Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-10-09209 Moaday - October 9, 1967 Regular ~ee~ing & Hearingm The BOARD OF APPEA~LS held their regular ~eeting on 14~ndey evening, October 9, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town 0ffioe Meeting Rock. The following me~bers were present and voting~ James A. Deyo, Chairman; Arthur Dru~ond, Secretary; Daniel T. O~Leary, John J. Shields and Donald J. Scott. The Board adjourned the meeting to the Fire Station Meet~-g Ro~a since there were over 75 people present. 1. Hearings g~L R. SCHECHTER. Mr. D~m~ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Joel I~ Schechter requesting a Special Permit ,,~er See. 4.7 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the construction of 20 Apar?.m_~nt Buildings of 12 units each on 25 acres of land on the premises, located at the East side of Osgood Street appro~l~tely 1,500 feet from the corner of Bradford Street. Atty. Harold l¢~rley, Jr., represented the petitioner, who was also present. Atty. Morley explained that Mr. Schechter is a builder and engineer and that he ha~ built and owns over 100 uuit~ elsewhere. He proposes to develop 25 acres of land across the street from Western Electric Company. The petition calls for 20 apartments but he proposes 19 buildings, with ~2 units each. The land is presently o~ned by Mr. Paparella. He is concerned only with that portion of the land that r~ms from the top of the h~ll to Osgood Street. The plans conform to what is spelled out for apartment req~ts in the Zoning By-Laws. The driveways are 40 feet wide and the ~,~dings have 70 feet between thcs. The Board can ~_ any changes '~n the placing of the buildings if they so desire. The parking area ~dJacent to each l~,~ding accomcdates a ~-tmum of 12 cars. The roadways will be in accordance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the town. The road~ys ~l be private and they w4~ not request any public acceptance of the roads by the tows or any public se,-,iee by the town for any purpose. The Board can ~ake that a condition. The rentals will be about ~200 per unit. Atty. Morley showed plans and pictures to the Board. Financing is no problem with the petitioner. Ha has two major ba~ he- hind him and an ineurance company. This project would be developed in degrees - not entirely at once. Each ~,~g will have its o~n utility roo~ and heating unit. The utility roo~s will have facilities for was~-2 and dry~-8 clothes, there will he refuse disposal, etc. There will he a recreational area for the benefit of the people that will live in the apa _rtw~nts, which ~ include tennis courts, sw~w~-~ pools~ sauna baths, etc. The sewerage system is patterned after the Governor Dvmmar Acede~ syste~ . Percolation tests have been made. Mr. Goodwin, the engineer, ~ expl-~ the sewerage syst~ Atty. Morley said this apartment development would not be detrimental to the area, that the land is made up of two zones - up to ~00 feet back from 0sgood Street is soned Industrial and the r,~,ing 2/3 of the land is Rural Residential. It is too ~w~ an area to develop industrially. Because of the pitch of the land it would not he suitable for single residence development. Ttaqt The only th~-g they wov.ld ask the Town to provide would be water. The electricity would be placed ~nderground if it wes fovnd to be feasible, which will he determined by the Electric Company. Mr. Goodwin then proceeded to e_xp!ain the sewerage syst_~a= There would be a treatment plant, ~stes would he oxidized several tim~s, treated, purified and that there is a brook on the property and at the lowest corner nearest the brook they ~would provide a October 9, 1967 - Cont. lagoon, approx. 40' wide by 60' long. This is the syste~ at Governor Dmmer Academ~ which has proven bery successful and is adequate for 350 people. The Dspar~_ t of Public Health ~es periodic tests so that everything would have to be in order. Speaking in opposition was No~ E. Lentz, 63 Bradford Street. He spoke at great length about the sewerage affecting the area - traffic safety due to the increase in vol,-~ of automobiles at the apartments and conflicting with Western Electric traffic. Joseph Serio, Chief of Public Relations at Western Electric Co. spohe sa~-g he was not opposing but he wanted an oppor~m~ty to study the egress and exits of the develo~ut and their relationship to the flow of Western Electric traffic. George Barker, Jr., Osgood Street, spoke saying he is not opposed to apartments, that there are some beautiful apartments, but that this particular area would not be suitable for such a development since it is very wet 3 months of the yea~. He is sure that the hill is full of springs. The Chair-~ asked for a show of hands of all present who were opposed to t~be petition. A cou~t of 25 hands was takes. Mrs. Frank Guerrera, Milk Street, said she was concerned about so ~wy apar~ts co~,~ into the town, saying it will fo,,~.~ up the school situation. Robert ~ddleton, Main St., said he moved to N. A. 5 years ago because he liked the town. Be is afraid the tc~n will become saturated with apartments - North Andover w~11 becce~ "transient town U.S.A." Henry IAU~, Board of Assessors, said that there are not that ma~ children f~om the apartments. Andras Hamori, ~ark Road, said he would like areas to be kept open. Frank Androski, Linden Ave., tb~w, this development should be turned dc~n by the Board. ~ Mr. & Mrs. Robert Roe, Bradford Street, agreed with the others and-Mr. Len%z, that they dealt want to be crowded in with apar+.m-~ts, they~like country liv~ and open Atty. Morley continued in answer to remarks made. He said North Andove~ has a very good Board of Health and Sanitary Inspector and t~be_y would not let any buil~4-g go up.that didnlt have a proper disposal syste~. This development will cost over · three million dollars and everything ~ be first class. This development is over 400 feet fl, ma Bradford Street and the hq 1 ~ would separate the apartments frc~ the dwellings. The people living on Bradford Street will not be able to see the apart- ments. It will be developed so that as m~Uy trees as possible ~ be saved. He said there are many people objecting that do not live in .the area. The Board consider the petition as to the area which is concerned. Several questions were asked by members of the Board. ~ty. Morley expla~.