planning Board approval not required; and this was done by this Board. He said there are five cases ~n this area on this particular section. There have been 3 building permits issued. He also cited Chapter ~OA, Section ll which has to do with a building permit not being valid if there is a notice of publication of a public hearing by the Planning Board. It is important to consider that if this is re-zoned back to residential it will not stop and c~nuot stop building for the next 3 years. His clients have a substantial investment, they came into this innocently and relied on the Zoning By-Law and they will have no other recourse but to seek retribution from the people involved. If action is taken by this Board they will exercise their rights in court. He feels that the recommendation of this Board should be to deny the petition and then take steps in the future to relieve such a similar situation. He cited the Sylvania case in which the court gave legality to contract Acting Chairman Trombly read a letter from Andrew F. Coffin supporting the petition for the re-zoning. Michael Schena, Hillside Road, asked the Board for clarification as to if it was possible for someone else to re-zone a parcel of land if they didn't own it. Mr. Chepulis explained that the owners of the land have to be identified. Mrs. Eileen Donovan asked if they can go to Town Meeting and have the right to expect the developer to keep his word. Mr. Monteiro made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Burke seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ARTH[~ F. KENT SUBDIVISION: Mr. Champy and Mr. Kent were present. Mr. Chepulis read letters from the Board of Public Works, Highway Surveyor and Board of Health. A discussion was held as to their contents .and it was agreed to comply to all requests. Mr. Monteiro brought up a suggestion of developers at some time naming streets after deceased officials of the town. Mr. Keirstead made a motion to APPROVE the subdivision subject to certain conditions being met and changes being made to meet the requirements of the Highway Surveyor and the Board of Public Works. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion and the vote was unani- mous. McLAY SUBDMSION: Atty. John J. Willis spoke to the Board about releasing one lot on the McLay subdivision that is being sold to R.C.A. No work has been done on the roadway at all. The Board feels they would not like to make any releases without ar%y con- struction taking place yet. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE: A letter was received from John Brown, Planning Consultant, thanking the P.A.C. members and especiallyMrs. Marlene Stekert for their help when work was done in North Andover by the consultants. August 3, 1970 - cont. BOARD OF APPEALS: Notices of public hearings to be hel4 by the Board of Appeals were received by the Planning Board. Decisions made by the Board were also received and accepted for the files. "TOPICS" PROGRAM: A discussion was held relative to the "TOPICS" program and of its assistance to the town. Mr. Monteiro made a motion that the Planning Board endorse the "TOPICS" program and urge the Selectmen to proceed as rapidly as possible with it for the benefit of North Andover. Mr. Trombly seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. This item will be on the agenda for the next meeting for more thorough discussion. OFF-STREET PARKING: Mr. Keirstead said the Administrative sub-committee had discussed off-street parking and they have agreed with the planner to go over this more thoroughly at some future time for possible Annual Town Meeting action. PETERS& TURNPIKE STREETS PROPOSED RE-ZONING: The hearing held earlier in the evening was under discussion. Mr. Burke made a motion to recommend APPROVAL of the petition. Mr. Monteiro seconded the motion. Mr. Trombly said that very little was said about the real issue which is if this is the best use of the land. Mr. Chepulis agreed; that this is something that every- one should be aware of. Mr. Keirstead said that conditions are different now than they were when the land was re-zoned to business in 1967. The Board should examine the property in the light of what might occur there under the present business conditions and base the decision on that. Mr. Keirstead brought up the matter of the motion made at the previous meeting relative to publication dates of the legal notice and said that no reference was made to dates at all. Mr. Monteirobrought up Atty. Palys's remark about his speakingat a Taxpayer's Association meeting and that he should be disqualified. Mr. Monteiro said that he did speak at the meeting but that he did not represent the Planning Board; he was there as a taxpayer and feels that he should not be disqualified. Referring to the petition he said that in the future the Planniug Board should do something to protect both the developer and the taxpayer; for example, an 18 month's waiting period and then if nothing is done to revert area back to the origi~el zoning without town meeting action. Mr. Chepulis felt Mr. Monteiro had every right to render a decision. Mr. Trombly ags~n brought out that they should bear in mind that the use of the land is the issue. Mr. Chepulis said the Board can't make any ruling as to the legality of the issuance of building permits. The basic concept is if that area is suitable to business and is it in the best interests of the town.. This is a different Board, conditions, thoughts, etc. may vary. Mr. Trombly said he thinks we're subject to suit any way. The vote was 3 in favor of the motion; Mr. Burke, Mr. Keirstead and Mr. Monteiro. Mr. Trembly and Mr. Chepulis voted no, based strictly on land use. , Clerk