Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-09-282O6 Thursday - September 28, 1967 Special Meeting ~ The BOARD OF APPEALS held a Special Meeting on T~ursday evening, Sept. 28, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building Meeting Rock. The members.present cud votive were: James A. Deyo, Chairma-; Arthur Drummond, Secretary; Daniel T. 0tLeary Associate. Members Howard Gilman and Robert J. Burke. Donald J. Scott was present but did not participate. John J. Shields was~present. Chairman Deyo explained the reason for cal]~-g the special meeting. He had bees contacted by Members Burke and Gil~a~ to re-opan the m~eti~g to discuss again tbe petition of M. & S. Buil~4-g & Construction Co. that bad been denied. Mr. Shields requested that he be all owed to preheat more facts to the Board cerning his petition. This was ~ll owed. Mr. Shields proceeded to expl~4m the section of the Rales end Regulati~ms of ~ Board of Appeals that had to do with presenting a brief not later than 10 days after the public hearing. As a petitioner, he has the right to present to Board a brief which he deems a statement of facts. He filed a copy with the Clerk yesterday. He also mailed a copy to the Board by certified mail. He presented a copy to each member of the Board. Ail of the Board members read the briefs presented to t~Am which consisted of a bound booklet conta4,s4,,~ 9 pages. There was some discussion between Mr. Shields and Mr. O'Leary regarding the Article presented to the~ Plan~g~ Board and Town Meeting relative to apartments and about it being stricken from the Warrant. Mr. Shields presented a letter to the Board from the Fire Chief stating that it ia a true statement about the type of fire protection contemplate~ He ~ all apartments should have a sprinkler system, in town. It would be a ~del for other buildings to go by. It whould be a part of the Zoning By-Laws. Mr. Deyo said he talked with Town Counsel Salisbury on Tuesday and was told that it was the Board's decision to m~ke and that he would support auyth~ the Boar~ decides. Mr. Deyo said he thinks the apartment is a very go~d th~m8 omly that there is too great a deviation from the Zoning By-Lawm to allow the special permit. Mr. Shields said he talked with the Building Inspector and that he had agreed that it was two buil~s, that there were firewalls bet~en the apartments. Mr. Foster was present and ~as asked for a statement. He explained that Mr. Shields had t~ked with ~4m ~_,~ sh~d h~m the proposed plane before the h~u4-~ and he felt that all was in accordance with his requirements, mentioning firewal_ls, etc. This plan meets all requirem_e~ts beyond what is even require~ by the State Code. It meets all of his standards as Building Inspector. Mr. Deyo questioned that if the Board accepts the firewalls am a proper a~d legal division into two buildings if that wouldutt be setting a precedent for other apartment bui]~4 ~gs. September 28, 1967 - Cont. 2O7 Mr. Shields said that he thinks each application should be considered on its c~n merits. Mr. Deyo said that Mr. Shields had stated several reasons of hardship involved. This land is z~aed Industrial, is there no other u~e that can be made of this land other than apartment ~,~dings? Mr. Shields said it is the right of the landowner to develop his land to the highest and best end use. He doesntt know of anything el~e that this ~ can be best used for ~y hi~salf and for the town. _ The tax dollar will greatly aid the town. ~e mentioned the Elderly Housing Project as grossly deviating from the of the Zeroing By-Law and the Town receives nothing from it. Mr. Deyo said that i~provement of ~ is not a valid reason for hardship. Mr. Shields breught to the attention of the Cb~trma~ that he did not cell this meeting - that it was called at the request of 2 Board members - with reference to reconsideration. Mr. Deyo said this is not a reconsideration. Mr. Dr~aond made a motion to take the matter under advisement. Mm. Burke se~onde~ the motion and the vote ~as unanimous. Mr. Shields asked the Chairman if he asked Town Counsel if this was an opera er a clo,ed meetA-~-. ~r. Dey~ said that To~n Counsel said ther~ is a State law with regard to open meeting~. PUh~c can attend but ~ay not ?_~ticipate - they can sit and listan. Personnel or personal rotters and Advisory Board need not be opes. Mm. Shields said that in a Board of Appeals ~eetiug there is no closed meeting session. Mr. Bl~rke ~ade a motion to GRAI~T the petition. Mr. Drummond seconded the motic~. Mr. ~d then said that he thinks there should he a motion to withdraw original motion to ~ENY the petition. Mr. Burke ~ade a motion to 'rescind +.?~_ previous motion to deny the petition. Mr. Dx.~ud seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Mm. Burke ~hen made a motion to GRANT the petition. Mr. Dr~m~md seconded the motion. He said there was no oppositiou to the petitio~ and he can't see wh~ we can't grant it. The Firs Chief, Building Inspector, Assessors are all for it. He said the Board of Appeals is the most powerful Board in to~n. ~enbers OtLeary, Dre~m~d and Associate Members Burke and ~ voted in favor of granting the petition. Chair,~, Deyo abst-~ed fro~ voting. The conditions of the decision include~ That the Petitioner, or its assigns, she]] insta]_l a f~y automatic sprinkler systea in accordance with approved Fire Undex-~ritars specifications and acceptable installation to the Fire Department of North Andover. 2O8 September 28, 1967 - Cont. That, in cozaection with the inst~l_lation of the auto~atie sprinkler systm, the petitioner, or its assigns, install an automatic fire alarm system in accordance with the specifications of the Fire Underwriters and acceptability to the Fire Department of North A-dover. The prinoipel reasons for granting the special permit and variances are as follows: 1. Conditions especially affeoting the ~ubJect property do not affect generally the zo~g district in which it is located. 2. That dena~l of the variances and special permit would result in a s~bstantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petiti~er. 3. That the relief sought would be desirable and without substantial detriment to the public good. 4. That the variances and special permit do not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the By-Law. The Board called g special maeting for Monday evening, October 23rd at the request of a petitioner for a hearing. The maeting adjourned at 9:30 P.~ JAD