Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950-05-08May 8, 1950 Meetin~ was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by the Chairman. Members present: JOhn F. Alter, CRairmsn, Gregory Mooradkanian, Secretary, James T. Poor, Henry E. Lund and associate member Santo DiMauro. An application was r~ceived from M.T.Stevens & Sons, Inc., Divigion ef J.P.Stevens Co. by Abbot Stevens, ~ice-president$ requesting a variance from the requirements of the Zoning By-Laws of the Town~f North~ndover, to allow a sub-division of a parcel of property located on Water Street, in order that the houses located thereon may be sold individua~ly. This property is located in a business district and the present requirements of the Zoning By-Laws for side sides could not be met. Mr. Ralph Brasseur represente~ the petitioners and explained that these houses had been built for a good mauy years and that the company now would like to dispose Ofmthem singly. There was no opposition to this application. Notice of a publip hearing for this application was duly advertised in the Evening Tribune on the evening of April 29, 1950 and all abutters were notified. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOTED to take this matter under'advisement. Afte~ due consideration of the above application it was VOTED unanimously by the Board to grant the variance to the Stevens Co. An application for renewal efa non-conforming use permit was received from Emmett Shea, requesting that he be allowed to the continued use of the pre_ mises located at 9 Lincoln Street as a general variety store. Motion was made and seconded and it was ~OTED unanimously that this renewal be granted for another year, to be renewed again on o~before Ma~ 8, 1951. An application was received from Wasil Muzichuck requesting a variance from the Zoning By-Laws of North Andover,' in order to allow the remodelling of' an exixting building located on Beverly Street, (Union School) into four apartments. This application had been previously been before the planming Board for re-zoning amd although the Planning Board had approved it, it was defeatgd at the Annual Town Meeting in March of 1950. Mr. Mmzichuck had then been advised by the Advisory Board to bring his application foF action to' the Board of Appeals. This b~ilding is located in a general residential district. Mr. Muzichuck was present' and assured the Board that he only intended to make four apartments in this building. Attorney Salisbury who was also present, stated that it was the feeling of the Advisory Board that %his application should be handled by the Board of Appeals rather that have it a re-zoning proposition. There was' no obJeStion to this application. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOT~ to take the matter under advisement. This application was advertised for a Public Hearing in the Evening Tribune off the evenin$ of April 29, 1950. ~All abutters were notified. Afterduly considering the above matter it was VOTED unanimously to grant Mr. MUzichuck the variance requested under the ~mergency Housing Act. Applicati0$ Wasl.ec~ived from Alfre~.~. McKee,?~0 Church Street, North And~,ver re~uest~n~~& varianc~ifr~$he~Zoning ~-~ws ~ ~he To, of No~t~.~d~er,~ to ~1t~ the o~ration a~ten~ce of a ~ner~ ~ o~ ~he~pre~ses at ~G fi~h~.,S,t~et, No~,.~d~ver.. The~p~%i~a~iom:~h waShed.advertised ,~ in ~e Evenin~ T~bune on Ap~l 2~, 1~0 for a P~blic Hea~ng to be held on May 8~ 19~0 was read by the Secreta~ of the Bo~d. ~. McKee ~d ~s son were p~sent and e~lained to the Bo~ that they~shed to operate and ~i~ t~n a ~eral Home in ~s ~ home at 30 Ch~ch Steer, North Andover. ~. McKee e~l~ned to the Boa~ t~t his son was now a licensed e~a~er ~ F~eral Director~d that he would ~ke ~ help t~ boy get s~d in t~s business. ~ 8~ 195C-Cont. Attorney Michael Batal who was also representing Mr. McKee, stated that this type of business required a special permit for a non-conforming use, and that permits for such use came within the authority of the Board of Appeals. He also stated that it would be a benefit and fill a necessity in this comm~unity, and that it would not be injurious to the neighborhood. Mr. Batal also stated that the exterior of the building would not be changed in any way and that he considered that this was a profession which was. in line with the doctors offices which are located in the neighborhood. When questioned as to whether thi~ was a prafession or a business, Mr. Batal replied that one would not consider having a funeral from a private home running a business and that a funeral home was used as a home for those persons who did not have a home or one suitable for this purpose. That this was a quiet and solemn affair and that it would be a ~mber of . years before any great number of funerals would be held there. The visiting hours are short anc~ never late, there is no noise made by the persons coming and going from such an establishment. Mr. Batal referred to a list of names of persons who were abutters and neighbors of the McKees and all wished to be recorded as n~t ~bjecting to the funeral home. A letter was also presented to the Board from Rev. Francis L. Shea, pastor of the Roman Catholic Church in favor ?f the funeral home. Mr. Edwin May,. who is an abutter was present and he wished to be recorded as being in favor of granting