HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 107 CAMPION ROAD 4/30/2018 (4) r�r OBP ❑Finding 1340D
AppiiccNnn filed on:
Haring due on:
O U T)ccisian due not
e
j
i
i
F
i
k
1 i
i
RE ICCEIP 7
Printed: July 21, 2014 @ V0:53:51
Essex North Registry
M. Paul IannLJCCi1i0
Register
Trans#: 11240 Oper:KEVINA
CENTURY BUILDERS
Book: PL Page: 17127
Ctl#: 57 Rec:7-21-2014 la' 10:58:43a
DOC DESCRIPTION TRANS AMT
PLAN
Surcharge CPR $20.00 20.00
5.00 TECH FEE 5.00
Plan recording 50.00
Total fees: 75.00
Book: 13918 Paae: 3'.5 In4t#: 1'0454
1"a
NAND 0 CHAMPIM HA!_L
DOC DESCRIPTION fkAN: AMT
DECISION
Surcharge CPA
50.00 recording 5t".13
5.00 TECH FEE 5.00
iolai
xxx Tctal charges: iS�J....
CHECK PM 2026 1`.0 GO
07-21- 014 a 10 = 53a
Town of North.Andover
ZONING BOARD OF"PEALS
Biles►P.Mdno-m,I ie?_cAw w" t HOQ2Ty
Ri
otet"to rlr3ril j.
1-_,q.CL-,-k
[>.Pant Koch Jr. This is to certify that twenty(20)days
:ULn e�� ,• x have elapsed from date of decision,filed
without filing of an appeal. 1 1�
1�wuarz Eft a :o� Da _OmkhmPV
+� 3,Se,,no�;. Joyce A.Bradshaw
I�xsg t
s,KHUSEt
Town Clerk
Denec Jtos�asrzhal
Tony,Ckrk Tung Stamm
Any appeal shall be filed within20
( ) Notice of Decision
days after the date of filing of this Year 2014
notice in the office of the Town Clerk,
er Mass. Gen.L. ch.40A 17
§ Property at: 0 Campion Nall(Map 62 Parcel 89)North Andover.MA 01845
NAME: Dimitrois Saragas HEARING(S): 13 May 2013
ADDRESS: 0 Campion Road(Map 62,Parce189), PETITION: 2014-004
North Andover, MA 01845
The North Andover Board of Appeals held a public hearing at the Town Hall, at 120 Main Street, North Andover,
MA on Tuesday May 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM on the application of Dimitrois Saragas, for property located at 0
Campion Road (Map 62 Parcel,;89), North Andover, MA 01845.
Petitioner i a
Zoning Board of Appeals for the R-1 Zoning District under Section 4.136, (Building requesting
Permitted)riance from the
(3) of the Watershed Protection District, in order to Construction a new Permanent Structure within the "Non)
Disturbance Zone" allowed by Special Permit by the Planning Board only after a Variance has been granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Legal notices were sent to all the certified abutters provided by the Town of North Andover,Assessors Office,and
were published in the Eagle-Tribune,a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of North Andover, on April 29
2014 and May 6,2014.
The following regular voting members were present: Albert P. Manzi III, Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J. Byers,
D.Paul Koch and Allan Cuscia. The following Associate Members were present Michael Liporto, and Doug
Ludgin.
McIntyre made a motion to GRANT the Variance to allow Under
Section
3(c)(ii) 3 on 4.16, (Building and Uses Pe
O( )( )of the Watershed Protection District Bylaw, in order to Construct a new Permanent Structure within the
"Non-Disturbance Zone"
Koch second the motion to Grant the Variance
All those in favor to Grant the Variance: Albert P. Manzi III,Ellen P. McIntyre,Richard J.Byers,D.Paul Koch,and
Allan Cuscia
5-0
The Board finds that owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or
structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in general, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Bylaw will involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner or applicant. The Board finds that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the purpose of this bylaw.
