Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-11-18Monday - November 18, 1968 Meeting & Hearings The BOARD OF APPEALS held a meeting on Monday evening, November 18, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Buil~4ng with the following members present and voting: James A Deyo, Chairman; Arthur D~,mmond, Secretary; Donald J. Scott, Daniel T. O'Leary~ J. Philip Arsanault and Assoc. Member William Deyermend. There were 15 people present for the meeti-E. 1. HEARX~: ~illiam D. Whittaker. Mr. Drnmmond read the legal notice in the appeal of WiLliam D. Whittaker who requested a variance under Sec. 6.61 and 7.23 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the erection of a two-stall garage on the premises located at the south side of Saunders Street, known as 71-73 Saunders Street. Mr. Whittaker spoke on his o~n behalf and expl~-ed that he had three cars, one of which was used for his business, and that he had ~ place in which to garage the cars. He also had a garden and back yard which if he had to bu~_ld the garage as required ~ld both be nearly useless due to the narrow lot; also because of the existing dwelling, the turn to enter or leave would be very awkward. There was no opposition to the petition and no abutters presemt. Mr. O'Learymade a motion to take the petition under advisement. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 2. HEARING: Joseph A. Ippolito Mr. ~ond read the legal notice in the appeal of Joseph A. & Esther 0. Ippolito who requested a variance under Section 6.32 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit the division of four existing lots into two lots which would not have the required street frontage of 125 feet nor the required area of 25,000 square feet on the premises, located at the north side of Adams Avenue and the corner of Martin Avenue. Atty. Thaddeus Palys represented the petitioner who stated that the desired.division was in keepingwith other lots in the immediate area. The two lots created would be approximately the size required for village residentially zoned land m h ich abuts the land in question to the immediate north. Most of the lots on the street have about the same area as those sought and several are sm~ller. To deny the variance sought would impose hardships, financial or otherwise on the petitioner. There was some objection, particularly from ab~tters whose lots exceeded the minimum requirement. These arguments concerned themselves both With the small size of the lot and With the lack of frontage required. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to take the petition under advisement; seconded by Mr. Drummond and voted unanimously. ~ELA~EDAPART~ENTPE~fITION: A letter was received from Atty. Charles W. Trembly in which he is appealing to the Board for reconsideration of their decision made in the Melamed apartment develop- ment petition; which they had voted to deny. Under the board's Rules and Regulations ~ members must vote in favor of reconsideration. Mr. O'Leary disqualified himself and Associate Member Deyermond sat in his place. November 18, 1968 - cont. Mr. Drummond made a motion to re-consider. Mr. Arsenault seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Chairman Deyo expls~ued that under the rules (Section3, Article ~) there are two courses of action open. One - a motion to amend the decision could be made ors Two - a motion to re-open the hearing could be made. The petition stood as it was prior to the previous vote and decision. Mr. Arsenault made a motion to re-open the hearing, seconded by Mr. Deyermond and the was Arsenault and Deyermond voting yes and the remain~ 3 members votin~ no, (members ~Drummond, Scott & Deyo). The reasons for the negative vote were: 1. No new evidence was being submitted, at least none was proposed, and 2. It was felt that a re-working of the same testimony by the petitioner and whatever opposition there might be would serve no useful purpose. Mr. Drummond then made a motion to grant the special permit; Mr. Deyermond seconded the motion and the vote was members Arsenault, Deyerm~nd & Drummond voted yes and members Scott and Deyo voted no. Since four affirmative votes are required, the petition is denied. The same reasons for denial are given as were in the original decision dated Nov. 8, 1968: 1. The apartment complex would be detrimental to the area in which it was proposed. 2. The numbers of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed apartment complex would create serious and hazardous traffic conditions on existing roadways. FLATLEYAPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT: Atty. John J. Willis submitted additional plans to the Board of the Flatley apartment development show~g utilities, hydrants, etc.. They have already sub- mitted a copy to the Board of Public Works and have consulted with the Highway Dept. - but the streets will not be accepted by the town so the Highway Surveyor actually has no interest in them. He spoke about sidewalks being installed as a requirement of the Plan~Board. He asked the Board when a decision could be made by them since the hearir~was held in September and they now have all the facts before them. He said their option for the land expires December 15th and they would very much appreciate some sort of decision from the Board. Mr. Drummond asked if they could get the right to enter Route 114 from the state. ~tty. Willis said they have already contacted the D.P.W. but they will not negotiate until the town has given the permit - this is not a limited access highway. Mr. O'Leary said this could be made part of the decision. The Board signed the plans for Alco Electronics. MEDOLOPETITION: Mr. Medolo had submitted more architectural plans as requested. Mr. O'Leary made a motion to GRANT the variance. Mr. Drummond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. November 18, 1968 - cont. TRANSFER FROMRESERVEFUND: The Board voted unanimously to request a transfer from the reserve fund in the amount of $200 since there is not enough money in the Board's budget to pay for expenses through 1968. WHITTA~PETITION: After thorough discussion, Mr. Drummond made a motion to grant the variance; Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion with the stipulation to move the garage to at least 3-5 feet from the lot line. The board then discussed viewing the area. Mr. withdrew his motion and Mr. O'Leary his second. Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the variance, seconded by Mr. O'Leary and voted unanimously as follows: 1. A variance from Sections 6.61 and 7.23 of the Zoning By-Laws to the extent of permitting the erection of a garage five feet from the northeast lot line. 2. Granting this variance will not deviate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws. 3. Granting this variance will permit a garage to be erected in keeping with the immediate neighborhood. 