~ed that Mr. Paparella has an agree,~_nt to sell the land to Mr. Schechter if the special permit is approve. This w~l~ be built amd owned by Mr. Schechter ~ ~n individual basis. There was a discussion as to coz~ecti~ to the same water system that is used by Western Electric. Atty. Morley said he has not contacted the ~ Chief yet as to October 9, 1967 - cont. the installation of a fire alarm system but wiJ_l do so if the Board wishes. Mr. OtLeary made a moti~ to take the petition under advise~ant. ~r. Shields seconded the motio~ and the vote was unanimous. 2. Hearing. PICCERILLO and M~LHOLLA~Ds Mr. Dr.~-~ad read the legal notiee in the appeal of Piccerillo and requesting a special permit u~der Sec. 4.7 of the Zoning By-Law so as to pets[it four apartments for residential use on the premises, located at the east side of Turnpike Street; 123 feet distant from the corner of Cotuit Street. Atty. ~arold Morley, Jr. represented the petitioners. Mr. Piceerillo was present. They did not have any architectural plans to present to the Board - only the plot plan. Mr. Shields explained that they should present architectural plaa~ so that the Board would bow what they were acting oz~ Atty. Morley said that the buildiug contractor wonlt release them yet. He shoved a picture and a basic plan~ of what is proposed, but is not to scale. The d4w~usion~ would have to be changed. Mr. Piccerillo said that Palmisano wonlt release the plans until he sign~ the contra~t and he cantt sign the contract ualess he gets the special permit from the Board. They said they would try to get proper plans for the next meeting. Mr. Shields made a motion to adJoux~ the hearing until the next regular meeting in November. Mr. O'Leary seconded the ~otion and the vote was un~-4w~s. There ~ere several abutters present who were told to return to the November ~eetiug at which t~ proper plans will be presenteel. 3. Bearing. KEVIN C. DONOVAN: Mr. D~mm~ond again read the legal notice in the appeal of Kevin O. Donovan. This hearing is continued fr~a the September 18, 1967 meeting, at which t~m~ proper pla~s had not been submitted. Atty. Ralph Stein appeared for the petitioner, w~o was also present, and su~tted the proper plans to the Board. He explained that this particular application ia a question of interpretation of the By.Law. Be said on lot ~9 there is an existing 2--fAw41y dwelling and he has applied for a bui]~4~8 permit on adjoining lot ~8. Lot 8 does not meet the requirements of a Village residence district. The basis of his appeal is that they fall within the provisions of 6.61 which spells out that residential lot areas and widths shall not apply in any residenee district if such lot be not adjoined by other land of the s~ ownership, vacant or available for combination. The adjacent lot is not vaeant. The ~ was recorded in 1916. ~n all passings of the land the lots have been separately described so that it octal within that particular section of the By-Law. The lot is shown on deeds as separate lot prior to the adoption of the Zoning By-~aws. The wor~ vacant seems to be significant. The adJo~-g lot is not vscent. The municipal lien certificate refers 212 October 9, 1967 - cont. to separate iotso The tax bills show lots S & 9. The town's ou~ records sho~ them as separate lots. Mr. Shields brought u~ about the previous hearing on these two lots in Jam~ary a~d being denied. Atty. Stei~ explained that this application is as~g for a buildiu__g permit fr~a the Building Inspector and are appearing before the Board on an appeal from the Building Inspector's refusal. Mr. Donova~ o~ns an adjacent lot that is not vacant. Atty. Charles Trombly, Jr. spoke in opposition. He said this was turned down before by the Board unanimously at a previous hearing. Donovan is trying to build two ho~es~ on 13,000 sq. ft. There is no hardship involved. Dividing these lots in this way would be c~ntrary to the Zoo_lng By-Laws. If something like this ware a/lowed there would be at least 12 new h~mes on ~,~11 iota just in the general area because there is otBer land with the same conditions. This should be denied. Henry Lund spoke as a Trustee of the South Congregational Church, an abutter, that the petition shoed be denied. Joseph Trombly, also an ~m~diate abutter, spoke in oppositioa. Atty. Stein gave a copy of the Deed to the Board, in which each lot is described separately. Mr. Shields made a motic~ to take the petition under advisement. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion ~ the vote was unaB~us. In Executive session the Board discussed the hearings of the eveniug. 1. Joel Scbe~h~er= and Xevin Donovan= Mr. Shields made a motion that no action be taken on th~sehea~at this The Board can take action at their Special Meeting of October 23rd. Mr. OtLeary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. Benjamin Xalinowski~ Corrected plans were presented to the Board as requested. Mr. OtLeax7 made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and 'the vote was ~u~. The Board signed the plans. The meeting adjourned at 10~00 P.M~ JAD Chai,:~an