HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-12The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday night, April 12, 1988 in
the Selectmen's Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. The
following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Augustine
Nickerson, Clerk, William Sullivan, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio and Louis Rissin.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Robert K. Dai~le - Special Permit - 7 Hod~es Street
Mr. Ntckerson, Clerk, read the legal notice.
Attorney G. Cohen spoke for the petitioner filing for an appeal of the Building
Inspector's denying them an Occupancy Permit. Mr. C. Foster, retired Building
Inspector, stated that the he had issued the building permit to Mr. Daigle and
that the petitioner had followed that permit. He stated that it is a non-con-
forming structure but not non-conforming use. As the lot size is small, Mr.
Daigle wanted to put a high roof line on the building and extend roof line and
a building permit was issued. If he wanted to expand he would have to come to
the ZBA, which he did, and was not approved so he went forward with the building
without the extension. Mr. Foster stated that a site plan review was not need-
ed(8.2).
Fireman Casale interrupted the meeting to tell the Board that there were far too
many people in the room, hall and stairway and this created a fire hazard. He
suggested that the meeting be moved to the Senior Center. Another meeting was
at the Senior Center, so Mr. Ser£o went out into the hall and requested that some
of the people wait upstairs, in the library or outside until their hearings were
called.
Mr. Foster spoke for the petitioner and felt that he should defend the issurance
of the building permit to Mr. Daigle. He needed 10 parking spaces, building used
on the first floor and part of the second. Wanted stores and offices in the
building. Because of more parking needed, he would have to go to the Planning
Bpard, so he and Mr. Daigle agreed that two sides of the room could be repaired and
the roof replaced, and saw no increase in the building by changing the roof llne.
By building a new roof, it does not change the use of the building. Felt this was
not in violation of zoning bylaw and issued the building permit. The building would
have a beauty salon, etc. on the first floor and only the area presently used would
be allowed on the second floor.
Mr. Vivenzio asked if this was a non-conforming use or a non-conforming building
as stated in Section 9? Mr. Foster said that the building use had not been
changed.
Letter from the Building Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson as follows:'~kE: Daigle/
Hodges Street Property - Upon review of material available in this office, a
Certificate of Occupancy was not issued to Mr. Daigle for the following reasons:
1. Violation of Section 8, para. 8.3; Site Plan Review was not
submitted prior to construction;
2. Violation of Section 9, para. 9.2(1), (2), (3).
According to records of the Board of Assessors, the original building at 7 Hodges
Street had an assessed area of 3,942 GFA. However, the present facility constructed
by Mr. Daigle has an assessed area of 5,200 GFA, a clear violation of para. 9.2(3)
which states that an increase in volume or area shall not exceed twenty-five (25)
percent of the original use. Signed D. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector 4/8/88"
Daigle
Regular meeting con'd 4/12/88 Page 2
A brief intermission was called by Mr. Serio so that he could again speak to the
people in the hallway about leaving because the Fire Department said the meeting
would have to be stopped if the hallway was not cleared.
Mr. Foster said that the petitioner was not asking for that part of the building.
Mr. Vivenzio said that the Board does not look at parts of buildings, they look at
the entire building. Mr. Foster said that the previous petition had been denied under
Section 9.2 and it should not have been because of the wording of the Section, the
25% does not apply to the building.
Original decision read by Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Foster stated that a decision has to
be made whether 9.2 applies to this decision or not. Mr. Vivenzio said that he does
not recall any decision made of only one(use or building) non-conforming use.
Attorney Cohen stated that the space in question will not be used and they want to
occupy the space that the building permit was originally issued and and no other space.
Mr. Froster stated that the only change except for the size is the roof and this
extra space will not be used for tenants.
Plans shown to the Board by Mr. Daigle and Attorney Cohen, and they stated that only
part of the second floor will be used and it was shown to the Board. Attorney Cohen
said that they did not want to go to litigation with this and have one building
inspector against another. Mr. Nickerson said that a portion of the building will
not be used ever, but feels that this is hard to believe. Attorney Cohen suggested
that something could be put in the decision to guarantee not using that space. Mr.
Foster stressed that the main principle is that the building permit is issued and then
some one else comes along and changes the decision. Mr. Vivenzio asked when the
construction began and Mr. Daigle stated on February 23, 1987. Mr. Vivenzio stated
that there was a denial in 1986 on this property. Mr. Foster said that he did not
did not see the problem because it is not changing the use of the building. Mr.
