Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950-02-06February' 6, 1950 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:00 P.M. in the Town Building. This was a Public Hearing. Members presentt Gregory Mooradkanian, Chairman, Peter Ritchie, James T. Poor and Riuhard G. Whipple. An application was received from Mrs. Mabel Sarcione requesting an amendm6'nt of the Zoning By-Law's' "so as to allow a change of classification of a certain parcel of property, owned by Mabel Sarcione, from a General Residential to a Business District. Plans showing this property were presented to the Board. Said plans having been drawn by Ralph Brasseur and beaigng~th~ date of September 15, 1949. The application and advertised Legal Notice were read by the chairman. The Legal Notice for-~ Public Hearing was published in the Evening Tribune on January 28 and February 4, 1950. Ail abutters within 200 feet were notified that a Public Hearing would be held on February 6, 1950. Mrs. Mabel Sarcione and Mr. Edward Sarcione, son of the applicant were present at this hearing. They presented the above mentioned plans to .the Board and explained to the board they they wished to build a restaurant or lunch room on this property. They felt that~ this would supply a need in this neighborhood as there were a great m~_ny students now attending Merrimack Colleg% and that many more are expected. They expect to build a modern restaurant. Mr. Frank Lewis, 14 Highland Terrace, who is one of the abutters to the property in question, wished to be recorded as being opposed, to this application. A letter was also received from Mrs. From George who is a nearby resident and who owns property in this vicinity also wished to be recorded as being opposed to the erectioh of a restaurant at this location. In her letter, Mrs. George stated that Mrs. Sarcione had previously conducted a business at this location which was only a hot dog stand and which had always been an eye sore and a blot on the landscape. Mrs. George lives at360 AndoverStree~. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOTED to take this matter under advisement. After due consideration, motion was made and seconded and it was Voted to de~n~? the approval of this application An application was received from Mr. Wasil Muzichuck requesting an amendment of the Zoning By-Laws so as to'allow a change in classifi- cation of a parcel of property owned by him from a General Residential to a Business District. This property is located on Beverly Street and is the site of the old Union School. The application and the ad- vertised Legal Notice was r~airman. The ~egal Notice was published in the Evening Tribune on the nights of January 28 and on February 4, 1950. All abutters were notified regarding this Public Hearing. Mr. Muzichuck, 198 Lincoln Avenue, Saugus, was present before the Board and explained that he had purchased this property from the Town of North Andover, he being the highest bidde~, and that he would like to convert this building into four apartments. Ne felt ~ that this would supply a real need in these times of housing shortages. He stated that after inquiring, he was advised that he would not be allowed to convert into apartments in a General Residential District until he had made an application to the PlanninE Board an~ that this parcel of property would have to be reclassified into a Business District if he were planning to have more than two tenements. February 6, 1950--Cont: A delegation of abutters and other residents in the neighborhood o~ this property were also present before the Board. Ail objected to the re-zoning of this property into a Business Dis.trict Ss they felt that this would the owmer or future owners free to build any type of business or to conduct any type of Business there. None voiced objection however, to having an apartment house made out of the old school. The following persons were present at this meeting .with regard to the above application. William and gary Kulpinski, 99 Beverly Street Mr. Henry Haym~n, 9 Perry Street Mr. Michael Cain, 297 Middlesex St. Mr. Alden Banks, 2 Perry Street Mr. Louis Zieba, 97 Beverly Street. Mrs. Esther Hall an~ Mrs. Bertha Berwick, both of 89 Beverly Street. Mr. Harold Trombly, 281 Middlesex Street, Mr. James N. Tetler 86 Beverly St. Mr. Francis Murphy, 25 Union Street, Mr. Raymond Malo, 105 Beverly. Street. Mr- Harold Trombly, stated. that he owns land which meets th.e property in question and although he is not oopsed to having the old school made into apartments, he wished to be recorded as being ooposed to this. property being re-zoned into a Business District. He also wished to know how this would affect the surrounding property if this particular parcel was re-zoned into a business district. Mr. Henry Hayman asked the Board if there was not another way to grant a permit to Mr. Muz~ichuck, so that he could go ~ahead with the apartments without the re-zoning~ or could this~ parcel be re-zoned into business and then revert to residential. Mr. Ritchie informed Mr. Haymau that he did not think that this could be done. Mr. Kulpinski then asked the Board if there had been anything in the contract which Mr. Muzichuck made with the Board .of Selectmen, which stated that this building had to be torn down.. Mr. Muzichuck stated that there was no such condition mentioned. Mr. Kulpinski also stated that since this building had been sold it had been a fire trap and that the Police Dept. h~d to be called several times, as the windows had been broken and the building had been entered~. Mr. Muzichuck stated that he had boarded the windows up when he bought the build~ing, but that these boards had been ripped off, the w~ndowns had been broken and even a door had been torn off. He stated that he came to complain to the Police Dept and asked that the police keep an eye on this property. Mr. Kulpinski stated that he did not believe that Mr. Muzichuck would spend a sufficient amount of money to make this building into some- thing tha$ would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Muzichuck stated that he Was not prepared to give figures at .this date but in any e vent it would certainly be something better than it was at present. He also stated that he had been in this type of business for may years and had converted large business blosks into apartments and also large tenement blosk consisting of 7 and 8 rooms into smaller apartments