the application. Ne stated that he could not see that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, in fact he said that if there was to be a funeral home there he would have to be very particular about keeping his own property in good condition out of respect. The Following~ persons were also present and wished to be recorded in favor of granting the application. They were not abutters but neighbors and freinds of the applicants Mr. & Mrs. Calthrope of Church Street, Mr. Alden James of Garden Street, Charles T. McCarth~ of Bradstreet Road and Charles H. Wentworth of ? Main Street. Mr. Arthur Sunderland who resides across the street from the property in question was present and wished to be recorded as being opposed to the granting of the application. He said that he was also speaking for Miss Fields who also lives and owns property across the street and who also was opposed. He stated that when he bought the property where he now lives it was with the understood fact that it was classed as a residential area. Ne estimated that a funeral home in this district would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He did not object to a funeral home in North Andover but felt that it should not be located in this particular district. He stated that the street was narrow and that there is ~e room for parking on both sides of the street and that this would create a traffic problem. Me also stated that when he first moved ,into this house, he was requested by the Chief of Police not to park his car or to allow his frelnds to park their cars on Ohureh Street, in front of his home, but that they should park the cars on Cross Street. Mr. Sunderland also objected to the fact that a letter had been presented to the Board by Rev. Clinton M..Carvell as being in favor of the funeral home. He stated that Mr. Carvell was only as a tenant and that the Trinitarian Church owned the property and he felt that he had no right to take either side. As he reviewed the list of names of the persons recorded in favor, remarked that Mr. James was not an abutter and that he would not be bothered. Mr. & Mrs. King also were only tenants and that only one name on the list of those in favor was a property owner. Mr. Sunderland also explained that it was part of his job at the bank to evaluate property and that a mortgage expectancy was not as high on home where a funeral home was located. ~e felt that this decreased the value of his proper.ty tq som~ extent. M~,. Sunder:la~ stated that. Main St.he was also speaking for Mr. Johd Hosking wne also objecteo. Mr. Hosking lives on Attorney Arnold H. Salisbury also represented Mr. Sunderland and stated that the Board of Appeals should base their decision on facts. He stated that there was no one who objected to a funeral home in North Andover, but that this was not the right location for it. He also stated that there was ne objection to the young man going into this type of business in a business district. Mr. Salisbury also stated that it has been indicated by law that an undertaker was considered as a business man rather than a professional. Mr. Salisbury stated that he also had ~lked with Mr. Carvell and that the latter s tared that he wished to be recorded as not objecting to the funeral home but that he was not a proponent of the petition made by the owner of the property. It waa also brought out that Mr. McKee Sr. was not a licensed funeral director but that he had made the application in favor of his son, since he was the owner of the property. Mr. Arthur P. Kirk wished to be recorded as objecting and stated that he was representing the Trinitarian Congregational Society and that the basis of their objection was the traffic problem which it would involve. Attorney Batal then stated that the traffic problem on Sz~m~ays was much worse at the present time that it evsr could be at the funeral home. He also stated that since this was a non-conforming use permit which was being sought, it was within the p~wer of the Board of Appeals to place restrictions as to parking in that area. He also stated that Mr. Sunderland had a wall and a hedge at the corner of h~s property which made the corner a blind one. Mr. Hosking li~s on Main Street and would not be affected either way. Miss Fields owns un- occupied land on Church Street and that her house faces Main Street and that whether the neighbors were owners or only tenants they still h~d a right to voice their favor or objection at a Public Hearing. As to the cars comiug and going at night, there only would be one car which would be in use lat at night and that would b e the wagon which would call for the body. Mr. Batal felt that the reasons for objecting were not reasonable or practical. He also stated that there were generally no funerals on Sund~y and that that. this.would not interfere with the traffic at the church~ and that the visual aspect of the property would remain unchanged from what it already is. After a motion duly made and seconded, it was VOTED to take this matter under advisement. After having considered the above application the Board VOTED to view the premises in a body and to hold a special meeting at the call of the Chairman to make the decision. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOTED to a djour~ the meeting. Adjourned 10:45 P.M. Secretary Clerk