Vivenzio said he felt the building should not be expanded and Mr. Foster said that
he did not feel that it was an expansion.
Letter from the Fire Department read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "The Fire Depart-
ment is opposed to granting a special permit requested under this application."
Signed by Chief Dolan, 4/9/88.
Letter from Bahrawy Law Offices read by Mr. NIckerson as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN: "Please be advised that as a neighbor of the premises located at 7 Hodges
Street, North Andover, MA., I do not object to the proposed use of the land and
building at said address.
I have had no conversations with the builder/developer of the said premises relative
to his project and the proposed use. However, I have spoken with other neighbors, some
of whom are abutters, with respect to this project. It is from them that I learned
of the proposed use and the neighborhood dispute.
As I have a presentation to make at the Andover Annual Town Meeting, I will be un-
able to appear before your Board tonight. Please accept this letter in liew of a
personal appearance.
Thanking you for the courtesy of your attention, I remain, very truly yours, signed
Ramsey A. Bahrawy" 4/11/88
Letter from Town Planner read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "History - Applicant has
expanded and altered an existing non-conforming building prior to obtaining a Special
Permit from the Board as required by Section 9.1. The applicant appeared before the
Board under a prior application under Section 9.1 to place two (2) apartments in the
second story of the building. The Board denied this application on October 21, 1986.
Staff does not take issue with the fact that the improvements to the structure are an
improvement over the conditions of the buildingl What staff does take issue with was
that it was done in violation of the Zoning Bulaw, by not obtaining a Special Permit
from you prior to construction.
Daigle - con'd
Page 3
Staff has strongly urged the applicant to appear before you in order to resolve the
fact that he has not received permission from the Board to do the work completed on
the structure.
Review Comments - Staff's concerns with this project are as follows: 1. Lack of adequate parking.
2. Lack of sidewalk and landscaping improvements adjacent
to the structure.
3. Lack of roadway improvements(curb and gutter construction).
Procedures - Should the Board see fit to grant the Special Permit, Staff recommends
the following:
A. Adequate parking be provided for the proposed uses of the building.
B. The Board require sidewalks to be constructed along Rodges & May Sts.
C. The Board require adequate curb and gutter along Hodges & May Sts.
In addition, should the
that the applicant file
upon granting a Special
3/30/88
Mr. L. Allen, 3 Belmont
applicant utilize adjacent property for parking, staff suggests
with the Planning Board under Section 8.3(Site Plan Review)
Permit by the Board. Signed Scott Stocking, Town Planner"
St. spoke about having concerns, he feels that the property has
been improved but feels that there is too much traffic and not enough parking. He
feels the petition should be denied. Resident at 13 May Street spoke in favor, stating
that the foundation was not increased and the building looks much better and feels
there would not be any more parking problems than they already have. Resident at 32 May
St. said that the petitioner had done a fantastic job on the building and the petition
should be granted. Attorney Cohen said that parking could be at the end of the building.
The street runs into the building and we will put curb and sidewalk on the street and
also eight (8) parking spaces. Resident of Morton St. questioned the parking again and
Mr. Serio said it would be around the building and the parking could be there.
Mr. Soule stated the value of an A-frame roof in much better than a flat roof and is
very good in this area because of the weather. Mr. Foster stated that he prefers an
A-frame roof and that this building is very well constructed. Mr. Soule said that going
back to a flat roof would have been foolish. A hair stylist wants to move in and has
been waiting a long time. Mr. Nickerson asked how many cars would be there during the
day and she said three most of the time. She is the only tenant at present and there
will be three units when all are filled, and the second floor is unoccupied and will
be office space. Mr. Serio said they will end up with 4 units. Mr. Nickerson asked
if the petitioner had any idea of the number of parking spaces at present. Attorney
Cohen gave a letter to Mr. Serio and it was read by Mr. Nickerson as follows: "The
designated parking for the above address as defined by zoning at the time the building
permit was issued is as follows:
First floor - left side office space - 1000 sq. ft. - 3 spaces
middle section - beauty salon - 800 sq. ft. - 5 spaces
right side - office - 266 sq. ft. - 1 space
Mr. Nickerson questioned the parking and whether the second floor would be used. Mr.
