HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication - 128 DALE STREET 11/27/2017 27 November 2017
Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)
Re: Written Documentation to Support Variance Request
Steve and Debbie Mason
128 Dale Street
Dear Board Members—
Please accept this letter in support of the variance request for the construction of a garage and bedroom
extension for property located at 128 Dale Street. Outlined below are points A-F as required by the
Town of North Andover Variance Application.
A. The particular variance request for the proposed use of the structure or land.
The variance sought for this property is for the construction of a garage and bedroom extension at 128
Dale Street.The proposed construction will require variances to dimensional requirements for front and
side setbacks as detailed in Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws as well as for Watershed Protection as detailed
in section 4.136 of the Zoning Bylaws.
B. The particular circumstances of the lot relating to soil conditions,shape,topography,or
structures which do not affect the rest of the Zoning District.
In order to construct a garage and bedroom extension on this property there are two circumstances that
apply to this property that generally do not apply to other properties in the same residential zone. First,
as shown on the plot plan,there is a vernal pool located on the eastern half of the property, and second,
the existing house (built in 1957) is situated at approximately 45 degrees to the front lot line.
C. Facts which make a substantial hardship,which would result if the literal enforcement of the
Zoning Bylaw sections on this land or use if this Variance relief is not granted.
Alternative locations have been considered for placement of the garage. As previously mentioned,
placing the addition on the eastern side of the house would risk impacting the vernal pool.
Consideration was also given to placing the addition more to the rear of the western side of the house.
This location was not chosen for multiple reasons:
1. This would have a greater negative impact to our bordering neighbors (closer to both side and
rear neighbors)
2. The necessity to remain outside of the 100'vernal pool buffer zone would still require a variance
for side setback
3. Any structure would have a negative impact on the use of the existing pool area.
4. The waste pipe to the sewer exits the rear of the house. Construction in that area would force
relocation of the waste pipe.
5. The bulkhead exits from the basement is at the west rear corner of the house. Construction in
that area would force relocation of the bulkhead.
Literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would prevent us from constructing the proposed addition.
D. Facts which support a finding that relief sought will be desirable and without substantial
detriment to the public good.
The existence of the vernal pool limits the ability to locate a garage on the eastern side of the house.
Over the past year, I've had multiple conversations with representatives of the Conservation
Commission and the Planning Board as well as a wetlands consultant and the consensus was that
situating the proposed addition on the western side of the house would minimize any impact to the
vernal pool and watershed.The 100 foot buffer zone essentially covers the entirety of the existing
structure and the proposed addition would be outside of that. Placing the structure as proposed violates
the side setback requirement, but it should be noted that other properties in this neighborhood also do
not meet the side setback requirement. In addition,though the setback is not met, the structure will still
be approximately 200 feet from my next door neighbor's house(see attached Figure 1: Proposed
Addition Relative to Abutters).
Due to the orientation of the house relative to the front lot line,the front setback of the existing
structure varies along its length.The proposed addition meets the front setback requirement where it
will meet the house, but the side furthest from the existing house violates the front yard setback.
Though there is a violation of front setback to the front lot line, 100%of the existing structure and
proposed structure will be greater than or equal to 30'to the edge of the street pavement.
Houses in this neighborhood as identified by the certified abutters list have significant variation in style
and size—from 1000 square foot ranches to 6000 square foot colonials. Approval of this variance
request would not be inconsistent with other homes in the vicinity, would not be materially detrimental
to the purpose of the zoning bylaws, is not detrimental to the public good and does not detract from the
intent or purpose of the bylaws.
E. Facts which will support a finding that the relief sought maybe given without nullifying or
substantially derogated from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Bylaw.
The project area is zoned for residential use and the proposed project will be in keeping with the bylaw
with the construction of the proposed addition.The addition will be constructed in a similar fashion as
neighboring dwellings and all best management practices will be used to prevent any adverse effects to
the zoning district.
F. Is this variance for contiguous buildable area?
Not applicable.
Storm Water Management Discussion
The current house has an existing driveway that covers approximately 1700 sq.ft. which is located
within 50 feet of a vernal pool.The proposal includes removing this impervious surface and replacing it
with landscaping.The proposed new construction would add 850 sq.ft.of roof runoff(425 sq.ft.
directed via a downspout to pervious lawn area at the rear of the house and 425 sq.ft.directed via a
downspout to pervious landscaped area at the front of the house) and approximately 980 sq.ft.of
driveway. The driveway can be graded such that the runoff is directed to pervious areas where
vegetation can provide filtration.
The removal of the existing driveway results in improved storm water management as the proposed
construction is a farther distance from the vernal pool. Even though the proposed construction has
essentially the same impervious area,almost half of it results from clean roof runoff. Finally, note 5 on
the submitted plot plan developed by JM Associates states: "It is the professional opinion of this firm
that there will not be any significant degradation in the quantity or quality of water in or entering Lake
Cochichewick."
Therefore,for the reasons addressed above in conjunction with additional supporting documentation, I
respectfully request that the Board grant the requested variances.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Steven Mason