HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-08-23117
Special Meeting - August 23, 1965
The BOARD OF APPEAL~ held a special meeting on Nonday evening, August 23, 1965
at 7530 P.M. in the Town Building. The following members were present and votiug~
Daniel ?. O'Leary, Chairman; William Morton, Secretary; Arthur Drip,nd, John J.
Shields and James Dey~.
The Board members signed a bill for John R. Hosking, supplies - $3.65.
There are four hearings scheduled for the evening. The ~uilding Inspector was present
for these hearings, at the Board's request.
1. 7~30 Hearing - CHARLE~ T. NAT~ES and WILLIAN T. BRIDE~
The petitioners requested a variation of Sec. 7.5 of the Zoning By-Law so as to
per,it a one-story structure for warehouse, display and office on the premises
located off the North side of Sutton Street; 773 feet distant east fro~ the corner
of N. ~ain end Sutton Streets and to the rear of houses numbered 232, 234, 238,242
& 250 Sutton Street.
Secretary Morton read the above legal notice. He also read the refusal from the
B~ilding Inspector explaining Why a building permit was refused.
Atty. Joseph Bacigalupo represented William T. Bride and Atty. ~aurice Rappaport
represented Charles ?. Matses. Atty. Bacigalup~ explained to the Board that
Bride, Grimes & Company had to move their concern from Lawrence due to Urban Re-
newal Development and wished to purchase the land and ~lild new quarters on land
of Charles ?. Matses in their Sutton Industrial Park, which sub-division had been
approved by the North Andover Planning Board. They assumed that the land was in
Industrial #$# district and had received oral permission from the Building Inspector
to start excavation and they proceeded to do so according to the set-back requirements
of Industrial =S~. It was later brought out that this area is zoned Industrial ~L'
with different set-back requirements. Atty. Bacigalupo s~ys there is still a difference
of opinion that it ia in an Iddustrial "L~ district. He stated $40,000 has been ex-
pended to date and that it was done so in good faith. They lack five feet on the
front and 10 feet on the side, the rear of the building co~lies. There would be ~:
SUbstantial hardship involved, both financial and otherwise, if the petition were
denied. This type of business would be desirable to the Town and would increase
the Town's revenue.
There were twelve people present for this hearing. Henry L~nd spoke in favor of the
petition, as Chairman of the Board of Assessors, and explained that this building
would increase the tax base for the To~n and is the type of a concern that ia
desirable to the town.
Edward Phelan spoke in favor of the petition, as Chairman of the Y~dustrial Develop-
ment Coe~ission end member of the Board of Assessors, stating that this type of
development is very much needed in town.
There was no opposition to the petition.
~r. Morton made a motion to take the petition under advisement, seconded By ~r.
Drummond and voted unanimously.
2. 7t45 P.N. Hearing - BORD~ ~E~SCAL
Secretary Norton read the legal notice in Which the petitioners requested a variation
of ~ec. 7.5 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit additional manufacturing space on the
north end of Borden's existing building, to a line 30 feet from our northerly property
line on the premises located at the north side of Clark Street; 542 Feet distant from
the corner of Clark Street and known as 1 Clark Street.
118
August 23, 1965 - Cont.
Hr. Pendergast, General Manager of Borden Chemical Company spoke on behalf of the
Company. They desire to build the addition which will give added flexibility to
the operations of the Company. If the Board does not allow the variance, they
would have to build at one of their plants in some other part of the country. The
220 foot building is the minimum length required to house the necessary process
equipmont for this expansion. This will afford Borden the maximum increase in
productive capacity within its property lines consistent with efficient and economi-
cal processing. It would allow Borden the flexibility of still future expansion
and per,it construction to proceed without disrupting the continuity of its present
production. A building permit has been issued by the Building ~nspector for an
addition that will terminate 50 feet from the rear lot line. The plans showed the
addition coming ~ithin 30 feet of the rear lot line. A variance is needed for the
additional 20 feet.
There was no opposition to the petition. There tere 10 people present for this hearing.
Hr. Drummond made a moti~ to take the petition under advisement, ttr. Deyo seconded
the motion and the vote was ~nanimous.
3. §sOO PJ~. Hearing - LXNE LU~fl~ O~qPANY,
Secretary Morton read the legal notice of the petitioner who requested a variation of
Sec. 7.4 & 7.5 of the Zoning By-La~ so as to permit the construction of a building
to be used by the Albrite Carpet Cleaning Company on the premises, located at the
North side of Nay Streetj 500 feet. distant from the corner of Hain Street.
