Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-05-13232 Monday - May 13, 1968 Regular Meeting & Hearing The BOARD ~ APPEALS held their regular meeting on Monday evening, Nay 13, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Building Meeting Rocmo The following members were present and voting: James A. Deyo, Chairman; Arthur Drummond, Secretary; gohn J. Shields, Donald J. Scott and Associate Member Robert $. Burke, who sat in place of Daniel T. O'Leary. Mr. 0'Leary did not sit as a board member because he is an abutter to the petition being hoard. Due to the large attendance, the meeting was adjourned to the Fire Station Heeting Room. There were over 70 people present. HEARING: ~ & FIRST HARTFORD REALTY CORP, Mr. Dx~..,..ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Morris, Bessie and Edward Melamed and First Hartford Realty Corporation requesting a Special Permit ~der Sec. 4.7 through 4.74 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of apart- ment buildings as shown on plan submitted, to contain a total of 160 apartments, 16 apartment buildings, on the premises, located at the east side of Andover Street, rear; approx. 600 feet north of the intersection with the Salem Turnpike. Atty. Charles W. Trombly represented the petitioners, and presented plans of the apartment development to the Board. The parcel of land to be used comprises 35-40 acres. The Melameds have conducted a turkey farm for many years on tho northern portion of the property. The southern portion is wooded and wet. The Ne]A-~ds have an agreement with the First Hartford Realty Corp. as to the develo?~nt of the apartments. Mr. Trombly introduced the members of the corporation that were present. They would like to develop 34 acres of the area as an apartment complex and will eliminate the turkey farm. The entr_a~ce and egress will be from Andover Street. They will spend over ~ two million dollars on the project. Water and sewer are available and will be put in at the petitionerls expense. The streets will conform in every respect with the streets of North Andover and they ~ril] maintain them forever. They will take care of all plowing and rubbish. They are not asking the to~n for anything. They are agreeable to any conditions the Board wishes to make. This development would he an ~provement to the neighborhood. They will deed three acres of land to the To~n near the Franklin School for school recreation purposes. They will drain the area at their own expense. William LaCourse, Architect, presented a set of architectural plans to the Board. Apartments are large taxpayers. Statistics show that there are not that many children in apartment complexes. Brochures were also presented to the Board. Atty. Naurice Schwax%z spo~e in favor of the apartments saying they have been an asset to the town for many years and is asking for the Board's consideration of this apartment complex. Mr. Trombly explained that First Hartford Realty Corp. will take title to the entire tract of land and eliminate the turkey farm. At a later date they w~ll ask the Board for s~-~lar consideration to develop the northern part of the tract near Carry Circle. Mr. O'Leary questioned the width of the atreets as shown on the plans. Mr. Trombly noted that the 20-ft. width as shown was in error and that the plans will be corrected. He said they would go to L~nd Court to eliminate the paper streets. He explained that title to a street goes to the center of the street. May 13, 1968 - cont. The following were recorded as in favor of the apartment complex~ Tom Mahoney, 300 Andover Street John Stenkatis, Ros~edale Ave. Will~__-~ Burke, 290 Andover St. Mr. DeAngelis, Rosedale Ave. Orland Campese Atty. Donald F. Smith spoke in opposition. He represented ,ll of the residents of Carty Circle. He explained that one of the purposes of the Zoning Law is to provide for the health and welfare of the co ...... ~ty - prevent overcrowding of land. He pointed out that the only frontage of this large parcel was 70 feet on Andover Street. The ~requirements for Country Residence is /25 feet frontage. The petitioner should be before the Planning Board for a subdivision of this land. According to his calculations this is also below the requirements of area according to what is allowed under the By-laws for each apartment unit. Atty. Smith spoke about the schools now being overcrowded and of the other apartment complexes in town. These apartments would he overloading an already bad situation. He questioned what would happen to the nice homes in the area and the valuations of them. Atty. Smith .received applause for his presentation. Atty. Anthony Ramdazso also spoke in opposition. He represented several people who were also present. He stated that Atty. Smith had "touched all th_- bases" a_-d there was nothing he oould add. They all were in agreement with all of his statements. He said North Andover has reached a saturation point as far as apartments go. This is a commercial enterprise. North Andover is a nice town with nice h~s and country living and that is what we want. There is nothing to be derived from this development but a profit to the developer. These statements also received applause. The following people were recorded as opposed to the apartment complex. Fr~ Lewis Mr. Lynch Russell Lodge Mr. & Mrs. Wilson, Wilson Road Hollis Curtis Mrs. Edmund Elliot Mr. Leyland Mr. Detora, Turnpike St. Mr. ~icora From George Joseph Doherty, Longwood Ave. Mr. Kilco2ne, Turnpike St. Robert Gartside, Longwood Ave. Mr. Herlihy, Carty Circle Mr. Lombardi Mrs. Ray Burke,' 67 Hewitt Ave. Mr. Steam, H~llside Rd. Wm. Garrity Earl Pomerleau MAlton Long Mrs. Cohan, ~llside Rd. Norman Lentz, Bradford St. Robert Stem~e, Mass. Ave. Anthony Lennon, Turnpike St. Mr. Humphreys, Turnpike St. Denn~[s Oonnelly, Turnpike Mr. Gorham,. 40 Carry Circle Wm. Sullivan, Hewitt Ave. Mr. Hegarty Helen Mt. Il, 237 Hillside Rd. Mr. Drisooll, Andover Street Theodora C~orge, Andover St.. Several derogatory remarks were made to the Board by some of the people present. Mr. Shields explained the responsibilities of the Board so that there would be no further misunderstandings or remarks made. 234 l~y 13, 1968 - cont. Mr. Shields then asked several questions of the petitioners and noted that the plans were not complete in 4_-fformati~n as required by the Board. He questioned drainage, utilities, walks, landscaping plans, closeness of existing buildings. Atty. Trombly said more complete plans wo~d be presented to the Board. }ir. Drummond made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Burke seconded the motion end the vote was un~n4mous. ROY FARR: Mr. Fart presented new plans to the Board with the changes ~ade as recommended by the~. A letter vas also received from the Engineer explaining what had bean done. Mr. Shields spoke about a walk for fire safety. No dimensions are shown on walks parking areas. Mr. Fart said he will have another swimming pool. Mr. Dx-,~md spoke about havt~g a playground area and Mr. Fart said that possibly Lot ~15 would be a good area for a playground. Mr. Shields made a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. In Executive Session: Mr. Shields made a motion to Grant the Special Permit, subject to certain eonditions. Mr. Dr~_=.-ond seconded the motion and the vote was O onditi0ns: 1. Walks shall be installed to comply with Section 4.73G and all other pertinent provisions of the By-Law. 2. The roadway shall be kept and mR4~tained as a private way. The maintenance shall include plowing, street lighting, rubbish and garbage collections and that the Town acceptance of the street sh~l] not be sought. 3. Must meet the approval of the Fire Department as to any requirements they feel may be necessary. l~asons = 1. Granting the special permit will not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. 2. The proposed aPartments are well situated and as an extension of an existing complex will form a desireable area. The Board had taken a view of the area and further discussed the petition. Drv,,,,~nd ~de a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Scott seconded the motion ~-d the vote waS unanimous. Reasons for denial are as follows: 13, 1968 - c~nt. 1. There was no evidence of hardship, financial or othex"~ise, which is a requisite for a variance to be granted. 2. The proposed four-~mit apartment would be detrimental, to the ~wm~diate area. JAMES GABON: The Board did not have the necessary Assessor's maps so that a deeision will be tabled until the next meeting. The Board signed the necessary plans and wuchers. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. JAD AD