and all were an improvement to the district in which they were located. He stated that the lar~gest part of the work was to be done on the inside and that he intended to single the outside with with asphalt shingles. He stated .that he had paid $2500.00 for this property and that he .would like to make something of it. Mr. Francis Murphy then asked the Board as to the date when the l~aw became effective that it was necessary to re-zone into ~ husines~ district in order to build an apartment house. He was in~'ormec By the Chairman that this was in 1943. February 6, 1950--Cont: Mr. Mazichuck stated at this time that he would have to guess at figures and that it would cost at least $10,000.00 to do this work and that this d&d not include labor as he would be doing the wprk himself. Mr. Kulpinski then stated that the outside of this building did not look respectable and Mr. Muzichuck stated that he intended, to make it so. Mr. Marphy then raised ~he question as to how surrounding property would be affected as to assessment if they were abutting to a business district. He was informed by the Board they did not believe that there would be any ill effects bu~, that this matter ~as up to the discretion of the Board of Assessors. Mr. Murphy then stated that he did not object to the apartments but that ~e did object to the re-z~ning ~s it would open up this property to practically any type of business in the future. Mr. Hayman then stated that he had canvassed the entire neighborhood and he had a list of appemimately 30 names. All were opposed to the re-zoning. None voiced objection to the apartment house. Mr. Muzichuck then asked if there were any other apartment houses an this neighborhood and he was informed that there were two houses in the rear of his property, on Marblehead Street, which housed eight apartments, but that these were erected some time before the 2oning Law became effective. Motion was made by Mr. Ritchie and seconded by Mr. Poor that this matter be taken under advisement. Mr. Hayman then asked the Board if all abutters could be notified of the findings of the Board at an early date, as his delegation were planning to attend the open meeting to be held by the Advisory Board on February 9, 1950. The chairman of the Board advised Mr, Haym~u that this would be done. After due consideration and discussion on the above application, motion was made by Mr. Ritchie and seconded by.Mr. Poor that the application be accepted. It was so VOTED by a majority of the Board, Mr. Whipple voting NO. The application was granted, however subject to the condition and restriction,that the Zoning By-Laws be amanded to change the Classification of the ~proprty in question from a-General.Residential to a Business District, provided that said property is not-to be used for any other purpose than for the re-- modelling of the present exizting building into apartments or the erection of other-building which are to be used exclusively for dwelling purposes. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOTED to aend a letter to the Board of Selectmen, recommmnding that the Zonihg By-Laws be amended so as to allow a change of classification of this property from a General Residential to a Business District subject to the above condition and restriction. A similar letter was also sent to the Advisory Board. Ail abutters were notified in the same manner and a letter was sent to Mr. Hayman, as .he had requested also informing him of the decision of the Board. Mr. Whipple then reported to the Board that the plans which had been presented to the Board by Carmello Gioco, had been returned to the February 6, 19~O--Cont: engineering firm of St°Wers & Son. .These plan~ had originally been presented to the Board on September 9, 1949, requesting the approval of the Planning Board, of the layout of Hemlock Street, from a point originally approved by the board, (this point be- ginning at the edge of Walnut Street and continuing for a distance of 306.21 feets and continuing to the edge of Massachusetts Avenue. ~n September 9, 1949 Mr. Gioco appeared before the Board and stated that his plans were not ready for presentation at thi~ time and re- quested that his hearing be postponed until a later date. Mr. Gioqo and his e.ngineers, Stowers & Son appeared before the Board on November 4, 1949. In the meantime,~ a letter had been sent to the State Department of Public WOrks asking if there were any rules or r~gu~lations which should be observed in the case of this street as it enters into a State Highway,(Massachusetts Avenue) This letter was dated October 11, 1949. Repl~ was received from the State Dept. of Public Works on October 20, 1949 and they suggested that sinc~ the street in question was more than 250 feet in length, there should be two additional catch basins placed 250 feet in from the edge of Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Stowers stated that if the true facts were known to the State DePt. of Public Works, they would not insist on this condition, as the land was fairly level at this end of the street and very little drainage would find its way to the State Highway. Mr. Gioco then went to the Beverly office of the State DePt. and took plans and profiles with him. He was informed there that these two extra catch basins could be eliminated, but the Board felt that this should come in writing bo them from the State Dept. to avoid all future difficulties. The Board received a letter from the BeVerly office of the State Department of Public Works stating that since v~ewing the plans that recommendations previously made were recinded. The suggestion now reads "Not more than 300 feet of gu{ter drainage reach each of these catch basins (to be located at the edge of Massachusetts Avenue) on the surface". After further discussion regarding these plans, the Board felt that the plans showed a number of lots and as they did not wish to give approval of these lots at tbi~ time, although it has been given to understand that these all have beenrecorded for some time~ the p~ans were re- turned to the engineers and new ~ will be made showing only the part of'HemloCk Street, for which application for approval was made. T.hese plans will be presented to the Board at a later date for their approval. Motion was made and seconded and it was VOTED to adjourn the meeting. Adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Sisne~~/~~~~ :_ ~ ~,hai~6an k.~ · 3