Serio asked if the parking could be across the street on the land you own, and Attorney
Cohen said they would if that was the only way we could occupy. They would be willing
to do it and stated that the lot is 100' by 100'. Mr. Vivenzio asked if it could all
be used for parking and Attorney Cohen said they could put four (4) over there.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted to
take the matter under advisement. Vote unanimous - Mr. Serio, Mr. Nickerson, Mr.
Vivenzio, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Soule.
KinderCare -
Special Permit
Hillside & Turnpike Sts.
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson.
KinderCare - con'd
Page 4
Attorney Bain spoke for the petitioner and requested that paragraph three(3)
be deleted from Paragraph eight(8) of the letter attached to the petition.
He passed out a copy of the Eagle Tribune article to the Board, dated 3/30/88.
A few attractive buildings can be executed on this site and a very valuable
service could be provided from this site. It is a very accredited company and
this is a great expansion from the first petition we submitted, about double in
size.
Mr. Robert Picarillo, 35 Elmtree Rd., Gastonbury, CT and Paul Laconia and other
representatives of KinderCare were present and they passed out a booklet to the
audience and the Board showing the proposed building, with a plot plan so that
everyone could follow their presentation. The first KinderCare complex was in
Alabama in 1969. From 1975-1985 they had 900 units in the United States and 40
in Canada, presently have 1,200 units in the United States and should have 1,300
units by the end of this year. They are in the child care business and realize
the problems of two working in the family and the need for child care. They were
here one and half years ago and asked for a smaller building, and now feel that
they need a larger building and have more land. Most people are not against child
care but question the development and site plans and want to ask questions
Mr. Serio stated that the main problem is traffic. Paul Laconia stated that they
had conducted a traffic study of Hillside Rd. and Route 114 and the existing con-
ditions are poor at present because of the large amount of traffice coming out of
Hillside Rd. and down Route 114 in the morning, about 250 cars. The benefit to
the site would be through reconstruction of the intersection. Some suggestions
can be discussed with the Town and State. The DPW now want a part of the other
building removed and that could be done and it would improve the vision for Route
114 by demolishing the building. They would like to make some other changes in
the future.
Mr. Picarillo asked if anyone in the audience had questions about the operation
of KinderCare, and one abutter asked if there would be a buffer area between the
lot lines because the plans show the backyard against many lot lines. He stated
that the most children in the playground at one time would be 30 and they would
be staggered during the day.
Mr. DeAngelo of the DPW said he thought there was to be only one entrance, and
now noticed that there is an entrance near Route 114. He thought the whole site
to be developed and that is not what is shown. There would have to be a curb
cut onto this lot. The DPW has in mind for the future development making it a
five (5) lane road so that means that in this particular area we would not have
enough land for the expansion. Where would the Department get the land for the
added lane needed for the new road? Lot 3 did not have "in and out" to Route 114
but the Planning Board and Director requested it, the easement could be expand-
ed and the building repositioned. Another question asked was, How can they be only
20' from the line and I have to be 30'? Answered by Mr. Picarillo, that the front-
age will not be on Route 114, it will be on Hillside.
Letter from the North Andover Police Department read by Mr. Nickerson as follows:
"REF: KinderCare Corp., Hillside & Route ll4(Petition #125-88) I have reviewed
the plans for building a child care center at the intersection of Hillside Road
and Turnpike Street. In my opinion this location has a very strong liklihood of
being the scene of a tragedy. In my position as Police Chief, being charged with
the responsibility of public safety in this community, I would be shirking my
duties by not strongly opposing this project.
The current state of affairs at this location is already considered to be hazardous.
With the construction of a child care center on a state highway, such as Route #114,
the situation will only become worse. No matter what guarantees are expressed to the
Board of Appeals, as far as traffic controls, fences or child monitors, I must still
express my strong opposition to this location. No person can guarantee me that a
child of that age will not wander onto Route 114 at some time which will surely
end in tragedy.
KinderCare - con'd
Page 5
I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter, and do hope
that you, as a member of the Board of Appeals, will consider this a potential
hazard and not allow this application to be granted. If I may be of any further
assistance to you please feel free to call." Signed Richard M. Stanley, Chief
of Police, 4/12/88.
