Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-11Monday - February 11, 197/~ 2 Hearings & Continued Hearing The BOARD OF APPEALS met on Monday evening, February 11, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. in the' Fire Station meeting room. The follo~ing members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William N. Salemme, Louis DiFruscio and Associate Member Alfred E. Frizelle, Esq. who sat in place of regular member Arthur R. Drummond. Associate Member James D. Noble, Jr. was also present to observe. There were over 50 people present for the meeting. 1. continued Hearing: Archdiocese of Boston. Chairman Serio read a letter that the Board sent to Atty. Dolan wherein the Board requested certain additional information.and that they be prepared to answer questions regarding~statements in their application. Mr. John Truslow made most of the investigations as to the need and brought data<~?~ with him that backs up some of the figures giveninthe application. This was submitted as Exhibit "H-i" (Hearing-l). He also submitted a breakdown on how they arrived at the .03% as to publicly owned land and listed all such land. This was marked as Exhibit "H-W'. Chairman Serio asked why this particular parcel of land was chosen. Atty. Dolan said the fact that they own the land was was one reason, also it is a good site; buildability access to utilities, sewer and water and economic to build. Chairman Serio stated that a Dodge Reports bulletin had come to the Board's attention in which the Archdiocese is calling for bids from su~-contractors for this particular development; that the general contractor is Peabody Construction Co., the architect and engineers are named; that the plans maybe seen at the general contractor's office and that bids must be in by February 20th. If this is true and that these plans are in such detail that bids can be made on this, why was not the Town given the same courtesy to see these plans and determine if they fall ~ithin our requirements? Atty. Dolanexplained that the plans which Peabody Construction Co. has are the same plans that were submitted to this Board. He said they entered into an agree- ment with Peabody Const. Co. over a year ago to work ~ith them in this and other developments of the Archdiocese. This provides a continuing long range imput. Mr. Diamond further explained that Peabody Const. Co. has been working as a com- sultant with the Archdiocese . There is nothing out of the ordinary about it. It indicates a normal step in the process. They are exactly the same drawings that the Board has. Member Frizelle said it is very up-setting to see this Dodge Report and it seems that you have everything sewn up. Member DiFruscio said it is an insult to our intelligence to have something like this happen. Member Salemme said he was also very insulted and upset about the publication. Heated discussion was held. February 11, 197& - Cont. Atty. Dolan said they have an estimate of $5 million as to the cost of constructing this development. He explained that they changed the number of units from l&6 to 230 because during the period of working with the Planning Bbard they found those plans would make the project~ uneconomic. He gave Peabody Const. permission to insert" this in the Dodge Reports - it was an invitation for proposals, they are not sealed bids. Member Frizelle asked how they could make the allegations that to meet certain requirements would make the project uneconomic$ he feels that this ~ording is used in requesting deviations from town rules because that is the only way to go over the heads of local boards to the state. As an example he asked why using vitrified clay pipe would be uneconomic. Atty. Dclan said Peabody Const. Co. has indicated that there wnuld be a saving on that item; they have to consider every cost saving item. The cost of site development was a major factor in chan~ing the number of units. Mr. Diamond explained the cost savings by increasing the number of units to 230 reduced the cost $2,612 per unit. Chairman Serio remarked that 230 units will increase the number of school children which is an important factor to us. Member Frizelle asked how they could justify having a swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. when this is low and moderate income housing. Atty. Dolan said the MHFA have an obligation to insure that it is quality housing. One of the standards is that in developments of this size, there be a community facility and recreation room; this is essential in a cooperative, requiring swimming pools, outside courts, community building, etc. Member Frizelle said there seems to be some conflict - he thinks they are using the magic word "uneconomic" in order to come before this Board, yet you can't come up with costs. To raise questions of economics when there are amenities seems inconsistent. Atty. Dolan said they used this type of language because