Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-04-12Monday - April 12, 1971 Regular Meeting & 2 Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held its regular meeting on Nonday evening, April 12, 1971 at 7:30 P.M. in the Tow~ Office Building with the following members present and voting: Arthur R. Dx-,~mond, Chairman; J. Philip Arsenault, Esq., Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Kermeth E. Pickard and newly appointed member FrAnk Serio, Jr. Newly appointed Associate Member William N. Salemme was also present. There were 16 people present for the meeting. Donald N. Keirstead, Planning Board representative was present. ~.F~TIONOFOFFIC~: Chairman Drummond stated other members should be given an opportunity to serve as Chairman and that he felt he had served long enough. Mr. Pickardnom_~uated Mr. Arsenault as Ch-~.~man; Dr. Beliveau seconded the motion and the vote was u~A~-- mous. Mr. Drummond nominated Dr. Beliveau to serve as Clerk; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 1. HEARI~: Thomas J. Flatley Mr. Drummond read the legal notice in the appeal of Thomas J. Flatley who requested an amendment to a Board of Appeals decision dated November 26, 1968 in order to accelerate the building program of his apartment development from 10 buildings per year to 1~ buildings this year and 15 buildings in 1972. Atty. John J. Willis appeared as representing Thomas J. Flatley. He explained that 20 buil~-gs have been constructed and there are 29 buildings to be built under the special permit granted. He is asking the Board to amend the November 26, 1968 decision to advance the building schedule. He can build more than 120units a year and nowhas to ~m~t his work force; this interrupts the b,,~l~g program and creates a financial hardship. The additional buildings per year~illbenefit the town by resulting in additional taxes to the towa which ~re very much needed at this time because of the tax rate increase, new school, etc. If allowed to increase the b,~!~gs it would mean $20,000 additional tax money this year and $25,000 next year. There would be 1~ buildings (168 u~its) this year a~d 1~ buildings (180 units)in 1972. He said Mr. Flatley has done a remarkable job in this development a~ has helped the town. ~here is ~,sently only 1 child i~ the existing 20 apart b~gs that at~endS~Cal schools' AS 'el ~tweak 20 additio~e! units were rented~ none were under ~0 years of age' No one else spoke and there was no opposition. Bui2~g InspeCtor Charles Foster said that a better Job souldbe done construction wise if the date of the permit was moved to a date when when the weather was not so cold. Donald Keirstead, Pl~--4~g Board member, said the PlanningBoardvoted~-i for favorable action to this petition. Mr. D~-,mmon~made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was un~-~mous. 2. HEARI~: Le~ Vest Properties, Inc. Mr. Drummond readthe legal notice in the appeal of Land YestProperties, Inc. ~ho re~uasted a variance umder Section 6.33 of t~e Zoning By-Law so as to permit the subdivision of a parcel of land to form a lot cont~i-~g 8.9 acres but not having the required frontage on premises located at the northerlyside of Boxford Street, approx. 1/2mile from the Boxford to~ line. Apr11 12~ 1~71 - cont, Ben Osgood spoke, representing Land Vest Properties, ~nc. Ne said Land Vest has purChased approx. 118 acres of land from the Teals and this 8.9 acre parcel is lend that would go ~ith the Teel house, barns, etc. In 19&6 a right of way was granted from Boxford Street to the Teel farm. The ~idth of the right of way varies from 15 to 25 feet. They have a buyer for the house and 2 barns (Thomas Shann). This ~rill in no way be a subdivision. The right of way will o~ly be used for this one house. Ail future development ~ be from the other direction. They have no frontage and would Like to have this as one house lot. Mr. Drummond asked ~ho is Land Vest and Mr. Osgood expl~ed that they are an ~uvestment corporation from Boston and are a part of North Andover Associates, (recorded owners of the land). The house is presently being rented. Kr. Arsenault asked how much area there was in the ori~h~al purchase. F~r. Osgood said between LI$ and 130 acres. They own a parcel frontin~ on Boxfo~d Street of about 18 acres. The property in the deed is not separated. Atty. Maurice Rappaport asked if this matter had been to the Pl~e~mg Board and Osgood said it had not. Atty. Rappaport represented