4. Not granting this variance would cause hardship, financial or otherwise, to the peritioner in denying him a normally accepted custom of having a garage on his lot for his personal use. IPPOLITO PETITION: After thorough discussion, Mr. O'Learymade a motion to deny the variance. There was further discussion and Mr. O'Leary withdrew his motion. Mr. Scott made a motion to GRANT the variance with the condition that he must not convey his interest in the private way to an abutter. Mr. O'Leary then made a motion to consult Town Counsel as to the provisions of a paper street before any decision is made and if it is proper to make conditions as to the use of the street. Er. Scott withdrew his motion and seconded Mr. O'Leary's motion. The vote was ~ in favor of the motion with Mr. Drummond abst~rning. A letter will be sent. FLATLEY APARTMENT DE~ELOP~: After thorough discussiont Mr. Drummond made a motion to GRANT the special permit for 588 apartment units, subject to conditions to be spelled out. Mr. O'Leary seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous for the following reasons: 1. The development as proposed we find from the evidence submitted would conform to the permitted uses and the specific regulations set forth in Sections 4.72 and 4-73 as it refers to apartment developments in the North Andover Zoning By-Law. a. None of the buildings will contain more than 12 dwelling units. b. No structure will exceed two and one-half stories or 35 feet in height. c. There will be more than the required 3500 square feet of land for each dwelling unit. November 18, 1968- cont. d. The gross usable floor area does not exceed thirty per cent of the gross area of the plot involved. e. No structure will be built within 30 feet of a sideline of any public street or way, and no parking spaces are to be-located within twenty feet Of any other exterior property line. f. There is an excess of the One paved off-street parking space required per unit and they are located in accordance with the By-Law. g. There is adequate provision for emergency vehicles. h. A letter has been received from the Plenning Board indicating conformance with the requirements of the appropriate Subdivision Control Regulations pertaining to minor residential streets. 2. From evidence presented at the hearing we find as a fact that the proposed development will be beneficial to the neighborhood and that the Town can reasonably provide the proposed development with all the necessary utilities and facilities for the following reasons: The proposed development consists of 75 acres of land on a numbered State High- way, Route 114 directly across the street from Merrimack College. Immediately to the south of the proposed development is a substantial portion of land zoned for general business. The nearest residences to the proposed development are located to the northwest and consist of four or five homes. Other residences in the area are located anywhere from 700 to 1,000 feet from the proposed development. Ail of the traffic entering into and leaving from the proposed development ~rill be serviced by a Massachusetts State Highway which has adequate capability of handling the in- creased traffic with no serious impairment of any of the safety factors required. The parcel of land involved has available to it all along its frontage on Route 11~ a 12 inch water msin with an adequate supply of water. Sanitary sewerage facilities are located on Route lll: at the northerly boundary of the proposed development and' can be extended to service the development planned. This is to be done at the expenses of the developer. We find from the evidence presented to us that the development will not cause any serious effect on the school population. We determine from the facts that the area involved is suitable for large developments and that the apartment complex as presented would serve as a desirable transition between the general business zone to the south and the residential area to the north and east. We further find that Route 114 to the north commencing at the North Andover - Lawrence line has over the past few years developed along the location of Route 114 into some- thing other than residential in character and has become more or less in the nature of commercial and institutional and it is our opinion that such development will continue. We further find that the development as proposed represents the highest and best use for the land involved, that the area and the Town would be benefited by the granting of said permit, and that said permit may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify-lng or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of our Zoning By-Law The following special conditions are attached hereto and made a part of the decision: 1. Though a permit is herein granted for the building of 588 units, the petitioner is limited to the construction of 120 units a year until completion and construction of the project is to start on those units shown on the plot plan located at the southern end of the parcel of land, and proceed northerly. November 18, 1968 - cont. 2. Upon completion of the building of all of ~he ~u~its involved in this permit the petitioner shall construct over Town lend with permission of the town at the expense of the developer, a pedestrian walk to service school children who may attend the Franklin Elementary School and who reside in the apartment complex involved. 3- That prior to commencement of construction of said project, the petitioner shall file with the Town of North Andover a performance bond ~n the amount of $175,OOO.OO guaranteeing that the utilities, water, sewer and drainage and the roadway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the North Andover Planning Board and the North Andover Board of Public Works. 4. That the petitioner shall be required to extend the sewer system.on Route ll4 to the south entrance to said project as shown on the plot plan submitted with the petition at his own expense. 5. That the petitioner be responsible to maintain all roadways in the project and that said roadways or streets servicing the buildings sh~ll be maintained as a private way and town acceptance shall not be sought. This maintenance shall include street lighting, plowing, rubbish collections and garbage disposal. The surface of said roadways shall be no less than 30 feet and the radius of any turnarounds or circles ending said roads shall be approved by the Fire Chief. There shall also be provided sidewalks on both sides of the roadways contained within the project to the satisfaction of the North Andover Planning Board. 6. Installation of fire detection and alarm systems within each apartment building, and fire alarm provisions throughout the projectt including communication with the Central Fire Station shall be installed to the approval of the North Andover Fire Chief. 7. M~Antenance of aesthetic appearance of the parcel of land involved by retention of trees and other natural growth not necessary for removal for construction shall be the responsibility of the developer. 8. Access and egress roads to the proposed development onto the State Highway shall conform to ~ll the rules and regulations of the State Department of Public Works. 9. There shal! be a buffer zone 50 feet in width along ~11 exterior property lines with the exception of the access and egress road wherein there will be no building, parking spaces or roadways. 10. The owner shall make necessary arrangements to provide for payment to the Town of North Andover for the costs of education, for any children living in the proposed development enrolled in the North Andover Public Schools in excess of 10 children per 100 units. Said costs to be determined by the average pupil cost for education in the North Andover Public School System by the North Andover Superintendent of Schools. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Chairman (James A. Deyo) Clerk (Anna ~onahue)"