The Board also finds that this use, as developed by the building & site plans, is an appropriate location for such a
use and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or
pedestrians,since there are provisions for the required off-street parking. Adequate and appropriate facilities will
provided for the Proposed single ^,.,• be
P farjil dwelling.ng. The Board finds that this Variance granted by the Board of
Appeals will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that this
neighborhood and ene use, is m harmony with the
g r�7 WF*Tse and intent of this Bylaw, and the Board finds the neighborhood association is in
favor of the petition. A True Copy
Town Ckrk
• K
Site: 0 Campion Road (Map 62, Parcel 89), North Andover, MA 01845 Under
Section 4.136, (Building and Uses Permitted) 3(c)(ii) (3) of the Watershed
Protection District Bylaw, The Construction of a new Permanent Structure
within the "Non-Disturbance Zone" is allowed by Special Permit by the
Planning Board only after a Variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of
_,Appeals.R-I Zoning.District.
Plans)Title: 1)"Plan of Land"containing one(1)sheet. Prepared by Andover Consultants
Inc.,Dated March 3,2014 and revised March 12,2014
2)"Proposed House Plans of Front Elevation ,Rear Elevation,Left and right
Elevation ",containing one(1)sheet,
"Proposed First Floor Plans"containing one(1)sheet.
"Proposed Second floor Plans",containing one(1)sheet,
"Proposed Foundation",containing one(1)all 4 sheets of Proposed House
Plans Prepared by Century Builders Inc., 8 Brushwood Drive Atkinson NH
03811 Dated April 2013
Voting in favor to Grant Albert P. Manzi III, Ellen P.McIntyre, Richard J. Byers,D.Paul Koch Jr.
the Variance: Allan Cuscia
Voting in the Negative: 0
The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions Under Section 4.136 to construct anew single family
home in the Watershed Protection District for 0 Campion Road(Map 62,Parcel 89),North Andover, MA 01845
in the R-1 District.
Notes:
t. This decision shall not be in effect until a copy of this decision is recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds,Northern District at
the applicants expense.
2. The granting of the Variance as requested by the applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a building permit as the applicant
must abide by all applicable local,state,and federal building codes and regulations,prior to the issuance of a building permit as required
by the Inspector of Buildings.
3. If the rights authorized by the Varkmce are not exercised within one(1)years of the date of the grant,it shall lapse,and may be re-
established only after notice,and a new hearing.
North Andover Zoning B and of Appeals
Alb P. Manzi III, Esq., Chairman
Ellen P. McIntyre, Vice-Chairman
Richard J. Byers, Esq., Clerk
D. Paul Koch Jr.
Allan Cuscia
Decision 2014-004
Page 2 of 2
_L "8 a i le" 51 33v%
Town of North Andover
ZONING BARD OF"PEALS
_�Dbcrt P.1Dano DtD,[�.;q.C'��v�B
[•71en P.'1lcIset�^re,D Fee-C,.fAaearuu -
Clerk
D.Pact Koch), �� � This is to certify that twenty(20)days
- ' ,
= t have elapsed from date of decision,filed
without filing of an appeal. ] 1
Michael P.t;p�„ "* Da�_Li� IL �� a_o t
Dougud& Joyce A.Bradshaw
Dene, •Do,.anrha! u � Town Clerk
Town Clerk I-i'm starccp
Any appeal shall be fled within(20)
days after the date of filing of this Notice of Decision
{ notice in the offce of the Town Clerk, Year 2014
per Mass. Gen.L.ch,40A, §17 Property at: 0 Campion Hall(Map 62 Parcel 89)North Andover,MA 01845
NAME: Dimitrois Saragas
HEARING(S): 13 May 2013
ADDRESS: 0 Campion Road(Map 62,Parcel 89), PETITION:
North Andover,MA 01845 2014-004
The North Andover Board of Appeals held a public hearing at the Town Hall, at 120 Main Street,North Andover,
MA on Tuesday, May 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM on the application of Dimitrois Saragas, for property located at 0
Campion Road (Map 62 Parcel_89), North Andover, MA 01845. Petitioner .is requesting a Variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the"R-I Zoning District under Section 4.136, (Building and Uses Permitted) 3(c) ii
(3) of the Watershed Protection District, in order to Construction a new Permanent Structure within the "Non)
Disturbance Zone" allowed by Special Permit by the PlanningBoard only after a Variance has been granted by the Board of Appeals
Legal notices were sent to all the certified abutters provided by the Town of North Andover As
sessors Office,and
were published in the Eagle-Tribune,a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of North Andover,on Aril 29
2014 and May 6,2014. P
The following regular voting members were present: Albert P.Manzi IIl, Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J. Byers,
D.Paul Koch and Allan Cuscia. The following Associate Members were present Michael Liporto, and Doug
g '
McIntyre made a motion to GRANT the Variance to allow Under Section 4.136, (Building and Uses Permitted)
3(c)(ii)(3) of the Watershed Protection District Bylaw, in order to Construct a new Permanent Structure within the
"Non-Disturbance Zone"
Koch second the motion to Grant the Variance
All those in favor to Grant the Variance: Albert P. Manzi III,Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J.Byers,D.Paul Koch,and
Allan Cuscia
5-0
The Board finds that owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or
structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in general a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Bylaw will involve substantial hardshi financi
al otherwise, to the
petitioner or applicant. The Board finds that desirable relief may be granted without
ut substantiais l detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the purpose of this bylaw.
