HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-03-13179
The BOAED OF APPEALS held their ~gular meeting on F~ evening, March 13,
1~67 at 7:30 P.M. in the Toga Offine Building. The following ~abars were present
and voting: J~ha J. Shields, Chaix~aa; Ja~es A. Deyo, Secretary; Donald J. Scott~
D~el T. O'~a.x~j,' a~ Associate MemBer Howard Gilman whe sat in place of regula~
There were 12 people preseat for the hearing.
k
d~NG: Angelo R. ¢ontarino.
. Deyo read the legal notice. Atty. Robert L. Herma~n represented the peti-
tioae~ upca his applicatio~ to provide a ncc-profit s~w~g and te~-~s club on
a parcel of laud ca the westerly side of .Chestnut 3t~est. Be outlined the oB-
Jectives of the appliqa~t in forming a acs-profit swimming a~d te--~e club, and
filed a site plan show~ locations of a s~wg petal, te-~s court layout, a~d
bath-house. Alse provided ca .the site pla~ is a reservation indicating park~-g
facilities for ~ cars. Pla~s include the limitatic~ of c~e huadred fa~
memberships, that operetioas would be hca-profitable, and that no facilities of
the to~n would be required.
~r. p~l~p Busby, a ~earbY resident, asked several questions of which part were
answered, at which t~w~ the Chair suspended the legal, teetotal questicas since
they were not in the form of opposition, a~d same were suspended for later di~-
~ssion~.
The Cheiruen specifically asked Atty. Hernia e~ctly what pr~vision of Sectica
of the Z~-g By-Law~ he wished a variance ca. His response indicated that there
was no provisica for this type operation or this end use of ~awd cont-~ed in the
Zo,~ng By-X~w, and that Section ~ was the nearest applicable section of the
Law that would pertain to the pl~-,ed operatic~a cf a s~ and te~s club.
Charles Foster,. ~lding Iaspector, pointed out that this is a residential area
and that they might get into sc~e eca~lioatioas due to provi&4~g s~h a large
parking area, etc.
Mr. Ohep-~s, Cheir~a of the Pla~ ~cerd, said that the Pi~ Board supports
the Building I~peetor's statements.
Mr. Gilman made a ~otion to take the petitica under advisement. Mr. O'Leary
seconded the ~otion, and the vote was
2. JO~ MeLAUG~,~.
This hearing was ec~ued from last ~onth. Two represen%atives for Mr. Mc~aughli~
were preseat but did ~ot have az~ plaas with then as had been requested by the
Board.
The Chairnan explained that the Board onnnot'properly heaF a petition if plans are
not presented so that they will know what the applicant desires. Tho Board will .
coati,us the hearing ~xt ~th, but that will he the last ti~e. If proper ~
are not presented at that time, the matter will be ccasidered closed.
Mr. 0tLeary made a motion to ~able the petition %mtil the ne~t meeting only. ~r.
GilMu seecaded the motion and the vo~e was unanimous.
150
John Leone was present to ask the Board for tnforaation regarat~g a previous
petition for a gas station on Osgood Street. The previous permit was st~l
outstanding and he would like to uae it nov. The Board explained that if he
oha~ged a~y~n~ ia any way frc~ the permit t~at was grauted it would require a
The Board then m% i~to F~-utive Session and diseusse~ the petition of
Contariao. They discussed ~_be fact that whether or act the-proposed recreatio-al
facility was a profit or non-profit org*-t zatioa did not materially chs.~e
operation for which the Zoning By-~aw, as currently oo~rised, does not allow or
gra~t per~esive ass of land iu residential areas for the purposes sought. Ia
the event of the establishment of such a recreational activity, with faedly
~embership, it is conceivable that upwards to o~e h-~dred oars frum the direct
fsmtl~_es could he anticipated i~ the use of the facilities at peak periods durt-~
the height of the seasonal weather period. And while ~-y memberships might not
be represented, ~ would be there i~ ~ore than o~e v~hiole. The Board furtlaer
oonsiderod the potential possibilities that all similar type facilities extend
within the f~ly membership a guest privilege which, if such were the case, could
add additi~l cars visiting the facilities and thereby causing considerable
oo~gestio~ ia the t~,-~-te area.
There was further reviewed an additional pla~ which Atty. Her~m submitted to
the Board ~ ~mbdiviaion of land now o~ned by Mr. Greenwood a~ abutting
Chestnut ~treet. No evidence that the lots shows on said ~ had bee~ recorded,
and ia tM event that this facility was to be established at this locus, there
re~aiaed ma~y other residential areas that iv the p~oJeeted future would be
develope~, adding additional trafl~o to Chestnut Street which at this time is
without per~snent s~a'facing, and during certain seasons of the year is
traversable. The Beard further considered the acoessability of a high a~ouat
of traffic utiliaiag the access roads leading to and frc~ the site aud the effect
upea the residential properties withtw the access road areas.
Mr. ~Oott ~ade a ~otion to ~ the application, seconded by Mr. Oilean aud voted
The principal reasons for denying this application are=
1. There is no provision within the North Andover Zomi~ By-Law that creates
permissive use of residential property or a~ o$~her zoned area for the l:ma'poses
applied for.
2. The Z~m'~n~ Board' of Appeals does not have the authorization, to establish a
· ev permissive use not otherwise provided in the Zce~mg By-~aw, ~or does it have
the legal authority to grant an application such aa cowtainod herein Which wo~d
ia essence be re-zoning.
3. That to establish this form of a recreational activity in au area now zoned
rosidau%ial would derogate from ~eighborhood values aud be det~atal and ad-
versely affect neighborhood i~flueaces.
4. No hardship, financial or othex~se, was established in the pleadings of
the application, which is one of the essential requiremshts for positive action
by this
Ia 'roJe~tt~ this petition, the Board recog~ises that there are other local remedies
available to the proponeatao
Hatch 1~, 1%7 - Co~t.
The Board si~ed the Reeessary vouchers.
T~ ~et~ adJ~ at ~*~