of the experience they have had in this town. They did not have to use this same approach in other towns. Member Frizelle asked what they had in mind when they went before the Planning Board. Atty. Dolan said they tried to go by the rules and regulations where possible; but it was not a pleasant experience with the Planning Board. Member Frizelle asked why they did not follow the route of appealing the Building Inspector's decision. Atty. Dolan explained their procedure and how it became apparent that the 1~6 units would tend to be uneconomic and the density was too low. Member Frizelle said it troubles him that there is some deception on the part of the Archdiocese. An inference can be drawn that there is a charade. I February 11, 1974 - cont. Atty. Dolan said he is sorry that the Board can't understand about the Dodge reports and he won't apologize for it. He mentioned Town Counsel's letter in which he dis- agreed with the Building Inspector's interpretation. He said they were advised that regardless of what action the Planning Board took, no building permit would be issued. If they were to pursue the Subdivision Law they would have had to have working d~awings and they would have had to have a court case which would have been an unnecessary expense. A 10-minute recess was called. Member Beliveau then questioned the density factor and cost. Mr. Diamond explsiued that they made a substantial saving because they are using the same building square footage for the 230 units as was going to be used for the 146 units. The frontage requirement on the subdivision plan would have pro- hibited their building in a cluster plan as they now propose. The density is within an acceptable range for this site. Member Beliveau questioned that this was a proper site for this type of develop- ment - perhaps a flatter site would be better. Atty. Dolan said it is a good site for what they propose and it has been approved byMHFA. He said they are still willing to sit down for discussion with any town boards and this board. It would not be their intention to get a comprehensive permit and then never consult with other town officials or boards. Mr. Diamond said he has talked with Bd. of Public Works Supt. Borgesi on the question of the piping and he indicated that there was a difference of opinion in engineering circles amd what they are proposing is in no way inferior to what the town requires. The type of pipe is not the critical issue - the critical issue is the density and any unknown requirements and regulations. Chairman Serio brought up the traffic problem an}}~id he was concerned about the two aCcess roads that lead to paper streets. Mr. Diamond said they propose to pave the access roads on their property and to seek permission from the town to pave them. They would cooperate with the town to connect to AutranAve. and Wood Lane and Farrwood St. They have discussed the matter with Fire Chief Daw and marked on the plan the location of the five fire hydrants amd have satisfied himas to the locations. Discussion was held as to the possibilities of connecting the access roads to Autran Ave., Wood Lane and Farrwood St. Member Frizelle made a motion that the applicant submit in writing, the total project costs, expenses, how it would be uneconomic, etc.; Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Member Frizelle also asked that they sub- mit a brief as had been previously requested. Atty. Dolan requested five more days in which to submit the brief and he said he would allow the Board the same number of additional days in which to make a decision. Discussion of the traffic problem was then resumed. Mr. Diamond said they had made a detailed study of the situation and compared it to the Village Green apartments and commented on the TOPICS report. He said they will try to make the space way onto WaverlyRoad larger as had been suggested by the Highway Surveyor. The Board asked for figures on the number of vehicles entering and leaving the project. They did not have them available - only that 1½parking spaces are provided for each townhouse unit and l~for each apartment. February 11, 197~ - cont. Mr. Diamond commented that he talked with a Mr. Steve Erca, of the D.P.W., who indicated that that the state had not proceeded with a traffic control signal light at the intersection of Waverly Road and Turnpike Street because there was not enough traffic. Atty. Dolan said they would be glad to support any efforts the toe may make with the state to help solve the traffic problem at the intersection. They are trying to provide sanitary conditions and safety for their development. It is not possible for them to run sidewalks along Waverly Road; they will only have sidewalks on their own site. Member Salemme asked if there was public transportation near the development. Mr. Truslow said there is bus service that goes down Massachusetts Avenue at the intersection of Waverly