The Board also finds that this use, as developed by the building& site plans, is an appropriate location for such a
use and will not adversely affecr the neighborhood. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or
pedestrians,since there are provisions for the required off-street parking. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be
provided for the proposed.single family dwelling. The Board finds that this Variance granted by the Board of
Appeals will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that this use, is in harmony .with the
neighborhood and genee and intent of this Bylaw, and the Board finds the neighborhood association is in
favor of the petition. A True Copy
Town Cigrk
J
Site: 0 Campion Road , North Andover, Under
(Map 62, Parcel 89
. ) r, MA 01845 i
Section 4.136 Building and�d Uses Permitted) 3(c)(ii) (3) of the Watershed
Protection District Bylaw, The Construction of a new Permanent Structure
within the "Non-Disturbance Zone" is allowed by Special Permit by the
Planning Board only after a Variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of
-Appeals,R-1 Zoning District.
Plan(s)Title: 1)"Plan of Land"containing one(1)sheet. Prepared by Andover Consultants
Inc.,Dated March 3,2014 and revised March 12,2014
2)"Proposed House Plans of Front Elevation,Rear Elevation,Left and right
Elevation",containing one(1)sheet,
"Proposed First Floor "
p Plans containing
i " bone(1)sheet.
Proposed Second floor Plans",containing one(1)sheet,
Proposed Foundation",containing one(1)all 4 sheets of Proposed House
j Plans Prepared by Century Builders Inc., 8 Brushwood Drive Atkinson NH
03811 Dated April 2013
Voting in favor to Grant AlbertP.Manzi III, Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J. Byers,D.Paul Koch Jr.
the Variance: Allan Cuscia
Voting in the Negative: 0
The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions Under Section 4.136 to construct a new single family
home in the Watershed Protection District for 0 Campion RoadMa
in the R-1 District. Road(Map 62 Parcel 89),North Andover, MA 01845
I
Notes:
I. This decision shall not be in effect until a copy of this decision is recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds,Northern District at
the applicant's expense.
2. The granting of the Variance as requested by the applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a building permit as the applicant
must abide by all applicable local,state,and federal building codes and regulations,prior to the issuance of building permit as required
by the Inspector of Buildings.
3. If the rights authorized by the Variance are not exercised within one(1)years of the date of the grant,it shall lapse,and may be re-
established only after notice,and a new hearing.
