HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINE LUMBER COMPANY • 1886 �,
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
September 14, 1965
John J. Lyons, Town Clerk
Tpm Building
Borth Andover, Mass.
Dear Sir:
The following petition wads heard at a meeting of the Board of Appeals on Monday
evening, August 23, 1965 at the Town Office Building. Members present and voting
were: Daniel T. OfLeary, Chairman; William Morton, Secretary; James Dego, John J.
Shields and Arthur Drummond.
LIM IMMR COMPANY requested a variation of Sec. 7.4 & 7.5 of the Zoning By-Saw
so as to permit the construction of a building to be used by the Albrite Carpet
Cleaning Company on the premises, located at the Borth side of May Street; 500 ft.
distant from the corner of Main Street.
This public hearing was advertised in the Eagle Tribune on August 9 & 163, 1965.
All abutters were duly notified by certified mail of this hearing
There were approx. 25 people present for this hearing. Atty. Ralph 1. Finck re-
quested the Board to continue the hearing on another date. He had just been re—
tained 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 Monday
evening, August 30th at 7:30 P.M. Board member James Deyo informed the Board that
he could not be present that evening.
On Monday evening, August 30, 1965: the hearing was continued with the following
members present and voting: Daniel T. OtLeary, Chairman; William Morton, Secretary;
John J. Shields and Arthur Drummond. It..was agreed by all concerned that an
Associate Member, Howard Gilman, would not sit in the absence of Mr. Deyo since it
was a continued hearing and that the hearing would be conducted with a four--man
Board, which means that a unanimous vote is necessary in the final decision.
This hearing was held at the Fire Station Meeting Room since there Were over AD
people present.
Atty. Abraham Abounader represented Albrite to Ca t Cleaning Company., the
company had been in business for over 25 years serving the Greater Lawrence area.
They are forced to vacate their premises in Lawrence because the City needs the
area. This particular area is zoned Industrial and there is no other land avail-
able to go with the lot. He explained how the company works - that there are no
obnoxious odors and no chemicals used. They only have two trucks and that there
would be no traffic - just pick-up and delivery.
(Cont.)
l
� .OAPMrJW
�W
S; 1855 .•'
• CHUS
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
r21 September 149 1965
Atty. Ralph S. Finck represented a number of the abutters that were opposed. He
stated they wanted the neighborhood to stay residential. There are many children
in the area which would present a safety problem as to traffic. He said it is an
obnoxious business which could have a serious effect upon the children health-wise.
There is no hardship involved since there are other areas that could be available
to them. He said the legal notice was inadequate because it did not state the
request for the reduction of lot size. He questioned the signature on the
application since it was not that of the applicant. A petition was presented
signed by 145 people who were opposed.
The petition was taken under advisement and an Executive Meeting was called for
Tuesday evening, September ll,., 1965. The same four members were present at this
meeting.
After thorough discussion, Mr. Drummond made a motion to grant the variance and
Mr. Morton seconded the motion. Members Shield., Morton and Druaond voted to
grant the variance and Chairman OtLeary voted No. Because it was not a uus
vote, the petition is denied.
The majority of the members that voted to grant the petition did so for the
following reasons:
Mr. Shields stated that the lot of land contains 33,095 sq. ft. and was created by
a so-called expert planner who created for this town one of the poorest sets of
Zoning By-Laws he has seen, which causes the high number of petitions before this
Board. The petitioner wants to use his land, conforming with restricted zoning.
He sees no increased safety factor from traffic; the children in the area are from
100 feet to 1,000 feet away. This building, which would cost approxi. $1.00,000,
would enhance the entire area. It would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
The denial of this petition would work a hardship upon the owner since they are
being denied the use of their land. The denial of this petition would cost this
town an estimated $,4.5 to $50,000.
Mr. Drm pond agreed with all of Mr€.Shielddst reasons and added that the building
would be an asset to the town and that there would be no hardship to the people
in the area. The owner was being denied the use of his land.
Mr. Morton agreedalso and added that the town needs such a building that will
give it taxes. The denial of this petition would mean a waste of money to the
town because the town is spending money for an Industrial Committee that is trying
to get industry here.
(Cont.)
ps awn* :m
•�CHU�
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
-3- September ]l., 1965
Chairman O'Leary give the following reasons to deny the petitions
1. The petitioner failed to request a variance in the lot size area as required
in Sec. 6, Para. 6.51 of the Zoning By-Law of the town of North Andover.
2. In denying this petition, there would not be a substantial hardship, financial
or otherwise to the petitioner.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF APPEM
e1 T. O�Leary, Cha
AD
I
�Nurs;ti'tt.
Nnatro :0
�^1CHU�
r
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Date . S.evtp. u!a. ?. . . . . . .
Petition No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date of Hearing.Aug•. 93 .4c.39t. 1965
Petition of . I+it?9.43Pbe2.'.f+oy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected .Nortkgide, of from xein,Street. . . . . . .
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATorthAndover.Zoning W- oaF
so as to permit. .the. aonatruotion of a bdlAin to. be uaed try Albrite_Carpet Cleaning Co.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to. . . Z, . . : .the
vara nce
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following conditions::
Signev%�� .. .
r
1l li aIDn *rbms .000"taw. . . . . . . .
John J. Shields . . . . .
Artmir.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board oj Appeals
Oversized Maps on fele with the Town