Road that goes to Lawrence and runs every hour. Member Frizelle read from the TOPICS report which stated that there is a problem. Member DiFruscio noted that all TOPICS can do is recommend, it is up to the state to take action. Discussion was held on projected costs, higher taxes, higher rents, new school, traffic, etc. Discussion was then held on the drainage problem. They believe that the problem can be solved by the drainage system as they propose it. Mr. Diamond proceeded to expl~iu the system as shown on the plan. Member Beliveau requested that the petitioner submit a written s~ary of the health, safety and welfare of the development to the inhabitants of the town. Michael Gillis, OsgoodStreet, said that if you are going to apply standards to a project, then you should apply the same standards to other things in town, such as for the schools on Osgood Street. Highway Surveyor Cyr said that side- walks are going to be installed on Osgood Street. Chairman Serio read a letter in opposition to the project from Rita Skinner, Village Green Apartments. Also speaking in opposition were the following: James Beattie, Waverly Road; Mr. Tomaselli, Greene St.; Mrs. Robert Hoar, Waverly Roads Mr. Pat Marotto, AutranAve.; Mr. Joe Marchand, Cotuit St.; Atty. Angelo Fisichella, representing Roy Farr, owner of Heritage Gree~ apartmemts, an immediate abutter, concer~ed about the Archdiocese using his roadway which is a private way; all were concerned with traffic, drainage, the impact of the number of families, meeting town requirements, who would be eligible for the units, etc. William Chepulis, Planning Board Chairman, took issue with the plan that was sub- mitted - he said it was not the plan that was before the Planning Board. He questioned how this project would benefit the town- everything is very vague, he has yet to hear positive things; everything is generalized, there is nothing specific. After discussion and questioning, Atty. Dolan stated that the streets in the development will be private and they will provide for their own snow removal, rubbish collections, etc. February 11, 197~- cont. Discussion was held on the status of Wood Lane and the portion shown as a "paper street". Discussion was held on the traffic situation. Member Frizelle suggested that a traffic report for the increased number of units should be submitted tothe Board. Atty. Dolan said he does not think there is a traffic problem. Chairman Serio said we live in this town and we know there is a problem. Building Inspector Charles Foster compared the density to other to~house develop- ments in the town. Atty. Dolan repeated that this housing is intended for people in this community. There can be no discrimination on who comes in here. It is possible to extend a priority on the applications for people in this community. Low income families would be approved by the North Andover Housing Authority. The Archdiocese would work with a local group in screening the applications. Discussion was~held on this matter. Member Frizelle asked that the petitioner submit the following materials: 1. Financial back-up which will show the total project cost - a detailed breakdown of the costs. 2. MHFA regulatory controls. 3. Plans of the 1~6 units that was submitted to the Planning Board. Atty. Dolan stated that for the record it is totally irrelevant that they had first 8one to the Planning Board. Member Frizelle said he hesitates closing the hearing until this information is received by the Board. Atty. Dolan said the period could be extended by agreement - he is reluctant to keeping the hearing open. They would agree to extending the hearing if 10 days after the closing of the hearing they haven't provided the brief; however, they would extend the ~O- day period for making a decision. Discussion was held on this matter and it was a~reed that the brief is to be submitted within 10 days from the close of the hearing and the time will be extended ~ne day for every day the submission is late. Atty. Dolan summarized his presentation to the Board. He stated that if the permit is granted by this Board~ the route of appeal if there is any dispute with a local official, would be back to this Board. If the permit is issued by the Housing Appeals Committee, appeal would be to that Board. They are trying to protect themselves from the unknown. Member Frizelle made a motion to take the matter under advisement subject to the conditions expressed earlier pertaining to the submission of additional material and to the extension of the time. Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion. Building Inspector Charles Foster explained that there is no need for a blanket exemption on this permit because there are avenues of appeal on interpretations of the Building Code. There is a local Building Appeals Committee and the state has the Building COde Commission. There are avenues of protection for both parties. Atty. Dolan objected!to that method of procedure. He said North Andover has not adopted the BOCA Code. In the event of any dispute~this Zoning Board of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction if you approve this development. 