David Rand of the North Andover Police Department stated that only right hand
turns can be made in this area, but people are using a driveway to make a turn
instead of making only a right hand turn. Mr. Serio stated that only one curb
cut would be allowed should this petition be granted. Abutter still questioned
the 20' rear setback. Mr. Picarillo stated that they are only asking for a use
permit at this time. Abutter said that he feels this is a totally inappropriate
use for this area and is a detriment to the neighborhood, and does not want
Hillside Road used as an entrance or exit for a day care center. There is too
much traffic in the area. If the road widened, then Hillside Road would be an
extension of the highway. One side of Hillside Road has already been closed be-
cause of the traffic. The added traffic from the day care center would be at the
peak times of the day, and that would mean 500 cars in and out twice a day, two
hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Feel that the petition should
be denied because of Section 9.3.
The petitioner stated that the children will range in age from 8 weeks to 12 years.
Approximately 125 children would be staggered during the morning hours. It takes
about two minutes to drop them off, they have to sign the child in each day. If
you look at the plans fairly you will see that we would be an advantage to the
area. The corner would be changed and we would work with the DPW to make this
street better for all. We also have to go before the State before we get any
permits. Hillside Road has traffic of about 400 cars every morning and during
the day it slows down.
Mr. Vivenzio asked why they needed two curb cuts? Petitioner stated that the plans
were brought to the Planning Board and they suggested one cut on Hillside Road. Mr.
Stocking, Town Planner, decided to develop two curb cuts so that the third road
would not require an in and out at a later date. Mr. DeAngelo said it should be
shown as an access easement. Mr. Soule asked the petitioner if they would con-
sider a smaller size and what size they would settle for. The petitioner said
they could reduce the size of the building by making it a two-story building,
Mr. Soule asked how many children under one year of age would there be? The
petitioner stated about 12. Dr. L. Smith represents the KinderCare Corp. and
feels that infants do not suffer from day care, in answer to Mr. Soule's concerns.
One abutter asked how many 12-year olds would be at the center, and how would they
get there. The petitioner ststed that the rante in most MA areas they have is not
more than one to two of this age. At this age they do not want to go to day care.
There could be a number of different ages from grades one to five. Our history is
that 80-90% live in the town and most are on the road and traveling to work anyway
and would drop the children off on the way work. Claim that there would not be a
backup of cars, about one every five minutes. The view of the parcel from the
street was questioned and the question of lights. Mr. DeAngio of the DPW said no
lights were planned but the State does plan to widen the streetCRoute 114) to five (5)
lanes and may need to take land from the petitioner.
The Traffic Advisor for the petitioner said that the traffic report that they were
showing the Board is the very worst so that all problems can be shown. About the
hazardous situation, we have made many suggestions and a police officer would be
put at Route 114 and Hillside, and the cost taken care of by Kindercare.
Letters from Planning Board, Fire Chief and Police Chief read by Mr. Nickerson.
(Copies in file). Officer Fogerty said that the Chiel is not opposed to this if all
the conditions in his letter are followed. Letters from following abutters read
by Mr. Nickerson: J. & J. Casey, Paul E. Devin, P. & M. Busby, William H. Kehrig,
A & A Noukas(copies in file). One abutter stated that the traffic is very heavy and
a number of cars take a shortcut through Kent's Moving to get to Route 114. Mr.
KinderCare - con'd
Page 6
Casey stated that there could be a worse use for the land, but the traffic is the
problem. Each child would have to cross over Hillside Road to get the bus and that
would cause more problems. The petitioner said that he felt that no one was against
KinderCare, but it is the site and traffic problems causing concern. He asked if they
were able to satisfy the traffic problems, would you go along with the petition. Mr
Casey asked just what can you do? Mrs. Devin of Chestnut St. stated that she is opposed
and does not want any more traffice and does not think that it is a good area for a day
care center, you need staff of at least 20 so you need more parking spaces than shown
and you cannot drop off kids in 1½ minutes as you said. Petitioner stated that the
size of the lot is large enough for more parking.
The following people expressed their opposition to this petition: L. Carbon, B. O'Hegan,
P. McGarry, Mr. Bennett, B. Quinn, D. Aziz, and also stated that the Police and Fire
Department use Hillside Road to get to Route 114 from the old center.
Attorney Bain said that the only opposition we have had is the traffic problem and we
hope to solve that problem and confer with DPW and the Planning Board and the Town of
North Andover and help make Hillside Road safer. It is too small for the number of
cars that use it now and we would like to improve the situation.