the Adams family who have owned the land the right of way passes through and have o~d it since 1873. This read has been allowed since the 180O's and involves all private land of Adams. No one has the right to widen or touch the road. The plan submitted is misleading; there is no fee to the Teel ~d, the right of way belongs to the abutters, Adams Atty. l~matius PisciteLlo spoke, as representing Mrs. Catherine Donovan. He said the petition is improperly before the Board - Land Vest has no interest before the Board. North Andover Associates are the owners of record. Mr. Osgood expl~-ed that North Andovar Associates has legal title and Land Vest is a general partner. He said he ~ suDmit a copy showing the ~Partnership of the two companies. Atty. Piscitello continued by saying that the petition is vague, general, not specific and does not meet the four corners of granting a variance. The Board cannot make a decision granting what he is asking. A plot plan should be submitted showing the entire 180 acres - he still cauuot front on Boxford~g. The Board does not have the power to grant this variance. They have access through other roads. M_rs. Strycinski, an abutter, asked if they could use the right of way to Foster Street. Mr. Osgood said it would be at least ~ years before the development is under way and that roadway could be used. Building Inspector Charles Foster said there is frontage on Foster Street; the road~sy f~r this property, and the. enti~e area now has. frontage, By forming this ne~ .J.o~ ~ney are e~'~m.~na~:~.ng ex~.s~n~ xron~a~e on Foster ~*sree'~. Harry Thomas, Boxford Street, an abutter is recorded &s~opposed. Mr. Osgood said he doesn't want to create a problem; he just wants to sell the property - he doesn't know what the real objection is. Atty. Rappaport said the petition is a subterfuge. If an investment such as this is made you could cut another road the other way. April 12, 1971 - cont. Hr. Osgood said he doesn't want to form a subdivision now. Atty. Rappaport said he doesn't want to see this situation disturbed in ar~ wa~. The right of way between Adams~ D~novan and Strcynski land is used by All of the. These people knew what was there when they bought the land. This property has access to another road. Hr. Osgood said that North Andover Associates bought the Teel farm and the man that is there now bought his business and is packaging turkeys but not raising thom. Atty. Piscitello said there is no hardship involved. Hr. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was -_~imous. GEORGE FARR: George Farr appeared before the Board at its request relative to his earth removal permit. Building Inspector Charles Foster said he had received a complaint from a person on Ingalls Road that George Farr was hauling and digging a hole. He investigated and found that he was digging a cellar hole and taking material to another foundation that he was filling on his own property. Upon checking Section 5.3 of the Z~nt, g By-Law, he found that it was legal for him to do this. He was also putting some gravel on Salem Street where it was in poor condition and was helping out the to~n. He is not ha-~-g from the gravel pit that he received a special permit for. This ha,,~-g has nothing to do with the gravel pit. Hr. Farr said he doesn't want to b,,~d a road in the gravel pit area yet; that the state is in the process of taking some of his land and he wants to wait to see what is done. Hr. Arsenault explained that a new hearing would be necessary if he doesn't want to build the roadway. PLASH} BOARD: Don Keirstead, Plauntm~ Board member, said that the P~ _~rmt~g Board should take an interest in Board of Appeals meetings and hearings. They should try to offer more assistance to the Board of Appeals and possibly have s~eone in attendance at the meetings with suggestions, etc. They want to cooperate in every way possible. The Board then discussed the petitions of the evening. 1. THOMAS J. FLATLEY: Mr. Pickard made a motion to ~ the request to accelerate the building program of the Flatley apartments. Mr. D~,mmond seconded the motion and the vote was ~rM~li~OUS, 2. LA~D VEST PROPERTIES, INC.: Hr. Arsenault said he would like to view the premises and see the documents of the partnership, as stated. Mr. Dx,,m~ond made a motion to delay action on this petition until the next meeting; Mr. Pickard seconded the motion and the vote was u~-tmous. The meeting adJourned at 9:30 P.M. Chairman Secretary