Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-10-01Special Meeting Friday- October 1, 1965 1 33 The Board of Appeals held a special meeting on Friday evening, October 1, 1965 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Building. Members present and voting were: Daniel T. O'Leary~ Chairman; Nilliam Morton, Secretary; Arthur Drummond, John J. Shields and James Deyo. HE~RING: NORTH ANDOVER HOUSING AUTHORIT! and JOHN J. & GLADTS L. HUR;~! requested a variation of Sec. 4.73 and a Special Permit under Sec. 4.7 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of 40 apartment units for housing for the elderly, as shown on site plan, on the premises located at the northeasterly side of Maple Avenue; at the corner of First Street. Secretary Morton read the legal notice. Atty. Ralph E. Finck represented the North Andover Housing Authority, of which the following members were also present; Stewart Wilson, Thomas Foulds, Malcolm Norwood and James McCabe. The architect, Mr. Morrison, was also present. There ware eight other people present. Atty. Finck explained that they needed a special permit for the development and variances of section 4.73. He explained there is housing for the elderly already in operation in North Andover and it is very successful. At present, they have a waiting list of 67 applications. They are requesting 40 units. Unanimous approval was given st Town Meeting for additional elderly housing. There were two sites chosen at thet ttme. This location and enother near the present housing unit. The other location was rejected by the State because it is in an Industrial zone. This location would be convenient for the elderly because it is near the business district of the town, stores, buses, churches, etc. This lot contains 66,900 sq. ft.. The owners of this property are amm~ous to have it used for elderly housing units. It would he a hardship to the elderly in Town if this were denied. It would be within the Board's rights to approve this. It would be a credit to the neighborhood. Variances are necessary as to the set-back and side-line requirements, lot size, sq. ft. for each dwelling unit. Architectural plans were shown of the units and explained by the architect, Mr. Morrison. They would have Colonial-type buildings. There was no opposition to the petition, but the people present Just asked questions of the Housing Authority members, the architect and the Board members. Mr. Shields said he wes in favor of houst~E for the elderly. He is distrubed at the authority and the powers of this Board. He spoke about derogation from the intent and purpose of the By-Law. He asked Atty. Finbk to define it. Atty. Finck asked hfm if he had ever asked this question of anybody before, and Mr. Shields said he had. Mr. Shields asked if derogation could include deviation and Atty. Finck said no. Mr. Shields asked when a variance could be in derogation. Atty. Finck said when you put up a dwelling in an Industrial zone. Mr. Shields asked if there was any reason why the petitioner did not spell out the particular variances that were requested. Atty. Finck said that specifying section 4.73 in the legal notice would take care of the variances requested. Mr. Deyo asked why they have to have 40 units, couldn't they have 30 or less? Stewert Wilson explained they have to stay within a figure of $60 a month and the State feels that any number of units lower than the 40 would bring the rental higher than $60 a month. If~ t,h2~ have a lower number of units, the cost is greatly increased. Mr. Wilson said~st about given to the Housing Authority. Mr. Shields said he was concerned with the authority of this Board. He asked how many 134 October 1, 1965 - Cont. sq. feet they were allowing for each unit. The architect, Mr. Morrison, explained that they have about 76,000 sq. ft. They feel the area and the laud is adequate for what they are trying to accomplish - but that it does violate the townts ordinance. Mr. Deyo asked what would be done if the petition were denied. Atty. Finck said they have to have at least 40 units, they cantt have less. This deserves some consideration of the people. They have to have the Boardts decision, etc. in to the State by October 13th, in order to have it start in the Spring. Mr. Morrison explained that the buildings are 15 feet back from the streets. They have kept the set-backs the same as other houses on the street. There are space limitations on the l°t. