Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-09June 9, 1975 - Monday Regular Meeting The BOARD 0F APPEALS held its regular meeting on Monday evening, June 9, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice-Chairman; Dr. Eugene A. Beliveau, Olerk; William N. Salemme and LOuis DiI~scio; and Asso. Member, James D. Noble, Jr. There were approximately 20 ~sitors. CNARLES CONSTRUCTION: Mr. Serio re-opened the hearing and the regular BOARD members sat on this petition. The Chairman read the letter from the ~ire Dept. of May 28th and the Board of Public Works dated June 9, 1975. A letter from the Conservation Commission was also read which referred to the filling on the property. Atty. John J. Willis, Sr. adressed himself to the communications received by first stating that Mr. Natses had been out of town for a few days and expressed assurance that the BOARD could put the necessary limitations on the varianc~ if granted. In answer to the fill problem, he stated that this was used for Larry's Diner - the fill was brought from Larry's Diner with the intent to fill a hole near the Brook but does not intend to fill the Brook at all. In regard to the Planning Board, they did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioner's point of view and with the proper infor- mation Mr. Monteiro m~y have had a different opinion. There are certain particular features with respect to the building and with respect %o the parcel of land involved which would present a considerable hardship to the petitioner. It is a very old industrial building and, as a result of purchase by Mr. Matses, he attempted to allow the type of industrial use which was acceptable. They ran into serious structural problems largely due to the floors, elevator, etc. They are trying to get certain uses in there that would conform to the Zoning By-Law - he has put it on the market for leas- ing and an appliance outfit has applied. He can put in a retail food outlet, however they will not come into this establishment without supportive uses. There is a mixed use there now such as scad manufacturing, wood working and a construction company. It would be a mere extension of a retail zone by allowing this v~riance and would not take away from the character of the neighborhood. There are no other p~rcels of this nature in the community so the BOARD should look at this as a unique petition. The present seafood shop building, said Mr. Willis, is going to be razed. Mr. Gay~on Osgood asked a question in reference to what was advertised in the legal notice as opposed to what Mr. Willis showed on his plan. Mr. Willis stated that they were not interested in the parcel ~round the pond, just the parcel on which the mill~ building stands. Mr, Frizelle made a motion to take the matter under advisement and Mr. Di~scio seconded. The vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ARDON FARM REALTY TRUST: Mr. Noble sat in on this petition. Member Salemme read the legal notice. Wm. Dorman and Tom Cargill represented the petitioner. Requested that the BOARD %o grant permission to divide the property into two lots. Lot 59 has 5.22 acres and frontage of 31.87' and Lot 58 has 31.86' frontage with 5.044 acres. The petitionem stated that they had come before the Pla~uing Board some time ago with a preliminary plan and that board indicated that they would not entertain them and therefore June 9, 1975 - cont. was never presented formally. This land cannot be reached from North Andover without going through Boxford. We have taken perc tests with one lot being approved and waiting for completion of the other. We would be willing to execute that any school children would be privately transported to the North Andover schools and willing to record this with the deed. They also stated that they have two prospective buyers. Mr. Cargill said that there is no practical way of abutting to a North Andover ~reet, and a literal en- forcement of the Zoning By-Law would cause substantial hardship because of the natural barriers which ~atrround the land. The lots would be estate size and no possibility of neighbors ever seeing the proposed houses, let alone be bothered by them. Actual physical access over Stonecleave Rd. would be desirable. Marjorie Eittredge, Brookview Rd., Boxford, stated that she owns land near this property. The road was abandoued but is a right of way and it is important to us, she said, that it be kept open because it goes into the State land and connects many trails £or recreation. It has very carefully been kept open to date and Mrs. I(ittredge voiced no objection as long as it remains this way. Mr. Dorman stated that the BOARD could attach that as a condition because they have no intention of closing it. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, felt that the plan as proposed, if accepted, could pose some problems for the back land. According to Mr. Foster, Bcxford has run their street right to the North Andover land; if, in the future~ there was any subdivision that road could be continued. If there was a 50' right of way it would serve two purposes - to keep the old Forest S~. open and at the same time provide for any subdivision of that back land. He asked if the turn-around goes right to the town line of Boxford and the petitioners replied that it did. Mr. Foster inquired as to why they were asking for two lots rather than one where they have the minimum frontage required. Mr. Dorman said it was because there are just two logical sites on the location. Mr. Foster suggested that action might also be needed from the Town of Boxford Zoning Board of Appeals inasmuch as part of Lot 58 lies in Boxford. The petitioners stated that they had no plans to go to the Town of Boxford. From the State statute, said Mr. Foster, it would require both Boards of Appeal to validate the whole lot and he thought it should be done this way. William Dewhurst, WaverSy Rd., questioned the possibility