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