Mr. Nickerson asked if the petitioner would like to withdraw the petition now? Attorney
Bain said they would like a conditional approval for the petition. Mr. Serio said that
cannot be done. Mr. Sullivan suggested that it could be continued for another month
if you think you can have the necessary information by then.
Motion made by Mr. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio to continue this hearing to
our next regular meeting, May 10th. In favor; Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Serio and Mr. Vivenzio.
Opposed; Mr. Soule and Mr. Nickerson - vote carried
Z. Richard & B. Wysocki
Variance -
851 Forest Street
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivemzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted to
GRANT the variance as requested. Voting in favor were Mr. Vivenzio, Mr. Soule, Mr.
Serio and Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Sullivan abstained.
James E & Ellen M. Phelan
- Special Permit - Lot 4A, Appleton St.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and Seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted,
unanimously, to GRANT the Special Permit as requested subject to the following
conditions:
1. The premises be occupied by Margaret M. Phelan
2. The Special Permit shall expire at the time Margaret M. ?helan
ceases to occupy the family suite.
3. The Special Permit shall expire at the time the premises are
conveyed to any person, partnership or corporation.
4. The applicant, by acceptance of the Certificate of Occupancy
issued pursuant to the Special Permit, grants to the Building
Inspector or his lawful designee the right to inspect the
premises annually.
William A. & J. Lees - Variance -
47 Marblehead Street
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson.
Attorney J. Willis represented the petitioner and showed plans to the Board. He
said that when Route 495 was put in, some of the petitioners property was taken
and this created a small lot. The lot backs up onto Beverly St. Mr. Serio asked
if Route 495 was in when the petitioner purchased this land, and the reply was yes.
The petitioner owns the two lots and they would like to build a home for themselves
in the back and need frontage as they do not have the frontage required. The lot is
15,000 sq. ft. It is all wooded and because of the shape of the parcel, they want
Lees - con'd
Page 7
to have a single-family home for themselves. The front house to be used by family,
rented or sold at a later date. Others of this nature exist in the area so it is
not a new thing. Off-street parking can be provided the new house. Mr. Vivenzio
stressed that if yon open up the back yard, others will want to do the same thing and
it is not good as far as the Fire Department getting to the new house lot. Attorney
Willis stated that there is no way to get to the back lot except from Marblehead Street
thru their lot. Mr. Nickerson stated that there are three other lots on the street
that could also ask to be divided into two lots and we do not want to see this happen.
Attorney Willis said that no one else in the area has the problem that this owner has.
No one from the audience spoke in favor of this petition. Letter from the Planning
Board read by Mr. Nickerson(see file). Abutters, Mr. L. White and Mr. J. Yule spoke
in opposition to this petition stating that there is already to much traffic on the
street and that trees will be taken down and that will create more noise from Route
495 than they already have, and the petitioners knew that Route 495 was there when they
purchased the property. Attorney Willis said that the lot is larger than the rest on
Marblehead Street and they bought in 1979 planning to build a new home for themselves.
The new lot would be a large lot and the existing driveway would be the frontage for
the back lot and also the driveway for both houses. This new house could act as a buffer
to the other ones in the area for the noise from Route 495. He stated that the petitioner
could come bask for an addition to the present.building on the front lot and make it a
duplex, but they feel that a seperate lot would be for the best interest of the Town.
The petitioner does not feel that it would set a precedent for any other lots in the
area, because no one in the area has a lot that large. Claims that the frontage will
not be changed in any way. In answer to an abutters question, Mr. Serio said that
there is no way for the Board to prevent the petitioner from selling their lot should
this petition be granted. Letter from Bldg. Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson(see file).
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted,
unanimously, to take this mattsr under advisement.
Gordon Hall III & David J. Berton - Special Permit - Lot F, Flagship Drive
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson.
Attorney McCann spoke for the petitioner stating that they want to purchase the
property and have a Purchase & Sales agreement with the present owners. Since 1987,
one of the issues that came up is that the lot is divided by I-1 and R-2 zoning.