of fire and which town would be responsible. Members Frizelle and Noble voiced agreement. A comment was made that there is a reciprocal agreement between the two towns. Mr, Foster stated that as taxpayers in the Town of North Andover they could demand police and fire protection and that one of the parties interested in the land approached town officials to see what could be worked out between the safety officials and could not get a committment. Mr. Noble brought out the fact that although they will be ph~sically located in North Andover their phone will be connected in B~x~-ord and that New England Tel. will not run a line across country for two houses. The petitioners went on to say that they purchased the property in the early 1960's. They have subdivided land in Boxford and have only these two lots left. Mr. Frizelle queried whether or not they should be before the Planning Board. Mr. Dorman said that the Planning Board turned them down. Mr. Foster asked them why they didn't run a road in 150 ft. to give the frontage for both lots, just improve the street and have it accepted by the Town and stated that he did not believe they discussed this with the Planning Board at the time. Another question brought up by Mr. Frizelle was the enforceability to bus children. Mr. Cargill felt that the deed could do this but Mr. Frizelle stated that there is some law which would preclude this. They said they would check it out. Mrs. Kittredge stated that in the past there has been some agreement between the towns. June 9, t975 - cont. Member Noble stated that he would like to discuss the matter with the fire and police chiefs. Mr. ~rizelle made a motion to extend ~he hearing until the next meeting and Mr. Noble seconded. The vote was unanimous. 2. DSM REALTY, INC.: Mr. Salemme read the legal notice. Thaddeus P~lys, attorney for the petitioner, stated that in view of certain circumstances which were brought to my attention by Judge Thomson, I would respectfully ask to' continue this hearing until July 14. A motion was made by Mr. Frizelle to continue the hearing until July 14, The motion was seconded by Mr. DiFruscio and the BOARD discussed the matter briefly~ and voted'unanimously in favor. Mr. Frizelle made a motion to reconsider action on DSM for July 14, Mr. DiFrusoio seconded and the vote was unanimous. The motion was then made by Mr. Frizelle to continue the hearing on August ~, 1975 and seconded by Mr. DiFruscio. The vote was unanimous. CONSERVATION CO~MISSION letter Re lecture by Alexendra Dawson and Gordon Abbott was read by the Chairman. LETTER FROM BOARD OF SELECTMEN Re Bicentennial Parade-was received and read. NISCEL_LANEOUSMATTERS: Dr. Pa%terson~Matter -The Chairman has reviewed all the files regarding this and the first ch~-~oe he gets he will try to speak with the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen to determine what the problem is as to why they have not authorized Town Counsel to take action. ~ Christopher Ad~ms, Earth Removal -Fr~mk Boric told him that he could continue until the August 14th meeting. Charles Natses Petition - Dr. Beliveau sat for this discussion. Mr. Frizelle stated that some of the hardships that were brought out do support the request. Mr. Salemme questioned why they have not go~e for a z~ning oba~ge tO which Mr. Frizelle said the problem is cue of spot zoning and we have nothing in our Zoning By-Law to allow him to do what he wants. By a variance, said Frizelle, we have more control as to what g~es on than By a zoning changer such as restricting exactly what goes in there. Although Mr. Salemme stated that he was not opposed to this use for the land, he had voted on the Planning Board that it was too ex~ensive a use and should be a zoning change and, therefore, would abstain from voting in this instance. Mr. l~izelle com- mented that it was a unique piece of land with the mill building, the Brook and a residential district in close proximity. Charles Foster, Building Inspector, mentic~ed that, historically, the Plannin~ Board is against any increase in the General Business area. Paul Lamprey of the Planning Board felt that they should haveat least gone the more logical route of going before the Planning Board for zoning first. Much discussion along these lines followed, but there were no conclusions. Mr. l~rizelle felt that the parking would present a problem after which Dr. Beliveau stated that they will have to comply with the Zoning By-Law and inasmuch as they have so much area it will probably never be a problem. Paul Lamprey suggested that the Board of Appeals go ~o the Planning Boardwith such plans because the Planning Board has never seen them. He felt that the Planning Board might have some suggestions as far as conditions imposed are concerned. Dr. Beliveau thought that if the matter was properly before the BOAB~ OF APPEALS that they should June 9~ 1975 - con~. take it up. This BOARD is an entity in itself and the Planning Board shOUld oome to us if they are interested, he said. Mr. ~rizelle interjected that he thought they were arguing procedural m~tters. Dr. Beliveau thought that the statement that was made about the Planning Board taking the ~o~rd of Appeals to court was very disrespectful. The BOARD deoided to refer the plans to the Planning Board for their June 23rd meeting and advise Atty. Willis of same. A motiou was made by Mr. Frizelle to table this m~tter until the July 8%h meeting. Mr. Di~ruscio seoouae~ with 4 members in favor and Dr. Beliveau abstained frc~ voting. The BOARD presente~ Dr. ~eliveau with a plaque. Mr. Se~io commended him for m~ny years of ~evotet se~:vloe to our ~own an~ state~ that it had ~een a privilege and pleasure %o have worked together. Dr. Beliveau said that he had enjoyed everyone's oompany and that it had certainly been a very stimulating and interesting 5 years. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. 3erio, ~ro~ _ (Oilda Hlackstock)'