Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-12-10Monday - De _e~_~er 10, 1973 1 Hearing The BOARD OF APPEAI~ met on Monday eve-4-~-, Decomber 10, 1973 at ?z3© P.M. in~ the Town Office ~,41~4~g ~eeting room. The fe~o~ m~ere ~ ~se~ ~ vote= Frank ~e~o, J~., C~; ~. ~e A. Be~veau~ ~lerk~ ~ N. S~e, ~s ~cio ~ ~$ciate M~bers ~r~ E. F~s~e, ~. ~ J~s D. N~ble; Jr. There were 25 people present for the ~eeting. ~EARI~G; Chestnut Estates Trust (C. Lincola Giles) ,Dr. Beliveau read the legal motice in the appeal of Chestnut Estates Trust who requested a special per, it under Sec. ~.11 (3) of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the extension of the General Business area an additional 100 feet; on the pre~iees located at the north side of Chickering Road and k~own as 670 Chiekeri~g Buad. Associate Hember Ja~ea ~oble sat on this petition. ~r. O. Lincoln Giles appeared in his c~n behalf. He explained that he purchased the property about ese year ago from Henry Lund and had assu~ed that the entire area was ~oned for business. This is the property of the for~er Lund's Garden Center. ~hile ~aking arrangements for f~nancing, it was discovered that only a portion of the area was zoned for General Business. He said an extension is allowed under the Zoning By-Law by special permit fro~ the Board of Appeals, and he is asking for such relief. A small portion of the corner of the foundation is shown as still being in a residence area; he ~ take down any portion that is necessary. The building ~ll occupy less than 3~ of the total area (approx. 2.3 a~res). About 6/10 of the lot is zoned Gemeral Business. Bldgo Inspector Foster said that when he issued the foundation peretit, he also assu~ed that it was entirely General Business and was surprised to find that it was not. Apparently, this also slipped by the Planning Board when the new By- Law was adopted in 1972. He said the reason for this particular section in the By-law was for specific purposes such as this where a zoning boundary does bisect a piece of property. Mr. Giles further e~~ that the R-5 area adJoim4~-~ to the rear can be used for parking. There ~ be a green area of a 15 ft. strip from Chickering Road and around to the back. He checked the access ~ith the State and it was OK'd by the~. The apartment o~ner said he would cooperate and he could have on the side street if necessary. The driveways will be 24 ft. He will remove so~e of the shrubs that block the sight near Chickerln8 Roa~. Henry Lund was present and said that his type of business use was allowed and was also allo~ed in a residential area. The front portion of the lot was used for retail selling. Mrs. El~-e Griffin, Chickering Road, spoke in opposition to the petition. She is opposed to ~ types of business coming in end she will fight it if this business COmes in. Mr. ~ilkinson, Prescott St., asked what type of business is going in. Mr. Giles said there would be sm~l~ shops and offices. He said this buil~ug represents a large investment and it ~ould not be a place for youngsters to hand around. The Friendly Ice Cream is definitely ~t going in there. The Plamning Board letter was read which stated they b_~ no comment to ~ake. ~r. DiFruscio made a motion to take the petition ~nder advisement; ~r. ~oble seconded the motion and the vote was unenimous. OHRIST~HE~ ADAM~ EART~ RE~VAL PER~T~ Mr. ~8~s appeared befere the BOard and presented a lettar fr~ kis insurance compamy exte~i~ the bond for one more year. Bldg. Insp. Foster reported that there has been no change in the operation of the project. Mr. Adams said it will be completed by this time next year, He would need the summer to work on the operation. Dr. Beliveau made a motion to give a fin_~l extension of 9 months - the operst!~n is to be completed and restored by September, 197~. Mr. Saleratus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. TO~N GARAGE STUDY OO~ITTw~: Bldg. Insp. Foster introduced the several members of the To~n Garage Study Co~mittee to the Board. They explained that there is a zoning problem and they wanted to discuss it with the members. Ch~man Serio had attended a previous committee meeting. Frank Gelinas gave the back~o~d of the sits imvolved~ which had been donated to the town for the specific use for a town garage. The area was orig~-~lly iudustrial and the Planning Board had re-zoned it to R-~ last year. The Plenning Board chair- man was unable to explain why it had been done. A town garage is specifically ex- cluded in the R-~ district. They are faced with going to Town Meeting to ask for money to build the garage and to have the land re-zoned. There are three things that can be done: 1. Re-zone to General ~uSiness which allows the town garage use but it ~ould mean going to the Board of Appeals for a variance - whick the co~eit%ee does not want to do. 2. Re-zone to ~_r~ustrial. 3. Merely strike the words "but not including public works garages" from the R-~ .section and keep the special permit recp,~ament. The committee feels the only right optien is to use No. 3. The' Planoing Board feels that none of these options are desireable but they cannot ceme up with anything to solve it. The committee is asking for the Board of Appeals support as to ~ption No. 3. Mr. Gelinas added that the Master Plan devotes an entire esetA~c~o this site for a to~n garage. Discussion was held as to whether the Board should go on record to support a specific change such as this -that it would be setting a precedent. Mr. Salemae made a motion to take the matter under advisement amd revise it. December 10, 1973 - cont. A request had bess submitted at a previous meeting, from Atty. Willis, that the special permit for the conversion of the Stevens ~ to apar~onts be ex- tended for one year from the date of the building per,it. ~r. Di~ruscio made a motion to extend the per,it for one 7ear. ~r. Sale~ae seconded the mo~ion. Dr. Beliveau said he is again, extonding the permit. Atty. Charles Trebly asked the Board to t~ble action ~n this ite~ until he and Atty. Phillips could present their proposal to the Board. ~r. DiFrusciO ~lthdrew his mo$ion. Atty. Trembly expl~4-ed to the Board that they have co~e up ~ith what both sides' have coasidered a fair settle~en~ of the Stevens ~ problems. Atty. Pbt1I~ps was also present and stated that his clients, the' abntters,were agreeable to a conpre~ise which will settle all the court problems. The follo~dng was preasn~ed to the Board. 