77~ is a special statute. February 11, 1974 - cont. Mr. Foster said Mr. Dolan should check his facts because the BOCA Code is in effect in the town of North Andover for everything except one and two family home S · The Board voted on the motion; 4 members voted yes and member Salemme voted no. Chairman Serio declared the hearing closed. (11:O0 P.M.) (This portion of the meeting was taped). HEARING: Yvonne Giard & Louis Dubois Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Yvonne Giard and Louis Dubois who requested a variation of Section 6.1, 6.2 and Table 2 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the combination of six small lots into three lots, each having 90 feet frontage and 9,000 sq. ft. area; located at the south side of Martin Avenue opposite the corner of Bacon Avenue. Mr. Roland Giard appeared as Executor of the estate of Twonne Giard and explained that the area had been originally divided into small lots and they now wish to combine the lots to come as close as possible to meeting the zoning requirements. Building Inspector Foster helped to explain the circumstances and pointed out that water and sewer facilities are available. There were no abutters present and there was no opposition to the petition. Dr. Beliveau made a motion to take the matter under advisement; Mr. DiFruscio seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. HEARING: Chestnut Estates Trust (Lincoln Giles) Dr. Beliveau read the legal notice in the appeal of Chestnut Estates Trust who requested a special permit under Sec. 4.11 (3) of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the extension of the General Business area an additional 100 feet; on the premises located at the north side of Chickering Road and known as 670 Chickering Road. Chairman Serio explained that a ?hearing had been held last month but that a new hearing was called because additional material was being submitted. Mr. Giles showed a large drawing of the proposed buildings and the parking area. He ag, tn explained that he had purchased the property from Henry Lund in Oct., 1972 and had assumed that it was allbusiness. ~he Building Inspector had also assumed that it was business and a building permit for the foundation was issued. He has changed the size of the foundation so thatit will now lie entirely within the business area. Mr. Giles said he is the sole owner of the property and pur- chased it for $1OO,OOO. A branch bank will be built in the front portion of the lot. The other building would have a pharmacy, gift shop, men's and ladies' specialty shops, convenience food store that would sell milk, bread, etc. - not a super market and there would be no soda fountain. There would be nothing that would cause congregation of youths, etc. The second floor would have doctors and lawyers offices and a small dining area. 139 parking spaces will be provided; the area will be lighted and shrubbery provided. There will be one access way from Chickering Road and two from Meadowview apartment road. The project will cost $7OO,O00. Taxes are now about $700; this proposal would bring them to $5,000 and to $15,0OO upon completion. Z C Z February 11, 1974 - cont. Mrs. Elaine Griffin, Chickering Road, was present and gave her usual objections. Dr. Beliveau made a motion to take the petition under advisement; Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. JOSEPH J. FLYNNPETITION: The Board discussed the Flynn petition for which a hearing had been held on January 14, 1974. Atty. Frizelle made a motion to Grant the special permit subject to the conditions as discussed; Mr. Salemme seconded the motion and the vote was'unanimous. The conditions are as follows: e There shall be eight paved parking spaces. Fire protection subject to the recommendation of the Fire Chief, such as a fire detector. Four additional windows to meet Section 507.2 of the BOCA Code. Other conditions as stated in the Building Inspector's letter of Jan. 14, 1974. "Ms~n partition between the stairways leading to the third floor must be covered on one side by 5/S fire-code sheetrock, fir,stopping must be installed at the ~econd floor level between partition studs and two 1-hour rated fire doors must be installed at the bottom of the stairways leading to the third floor apartment. These requirements will meet the BOCA Code regulations for safe means of escape from the proposed third floor apartment." RESIGNATION OF ARTHUR DRUmmOND: A letter of resignation was received from Member Arthur Drummond, which the Board accepted with regret. A letter of commendation will be sent to Mr. Drummond. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Frank Serio Jr. ~/ Secretary