Letter to Daniel McConaghy, Assistant Bldg Inspector from Jerry A. Goldlust read by
Mr. Nickerson(see file). Mr. McConaghy agreed with Mr. Goldlust's interpretation of
the bylaw, but in a letter to Mr. Goldlust, Ass't Bldg. Inspector, Bruce H. Clark
disagreed with Mr. Goldlust(see file). There is no written evidence but Mr. McCann
states that he would go along with this. Table 2 - 50' setback, when you have a
house lot there should not be a building within 100' of the house lot. Plans shown to
the Board by Attorney McCann regarding the space between houses and building. The
problem is that the zoning bylaw is made to set up a 100' zone between houses and
buildings . No site plan review approval until a Special Permit granted by this
Board. Petitioner does not feel that they need the 100' zone. Mr. Hall stated that
they planned about 10 commercial enterprises, condos specifically-31,O00 per level.
Mr. Serio asked what type of business would be using the buildings, and Mr. Hall said
one would be a reconditioning conputer system firm, one would be a computer paper and
supply company and another would be a paraplegic equipment company. Do not know others
businesses as yet. Mr. Serio asked if any chemicals would be in the building, and the
petitioner said no, not likely because of the other tenants in the building. Mr.
Vivenzio reminded the Board of a case similar to this that they had about a year ago,
and stated that this resulted in a lawsuit.
Mr. Berton said that there is a wooded lot at the botton of the slope, 117' from back
lot and 75' of green space and natural growth and they would put in other trees to
screen the area and keep the sound down. Mr. Sullivan asked how far the abutters were
from the building, and was told from 75' to over 100'
Berton - Hall(con'd)
Page 8
Abutter stated that petitioner said 19 condos at first and no only 10, how come?
Mr. Berton said that the owners are buying more than one unit for their businesses.
They had filed for a site plan review with the Planning Board and were told that
they needed to get a Special Permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals before
coming to the Planning Board. Mr. Serio stressed that an industrial and residential
zone together, need a 100' buffer from the residential zone. Mr. Berton said that
the Town Counsel and the Building Inspector say it is fine the way it is, but the
Planning Board and Mr. Clerk say it is not fine. In order to comply fully with the
100' buffer zone(Section 4.11(3) we need a Special Permit from your Board in order to
solve this problem and return to the Planning Board.
Letters from Town Planner and Building Inspector read by Mr. Nickerson(see file).
Mr. Nickerson also read a number of letters from abutters in opposition to this
petition.
Attorney representing Mr. & ~rs. Matolla, an abutter, stated that they fell that the
zoning laws were put in for ~ purpose that they is to Protect the residential areas
so that they are away from the noise and nuisence of the businesses. These people
knew there was a zoning problem and have not purchased the land as yet and have taken
the risk of spending money on the plans and engineers before they knew that this
could be done. The attorney listed various things from Section 10 of the Zoning ByLaws
expecially the determent to the neighborhood and that the building would be to close
and derogate fromthe intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaws, further stating that
this building would not be in harmony with the area. They feel that the Board should
listen to the people and not let the industrial people take over. Mrs. Grover said
that she did not want 19 truck bays in her back yard. M. Matolla said the problem
had been outlined and she had lived here for 20 years and feels that this petition
would greatly devalue her property. Mr. Matolla said that the builders planned 10
business condos and had no firm commitment as to who would be using these buildings.
Upon a motion by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded bY Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted,
unanimously, to take the matter under advisement.
Robert Reed
Special Permit - 206 Pleasant Street
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson.
Mr. Reed spoke for himself and said that they have other day care centers locally.
He stated that the ages of the children would range from one (1) month to seven (7)
years, and they would start off with about 18 children and up to a total of 58.
Mr. Vivenzio stressed that the plans were inadequate for such an operation and
advised the petitioner that he take the time to have specific plans drawn up,
and should withdraw this petition without prejudice. Officer D. Rand of the North
Andover Police Dept. spoke and stated that they would be extremely opposed to any-
thing like this in that area. Traffic impact is high on Park, Stevens, Osgood as
well as Pleasant and Route 125.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted,
unanimously, to ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Due to the
number of children that would be involved, the Board found that the planspresent-
ed were inadequate.
DECISION
James Harti~an
Variance
Lot 6C, Turnpike St.
Legal notice read by Mr. Nickerson.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted,
unanimously, to GRANT the Variance as requested.
Page 9
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Robert Janusz
Special Permit
Jerad Place II
The Board had a short discussion on this petition and decided, unanimously, to have
a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, April 26, 1988 to make a final decision on this
and other petitions under advisement.
Meeting adjourned at 12.00 a.m.
Next regular meeting is May 10, 1988 at 7:30 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room.
Taylor, ~ecretary