Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-20May 20, 1975 - Tuesday Special Meeting The Board of Appeals held a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening~ Nay 20, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the ~ire Station Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; Dr. ~,_gene A. Beliveau, Clerk; William N. Salemme and Louis Dil~ruscio. There were approximately 20 visitors. HOUSING APPEALS CO~MI~ DEOISIC$I: The Chairman read ~he findings, rules and Order from the HAC to the North Andover Board of Appeals. A discussion took place in which Mr. Salomme said he did not really c~re to discuss the decision but would like %o hear from the people. Mr. Frizelle stated that he had reviewed the decision and takes issue with several of the findings made by the Appeals Comm~tteeo If have discussed some of them with Town Counsel, he s~id, and depending on the decision of the Board, I will work with Mr. Salisbury on preparing a legal argument if we vote to appeal. Mrs. Anna Dc~ue, Nargate Rd., stated that her suggestion would be for the Selectmen to appoint a special Town Counsel in the event of an appeal. Her reasons were cited as follows: Mr. Salisbury's negative attitude expressed in several articles in the newspaper, it is n'ot proper for an attorney to declare he hasn't got a chance when working on a c~se. CB~rles Foster, Building Inspector brought out the par~ of the decision relating to the Building Code. If there is a difference of opinion between the builder and the Building Inspector there is an appeal period with the state Building Administration and this decision seems contrary to the law that establishes that procedure. The DCA is in no way entitied to make a decision under the State Building Code. I have had many discussions with To~n Counsel on this matter, said Mr. Foster, and I agree that he does have a defeatist atti~Ae. We have ma~y well-qualified attorneys coming be- fore this BOARD who are experienced in zoning matters and it would be in the best interest of the Town to get someone who has the expertise needed. Eatherine Near, Waverly Rd., questioned whether or not there were any professional men on the HAC. Mr. Frizelle answered that the chairman is an attorney. A motion was made by Mr. Salemme that the North Andover Board of Appeals recommends that a judicial review (or appeal) of the decision of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee be initiated. Mr. Frizelle seconded. Dr. Beliveau stated that from reading the decision and from what Arnold Salisbury said our chances of winning in rotc are not very good, but if we could get some concessions a judicial review is in order. We should not change our minds at this time and even if it only grants us time things change over the course of a year or ~wo. The vote was taken and all members voted unanimously in favor. Another motion was made by Mr. Salemme that the North Andover Board of Appeals recom- mends to the North Andover Board of Selectmen that a judicial review of the decision of the "Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee" in the matter of appeal by the '~lan- ning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc.," from the North Andover Board of Appeals decisi, on to deny a comprehensive permit for construction of Housing under Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 be initiated. Mr. Frizelle seconded the motion. Mr. Serio interjected, as a point of information, that this BOARD does not have the money or the authority to pursue this in the courts and we have to go to the Selectmen to authorize it. It May 20, 1975 - cont. now be up to the Selectmen to pursue this actic~. The vote was unanimous. M~re discussion took place regarding some of the points about the brief that were erronesu~ such as the figures on regional need from the Merrimack Valley Planning Com- mission. James Bsa%tie, Waverly Rd.', extended a personal thank you to the BOARD and a hope that all was not in vain. Nicholas Artimovich Decision: Mr. Frizelle brought up a prior case, Timmons, in which the BOARD held the people to the minimum frontage and wondered if it ahOmld not be done in this case.. 0~her members of the BOARD felt that this case is really a little different. We can deny the petition completely'or have them divide the frontage they do have between the two lots. Mr. Frizelle voiced concern if someone else purchased the lot. Mr. Salemme~mo~ion to grant the variance with the rec~r~endation to oba~ge the driveway on Lot A to have a 15' width rather tb~_u 10', no Further division of these lots shall be made and the vacant lo~ is to .be conveyed to Andrew Ar~lmovich,was seconded by Mr, Di- ~k~uscio. Mr. ~rizelle asked to have the hardship defined. The parcel contains 2.2 acres but does no~ have sufficient frontage. The petitioner is unable to purchase addi- tional frontage because of an easement of the New England Power Co. The vote on the m~tion was unanimous. Note: plans to be signed following the changes. N~IR_y FITZGERALD-RETIEW~ SPECIAL PER~IT 0NPRESCOTT ST. NURSING HOME: It was noted that this special permit goes with the land because it has been recorded with such. Mr. Fitzgerald, architect, stated that the conditions of the special Permit outline no'further access onto Ohickering Rd., or Rte. 125, and 30 ft. height of the buildings. Their first step was to conform with all the dimensional requirements. He did appear a Week previous at the Conservation Commission meeting with the same plan he showed the BOARD. He felt that they have met with the intent of the decision. Our next step, he said, is to go back tothe ~ which is funding the project and clear with P°lice, Highway Stu-veyor. Asked the BOARD if he needed to come before them for another public hearing.. Mr. Frizelle stated that they will have to conform to the conditions of the origi- nal Plan and decision. The decision states that there will be one(1)~30 l~t, driveway. The BOAPd) did not feel that another public hearing was necessary, DISCUSSION - DR. PATTERSONCASE: A discussion took place regarding what avenue to take on this matter. Some of the members thought that he shsuldbe:,informed that a Public hearing should take place and if he was not in agreement then the BOARD would take action to raze the garage. Mr. Serio requested the BOARD to reconsider their opinion of the last meeting at which this was discussed. The members then decided to review all corresPondence relating to this matter at the next meeting. Mr. Salemme made a motion that the Chairman review the file and make a recommendation at the next meeting. Mr. Frizelle seconded and the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.