1. Reduce the outstaudi~E per~it from 152 to 120 townhouses as sh~n on the plan attached, together with accessory structures to be used exclusively by the to-n- house owners and their guests including an olyapic size sw~,~ing .pool, a project recreational and management building to be approx. 5000 sq. ft. and not more than four tennis courts, it being understood and agreed that lot lines and driveway locations are only approximate and are subject to such changes as may be re- quired by goverm~ental authorities, not parties hereto, so as to allow the construction .of said townhouses in c.ompliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, and to such changes which occur during construction which do not substantially change the intent and design of said plan. 2. That the building and accessory uses and the use thereof shall be governed by the zoning by law in effect on March 27, 1972. 3. That the Building Inspector shall issue ar~ and all necessary per,itS to allow the demolition of the ~Stevens M~ll Buildings". 2. That ~hen demolition of mill buildings No. 1, 2 and 3 begins, construction_ may be commenced on not more than ten townhoUSe units. When 50% of the demoli tion of buildings 1, 2 and 3 is completed, construction of an additional 20 townhouse units may be commenced. However, no residential occupancy shall be permitted until all mill buildings are completely razed except for t~o garage builatugs and club house. Said demolition sh_~l commence within 6 months after the issuance of all necessary permits and shall continue in a reasonable-manner until complete. 5. That the petitioners, their heirs, successors or assigns shall not offer the "driveways# shown on' Said plan to the Town Meeting for acceptance as public ways and shall not request or require municipal maintenance, snow removal, trash collection or garbage collection upon said driveways for a period of not less than 99 years. December lO, 1973 - cont. 6. That the petitioners shall grant to the Toma of North ~clover all their right, title and interest to control the water locks on said premises and an easement for access thereto, as sho~n on the deed of easement to be recorded in N.E. Reg. of Deeds. 7. That the petitioners shall not obstruct the area shown on said plan as "Accessw~? No. 1" and that the petitioners, their heirs, successors or assigns shall not Iclaim such ~Accessway No. 1" as frontage as that term is used in the Zoning by-,law of the Town of North Andover. 8. That ,he petitioners shall grant to the respective owners of Lots A - F, mnclusive, shown on said plan, certain dr~uage easements in the form attached hereto. 9. That ~he petitioners shall grant a perpetual easement to pass and repass on foot and ~y vehicle over and across the area shown on said plan as "Accessway No. 2~ in the form attached hereto. 10. That the petitioners shall not locate any buildings, nor permit any parking in the area shown as ~Buffer Zone" on said plan and shall leave said area in its natural state subject to reasonable grading, landscaping and installation of underground utilities. 11. That the petitioners sb$11 place fire hydrants within the area o~ned by petitioners shown on said plan in such numbers and in such locations as shall be designated by the proper authority of the Town of North Andover. (12. This cause came on to be heard and it appearing that the parties have hereunto consented, it is therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Case No. 211/j+ Eq. be and hereby is DISMISSED.) Lengthy discussion was ~held. Atty. ~rombly presented ~nof motion for the Board to make. Dr. Beliveau commented that he would like to have someone elses interpretation and would like to see the Court decide. He does not know that these are legal lots. The Board's decision was based on the odd shaped lots, which have not been changed on the new plan. It is the same thing all over again. We are trying to get direction for future developments in the to~n. The Chairman declared a 10 minute recess. The meeting resumed at 10=00 P.M. Chairman Serio commented that pre~iously it was the unanimous decision of the Board that it was a subdivision and should go before the Planning Board. It did go before the Planning Board and they voted that it was not a subdivision. Mr. DiFruscio made a motion that the Town Counsel be and is hereby instructed to execute the consent decree on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Superior Court in Equity No. 21067. Mr. Noble seconded the motion and the vote was ~ - 1, with Member Salemme voting no. December 10, 1973 - cont. Dr. Beliveau then made a motion not to renew the special permit for the conversion of Stevens Mill to apartments; Mr. Noble seconded the motion and the vote was The ~oard voted to request the Advisory Board for $300 expenses for the period July 1, 1974 to June 30, 1975. A~r. Howland appeared bef0re the Board to discuss his property on Rte. ll%. He o~ns land that fronts in Middleton on Rte. 114 and the rear portion of the lot extends into North Andover. Discussion was held as to whether a truckin~ concern could operate there. He was advised that the Board could not give an opinion. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Jr.) Secretary