Francis Gailey represented Line Lumber Company. There were approx. 25 people
present for this hearing. Atty. ~alph E. ~nck requested the Board to continue the
hearing on another date. He had just been retained by a group of people in the
neighborhood of the premises involved and needed more time to prepare his case.
The Board agreed to continue the meeting on Honday eveningj Am~% 30th at 7*30 p.m.
Board member James Deyo informed the Board that he could not be present that evening.
h. 8,15 P.H. Hearing - LI~CH & ~LLIS
Secretary Horton read the legal notice of the petitioners who requested a variation of
Sec. 7.3 of the Zoning By-Law so as to permit an addition 26' x 20', to an existing
building 28' x 36' on the premises, located at the north side ef Pleasant Street;
at the northwest corner of Trenton Street and known as ~o. 160 Pleasant Street.
Atty. John J. Willis spoke on his own behalf. Atty. John Lynch was al~e present.
Atty. Willis explained that they thought they had sufficient space and were issued a
building permit but upon a check by the Building Inspector and a subsequent check
by an Engineer, it was found to be 9 feet less than what was required; therefore, a
16 ft. variance ia necessary. They cannot make the drug store smaller because they
~mst meet State requirements as to the regulations for size. ~f this variance were
to be denied, it would constitute a severe hardship upon the petitioner because the
portion that ia built would have to be torn down. The drug store is strictly for
presceiption use - there will be no fountain. The present grassed area will be
hot-topped for a parking area in front of the building.
There were six people present. Those recorded in favor were, Atty. John J. L]mch,
Laurence Pahigian (who would be the druggist), of Lawrence, Fred Stephenson, Park St.,
and Vincent HcAloon, of North Andover. There was no opposition. Atty. Willis
presented a petition to the Board signed by sixteen abutters and neighbors as
~proving the granting of the variance.
~t 2~ 195~- Oont.
~r. Shields mede a motion to take the petition under edvisement. Nr. Morton seconded
the motion and the vote was ~nanimous.
~n Executive session, after thorough discussion, the Board made the fello~ing decisions:
1. CHARLES T. MATSES and WILLIAM T. BRIDE:
~r. Drummond made a motion to GEA~T the variance, ~r. Norton seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimous.
The Board voted unanimonsl~ to grant the petition for the following reasons~
A, To deny the said petition would result in a substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise; the beet end-use of the land would be denied and the town as well as the
applicant would suffer hardhhip. The Board feels that the petitioner proceeded to
build in good faith and that a great deal of money has Been expended te date.
B. The Board sees no derogation to abutting properties or to existing neighborhood
influences.
C. The requested variance will not be in substantial derogation from the intent of
purpose of the Zoning By-Law.
D. There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in question,
which do not generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is
located.
2.' BORDEN C~EMICAL COMPANY:
Rt. Morton made a motion te GRA~T the variance, ~r. Deye seconded the motion and the
vote was unanimous.
The Board granted the variance for the following reason8~
1. To deny the said petition would result in a substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise; the best end-use of the land would be denied and the town as well as the
applicant would suffer herdship.
2. The Board sees no derogation to abutting properties or to existing neighborhood
influences.
3. The requested variance will not be in substantial derogation from the intent or
purpose of the Zoning By-Law.
4. There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in ~estion,
which do not ~enerally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is
located.
3. LINE LB~fBER COMPANY:
To be continued on Monday evening, August 30, 1965 at 7~30 P.M.
120
august 23, 196S - Cont.
4. LYN~ &WILLIS:
~r. Shields made a motion %o GRANT the variance, ~r. Morto~ seconded the motion and
the vote was 4 to 1 ~lth ~r. Deyo voting against the granting.
The Board granted the variance for the following reasons~
1. To deny the said petition would result in a substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise. The Board feels that the petitioner proceeded to build in geed faith
and that a great deal of money has been expended tc date.
2. The Board sees no derogation to abutting properties or to existing neighborhood
influences.
3. The requested variance will not Be in substantial derogation from the intent or
purpose ef the Zening By-Law.
4. There exist certain conditions, especially affecting the parcel in question,
which do not generally affect the entire zoning district in which the parcel is
located.
The Board members signed the necessary plans accompanying the petition.
~he meeting adjourned at 9t30 P.M.
AD
Chairm
Clerk