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Morton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Atty. Finck said that time was very importsnt and that he would apDrecia~e a prompt decision since it has to be in to the State by October 13th. The Board then went into Executive Session: Mr. Shields said the petition is improperly filed, they didn't spell out the variances desired - they Just made it all inclusive. Mr. Deyo said thatt s sort of a mute thing. Mr. Shields said they recently had a petition before the Board presented the same way. This is a town agency. Mr. Drummond said he doesn't see why the town is any different from a private individual. Mr. Shields questioned whether the Board would grant such a petition to a private individual. Mr. D~ond said he is tempted to say no. Mr. O'Leary said we can act on it. In the past when we asked Town Counsel he said it was in the hands of the Board tO act on and he could take it from there. He is looking ~t it as a town project that would benefit a lot of people. Mr. Morton said if we grant this are we going to establish a precedent for a private individual to get the same rights and privileges. Mr. Shields said do we have two sets of standards. Mr. O~Leary said no. Mr. Morton said if we cantt grant to an individual he doesn't see how we can grant this. The reason they're in here is to vary the requirements - to what extent should we vary it. Housing is needed and this is a good location. Mr. Shields said these units are aporox. A50 sq. ft. each, which could be adequate. He thinks the Zoning By-Law is over-restrictive. Let the Town vote to change the October 1, 1965 - Cont. 135 By-Laws . This is a 57% deviation from the requirements - it is not slight. He doesntt think the Board has the power to deviate 57% from the Zoning By-Law requirements. They are deviating in the sq. ft. area and the 30% requirement area. There is a recourse - have the Zoning By-Law changed at next ~ownMeeting. Mr. O'Leary said the Zoning By-Law applies to the Town just as it does to the individual. The other members agreed. They all agreed that it is a good site because it is near community facilities. Mr. Morton asked where they would put a development for the housing if they didn't put it there. Mr. Shields said he thinks there are other areas that would be available. He asked how the Board felt about the submission of the petition. They discussed the reasons why the Board can grant a variance. Mr. O'Leary said the reasons should apply to everybody that comes in with an apolicatton. That's one of the reasons why he voted against one petition. He doesn't think we should stick our necks out - especially on part ¢. & d. of Sec. 4.73. We all would like to see elderly housing. A discussion was held by the members about announcing the decisions. Mr. OtLeary said it had been his understanding that no decision was final until it reached the Town Clerk and that nothing was to be announced until it had been turned in to the Town Clerk. He said the next morning after the last meeting he received a telephone call and was told how he voted and 90% of what happened at the meeting. Somebody on the Board is letting out the information. That was why he had asked at a previous meeting to send a letter to the Town Clerk giving the Board's decisions, so that there would not be a lot of unnecessary criticism, etc. He was in favor of not saying anything until it reached the Town Clerk, but it has been getting out and it must be stopped. He still thinks it is a good idea to send the Town Clerk a letter stating the decisions and then send the complete decision at a later date. The vote of the Board is legal. If we are going to tell it, we might as well tell it to the public and let them know the facts. It isn't fair to the other members of the Board. Mr. Shields said he hadn't been e~xposed to pressure or telephone calls or anything else. He said at the time of the swimming pool petition the Board voted to hold their decision and sees no reason why it shouldn't keep on that way. Mr. Deyo said he likes the present arrangement. Mr. Morton and Mr. Drummond also agreed to keep on as the Board has been doing. No decision will be made public until it has been turned into the Town Clerk's office - at which time it becomes official. Mr. Deyomade a motion to DENT the petition. Mr. Drummond second the motion and the vote was unanimous. This petition is denied for the following reasons: 136 October 1, 1965 - Cont. a. ~ That the deviation from the intent and purpose of the specific By-Law is so great that it is beyond the scope and authority of the Board of Appeals to grant the petition. b. No hardship, financial or otherwise, is to be sustained pending pursuit of other local relief. c. If the petition was granted, it would result in extreme derogation from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. After brief discussion, Mr. Shields made a motion that when a decision has been filed with the Town Clerk, that the Secretary be authorized to csll any attorney of record in that particular case and inform h~m of the decision and advise hfmthat it has been filed with the Town Clerk. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. will be instructed to publish the same in the paper. The meeting adjourned at 9:S0 P.M. The newspaper reporter Ch~rm~_n