Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 54 PHILLIPS COURT 7/29/2016 SLA VAUGHAN MEMORANDUM To: Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant/Owner: Ryan Schruender Property: 54 Phillips Court and 320 Pleasant Street Map 95, Parcels 35 and 36 Date: July 29, 2016 The Applicant,Ryan Schruender,is requesting dimensional variances to allow for the maintenance of an existing two family home on an existing lot of record at 54 Phillips Court and to allow for the construction of a new single family home on an. adjacent existing lot of record on Phillips Court known and numbered as 320 Pleasant Street. The details of the Applicant's variance requests were set forth in the Variance Applications and Memorandum in Support of Variance as previously submitted by the Applicant to the Board. The hearings for the Variances were opened on June 28,2016. The Board heard testimony from the Applicant in support of the Applications as well as testimony from a number of abutters speaking in opposition to the Variance requests at the initial hearing on June 28. The matter was continued at the conclusion of the prior hearing,with a number of issues to be addressed by the Applicant in response to specific inquiries of the Board and in an effort to allow the Applicant opportunity to consider the stated concerns of abutters and attempt to redesign the project to address abutter and Board concerns to the extent feasible. The purpose of this memo is to respond and provide background with respect to the issues raised by the Board at the initial hearing.There were six (6) issues specifically identified for which the Board requested further information, each of which are or shall be addressed in turn as follows: 1. Lot Merger. A question was raised with respect to the issue of"Lot Merger" and why exactly a variance is needed for both lots. The Board requested an 1 �00101649;v2) East Mill,21 High Street,Suite 301,North Andover,MA 0184.5 VvP�.SMOLAKVAUGHAN.COM Memo to North Andover ZBA Re:54 Phillips Court and 320 Pleasant Street July 29,2016 explanation or outline of applicable case law concerning lot merger. As an initial matter the concept of lot merger is incorporated into the current North Andover Zoning Bylaw at Section 7.8(1) which provides: The residential lot areas and frontages above required and listed in Table 2 shall not apply in any residence district to any lot of less area or less frontage than above required if such lot be not adjoined by other land o� the same owner,available Lor combination with or use in connection with such lot,provided that the applicant for a building permit on any such lot shall show by citations from the„Essex Count Registry of Deeds incorporated in or attached to such application that such lot was lawfully laid out and duhl recorded by plan or deed prior to TanuaU 9, 195 and provided that on such a lot there shall be kept open and not built upon a front yard and a rear yard each not less than 20 feet deep, and two side yards,each not less than 12 feet wide;and further provided that such lot shall have a minimum street frontage of 50 feet and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. The language above which is highlighted incorporates the lot merger provisions whereby lots are deemed to merge together for zoning purposes when substandard lots are adjoined in common ownership. This provision is incorporated to the bylaw based upon both statutory law (MGL c 40A) and applicable case law. Because in the present case the lots are "adjoined by other land of the same owner" they are deemed to have merged and are not each recognized as separately buildable lots but as a single buildable lot. But in addition,for a much more detailed overview of applicable case law, l have also included and submit with this memo Section 7.4 of the MCLE Massachusetts Zoning Manual,which outlines residential zoning freezes under Section 6 of MGL c.40A and discusses the so-called"merger" of substandard lots. 2. 2002 Variance Application. The Board also requested that some background and history be provided with respect to the 2002 variance request which was made by a prior owner and was denied. The 2002 application was made to request variances for lot area and street frontage so as to create two non-conforming lots. The Notice of Decision from 2002 is attached,by which the variance request was denied by a 2-2 vote. It is noted that one of the issues argued by the abutters in that case was that the then applicant was a non-resident owner seeking to simply reap financial reward. In the present case we have a resident homeowner seeking to expand his living area for a growing family and seeking to improve and remain in the neighborhood. (00101649;v2) 2 Memo to North Andover ZBA Re:54 Phillips Court and 320 Pleasant Street July 29,2026 3. 10,000 SF Lot Exception. A question was raised at the prior meeting as to whether or not the existing zoning bylaw in fact provided an exemption or exception,by special permit,for 10,000 SF lots in the R-4 District and whether the variances were in fact needed at all. Upon further research of the bylaw,it would appear that the confusion was with respect to whether Section 7.8(2) of the Zoning Bylaw was applicable. This section provides as follows: In Residence 4 (R4) Districts only,two or more vacant lots, mutually adjoining,may with a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals be permitted to be combined into a new lot or lots of not less than 10,000 square feet area each,and with not less than 100 feet street frontage, provided it be shown to the Board of Appeals that each such lot was lawfully laid out and duly recorded by plan or deed prior to January 9, 1957 and the Building Inspector shall permit the construction of one single family dwelling on each such 10,000 square foot lot. This section would not provide the needed relief since the property in question would not satisfy the frontage or lot size dimensional requirements, and because an existing two-family rather than single family home is existing on one lot.So it would appear that while very close to qualifying for the special permit requirement, the Applicant would still in fact need dimensional variance relief. 4. Design and Size. One issue of concern to neighbors and the Board raised in our initial hearing was with respect to the size and design of the proposed home. The Applicant has submitted a new proto-type for the proposed new home of a much smaller size/scale (2,400 SF) and of a design which is believed to be more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood. The submitted plans have not been drawn by an architect but are a sample of a proposed new design for discussion purposes.The Applicant would hope to seek further feedback with respect to the newly submitted design before expending too much expense on detailed architectural or survey plans.The applicant's intent would be to seek another extension following the upcoming meeting and to then provide a detailed plan set (both architectural and survey) for final review at the next subsequent hearing,after seeking general comments to the proposed style and size of the new structure being presented. 5. Drainage. A request was also made for the Applicant to address drainage issues. The Applicant would intend to address any drainage issues in connection with a final survey to be prepared and presented at a subsequent hearing. This is in an effort to mitigate expense by waiting to address siting issues at a single time after further defining the proposal for the floor plan and structural footprint. {00301649;v2) 3 Memo to North Andover ZBA Re:54 Phillips Court and 320 Pleasant Street July 29,2016 6. Landscaping. A request was also made for the Applicant to address landscaping issues. Again, the Applicant would also intend to address any proposed landscaping issues in connection with a final survey and landscaping plan to be prepared at a subsequent hearing.This is again in an effort to mitigate expense by waiting to address landscape issues at a single time and after further defining the proposal for the floor plan and siting of the structure. But it is again noted, as was previously discussed at the initial hearing,that the Applicant would intend to maintain as much of the tree line and landscape buffers as could be reasonably maintained at the site. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Schruender By his attar n6't'- ­"� Brian G aug Esq. a SMOL K&VAU HAN LLP '- 21 Hig Street,Sui e 301 North Anr t)v er-,- assachusetts 01845 Tel. (978) 327-5217 fOO10164();v2) 4