North Andover Zoning B and of Appeals
Alb P. Manzi III, Esq., Chairman
Ellen P. McIntyre, Trice-Chairman
Richard J. Byers, Esq., Clerk
D. Paul Koch Jr.
Allan Cuscia
Decision 2014-004
i
Page 2 of 2
i
i
i
I f`
. Town of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Aflxrl R Nknzi III, Char Naw
00RTFj
Mm P.TtiCI11tE"Ee.I ZlSJff6 O
O
Ri[haM 1_Byer_:'P='4I- air e`.r t O
D_Paul Koch Jr o s t;
tf
Site: 0 Campion Road (Map 62, Parcel 89), North Andover, MA 01845 Under
Section 4.136, (Building and Uses Permitted) 3(c)(ii) (3) of the Watershed
Protection District Bylaw, The Construction of a new Permanent Structure
within the "Non-Disturbance Zone" is allowed by Special Permit by the
Planning Board only after a Variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of
A eals.R-1 Zoning District:
Plan(s)Title: 1)"Plan of Land"containing one(1)sheet. Prepared by Andover Consultants
Inc.,Dated March 3,2014 and revised March 12,2014
2)"Proposed House Plans of Front Elevation,Rear Elevation,Left and right
Elevation",containing one(1)sheet,
"Proposed First Floor Plans"containing one(1)sheet.
"Proposed Second floor Plans",containing one(1)sheet,
"Proposed Foundation",containing one(1)all 4 sheets of Proposed House
Plans Prepared by Century Builders Inc., 8 Brushwood Drive Atkinson NH
03811 Dated April 2013
Voting in favor to Grant Albert P.Manzi III, Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J.Byers,D.Paul Koch Jr.
the Variance: Allan Cuscia
Voting in the Negative: 0
The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions Under Section 4.136 to construct a new single family
home in the Watershed Protection District for 0 Campion Road(Map 62,Parcel 89),North Andover MA 01845
in the R-1 District.
Notes:
1. This decision shall not be in effect until a copy of this decision is recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds,Northern District at
the applicant's expense.
2. The granting of the Variance as requested by the applicant does not necessarily ensure the granting of a building permit as the applicant
must abide by all applicable local,state,and federal building codes and regulations,prior to the issuance of a building permit as required
by the Inspector of Buildings.
3. If the rights authorized by the Variance are not exercised within one(1)years of the date of the grant,it shall lapse,and may be re-
established only after notice,and a new hearing.
t
North/Andover Zoning B and of Appeals
AlDpft P.Manzi III,Esq., Chairman
Ellen P.McIntyre, Vice-Chairman
Richard J.Byers,Esq., Clerk
D.Paul Koch Jr.
Allan Cuscia
Decision 2014-004
i
I
Page 2 of 2
,,ORTH
Zoning Bylaw Review Form
p Town Of North Andover Building Department
Y
" '•e,;;o;.:',Y 1600 Osgood St. Bldg 20 Suite 2-36
`"°sit North Andover, MA. 01845
Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542
Street: 0 Campion Road
Ma /Lot: Ma 62 /Lot 89
Applicant: Dimitrois Sara as
Request: Construct a New Structure
Date: March 11, 2014
Please be advised that after review of your Application and Plans that your Application is
DENIED for the following Zoning Bylaw reasons:
Zoning R-1
Item Notes Item Notes
A Lot Area F Frontage
1 Lot area Insufficient X 1 Frontage Insufficient X
2 Lot Area Preexisting X 2 Frontage Complies
3 Lot Area Complies 3 Preexisting frontage X
4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
B Use 5 No access over Frontage
1 Allowed X G Contiguous Building Area
2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area X
3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies
4 Special Permit Required X 3 Preexisting CBA
5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
C Setback H Building Height
1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum
2 Front Insufficient X 2 Complies X
3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height
4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information
5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage
6 Preexisting setback(s) 1 Coverage exceeds maximum
7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies
D Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting X
1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient information
2 In Watershed X j Sign
3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 X 1 Sign not allowed N/A-,-----,
Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies
5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Informatitr*::�_
E Historic District K Parking
1 In District review required 1 More Parking Required
2 Not in district X 2 Parking Complies X
3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
4 Pre-existing Parkin
Remedy for the above is checked below.
Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance ZBA
Site Plan Review Special Permit Setback Variance
Access other than Frontage Special Permit Parking Variance
Frontage Exception Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance
Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance
Congregate Housing Special Permit X Variance
Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board
Independent Elderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA
Lar a Estate Condo Special Permit Earth Removal Special Permit ZBA
Planned Development District Special Permit Special Permit Use not Listed but Similar
Planned Residential Special Permit Special Permit for Sign
R-6 Density Special Permit Special permit for preexisting
nonconforming
X Watershed Special Permit
i
I
i
The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive
review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the
applicant serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for Any inaccuracies,misleading
information,or other subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to
be voided at the discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled"Plan Review Narrative"shall be
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation
4dbepart7mnt
a file.You must file a new permit application form and begin the permitting process.
Official Signature Appfi—cAtiontl4c6ived Application Denied
Denial Sent: If Faxed Phone Number/Date:
Plan Review Narrative
The following narrative is provided to further explain the reasons for DENIAL for the
APPLICATION for the property indicated on the reverse side:
Item Reasons for
Reference
Section
4.136 Watershed Protection Division
4.136 Construction of a new permanent structure only after a Variance has been
3c ii(3) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
Referred To:
Fire Health
Police X Zoning Board
X Conservation Department of Public Works
X Planning Historical Commission
Other Building Department
�
Town of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Albert P.Manzi III,Esq.Chairman pF Noer a qti
Ellen P.McIntyre,Vice-Chairman 3r °o Associate Members
Richard J.Byers,Esq.Clerk ° ;� Michael P.Liporto
D.Paul Koch Jr.,Esq. * Doug Ludgin
Allan Cuscia * 0 Deney Mor an
thal
�4SSgcHuSEt�y Zoning Enforcement Officer `
Gerald Brown k
I
Legal g Notice
North Andover Board of Appeals t
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the
North
Andover Town Hall at 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA on Tuesday, May
13 2014, at 7:30 PM to all parties interested in the petition for Dimitrois Saragas for
property located at 0 Campion Road (Map 62, Parcel 89), North Andover, MA
01845.
The applicant plans to construct a new single Family Home in a non-disturbance
buffer zone of the Watershed Protection District in the R-1 Zoning District.
A Variance is requested under Section 4.136(Watershed Protection Division), 3 (Uses
and Building Requirements), c. ii 3O (Non-Disturbance( e Buffer Zone), of the Zoning
Bylaws.
Application and supporting materials are available for review at the office of the
Zoning Department located at 1600 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA, Monday,
Wednesday and Thursday from the hours of 8:00-400, Tuesday from the hours of
800-5:30 and Friday from 8:00 to 11:30.
By order of the Board of Appeals
Albert P. Manzi I1I, Esq., Chairman . �
tit
Published in the Eagle Tribune on: �`
April 29, 2014w� 1b,
May 6, 2014 2 ry
ps
� . .
HE
r
M
NORTH
Zoning Bylaw Review Form
` p Town Of North Andover Building Department
1600 Osgood St. Bldg 20 Suite 2-36
1SSACHUSEt North Andover, MA. 01845
Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542
Street: 0 Campion Road
Ma /Lot: Ma 62 /Lot 89
Applicant: Dimitrois Sara as
Request: Construct a New Structure
Date: March 11, 2014 t
Please be advised that after review of your Application and Plans that your Application is
DENIED for the following Zoninglaw reasons:
_. Bylaw
Zoning R-1 ,
Item Notes Item Notes
I
A Lot Area F Frontage
1 Lot area Insufficient X 1 Frontage Insufficient X
2 Lot Area Preexisting X 2 Frontage Complies
3 Lot Area Complies 3 Preexisting frontage X
4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
B Use 5 No access over Frontage
1 Allowed X G Contiguous Building Area
2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area X
3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies
4 Special Permit Required X 3 Preexisting CBA
5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
C Setback H Building Height
1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum
2 Front Insufficient X 2 Complies X
3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height
4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information
5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage
6 Preexisting setback(s) 1 Coverage exceeds maximum
7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies
D Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting X
1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information
2 In Watershed X j Sign
3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 X 1 Sign not allowed N/A
4 Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies
5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
E Historic District K Parking
1 In District review required 1 I More Parking Required
2 Not in district X 2 Parking Complies X
3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
4 Pre-existing Parkin
i
Remedy for the above is checked below.
Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance ZBA
Site Plan Review Special Permit Setback Variance
Access other than Frontage Special Permit Parking Variance
Frontage Exception Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance
Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance
Congregate Housing Special Permit X Variance
Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board
Independent Elderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA
Large Estate Condo Special Permit Earth Removal Special Permit ZBA
Planned Development District Special Permit Special Permit Use not Listed but Similar
Planned Residential Special Permit Special Permit for Sign
R-6 Density Special Permit Special permit for preexisting
nonconforming
X Watershed Special Permit
The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive
review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the
applicant serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for Any inaccuracies,misleading
information,or other subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to
be voided at the discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled"Plan Review Narrative"shall be
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation
for the above file.You must file a new permit application form and begin the permitting process.
,.
Build g Departm nt Off-ficial Signature A p p f i—cA tion eceived Application Denied
Denial Sent: If Faxed Phone Number/Date:
Plan Review Narrative
The following narrative is provided to further explain the reasons for DENIAL for the
APPLICATION for the property indicated on the reverse side:
Item' -Reasons for �.
Reference`r v
Section
4.136 Watershed Protection Division
4.136 Construction of a new permanent structure only after a Variance has been
3c ii(3) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
Referred To:
Fire Health
Police X Zoning Board
X Conservation Department of Public Works
X Planning Historical Commission
Other Building De arttnent
t NORTF,
o:°,T�"', °� Zoning Bylaw Review Form
Town Of North Andover Building Department
* o r
,o;;. 1600 Osgood St. Bldg 20 Suite 2-36
,SSACHUSE� North Andover,'MA. 01845
Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542
Street: 0 Campion Road
Ma /Lot: Ma 62 /Lot 89
Applicant: Dimitrois Sara as
Request: Construct a New Structure
Date: March 11, 2014 t
Please be advised that after review of your Application and Plans that your Application is
DENIED for the following Zonis9 Bylaw reasons:
..
Zonis R-1
Item Notes Item Notes
A Lot Area F Frontage
1 Lot area Insufficient X 1 Frontage Insufficient X
2 Lot Area Preexisting X 2 Frontage Complies
3 1 Lot Area Complies 3 Preexisting frontage X
4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
B Use 5 No access over Frontage
1 Allowed X G Contiguous Building Area
2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area X
3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies
4 Special Permit Required X 3 Preexisting CBA
5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
C Setback H Building Height
1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum
2 Front Insufficient X 2 Complies X
3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height
4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information
5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage
I
6 Preexisting setback(s) 1 Coverage exceeds maximum
7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies k
D Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting X
1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information
2 In Watershed X j Sign
3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 X 1 Sign not allowed N/A
4 Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies
5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
E Historic District K Parking
1 In District review required 1 1 More Parking Required
2 Not in district X 2 Parking Complies X
3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
4 Pre-existing Parkin
Remedy for the above is checked below.
Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance ZBA
Site Plan Review Special Permit Setback Variance
Access other than Frontage Special Permit 'arkin variance
Frontage Exception Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance
Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance
Congregate Housing Special Permit X Variance
Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board
Independent Elderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA
Large Estate Condo Special Permit Earth Removal Special Permit ZBA
Planned Development District Special Permit Special Permit Use not Listed but Similar
Planned Residential Special Permit Special Permit for Sign
R-6 Density Special Permit Special permit for preexisting
nonconforming
X Watershed Special Permit
The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive
review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the
applicant serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for Any inaccuracies,misleading
information,or other subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to
be voided at the discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled"Plan Review Narrative"shall be
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation
4dDepartm
a file.You must file a new permit application form and begin the permitting process.
int Official SignatureApplic tion eceived Application Denied
i
Denial Sent: If Faxed Phone Number/Date:
Plan Review Narrative
The following narrative is provided to further explain the reasons for DENIAL for the
APPLICATION for the property indicated on the reverse side:
I
.Item �Reasons,for
,Q
Reference
Section
4.136 Watershed Protection Division
4.136 Construction of a new permanent structure only after a Variance has been
3c ii(3) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
Referred To:
Fire Health
Police X Zoning Board
X Conservation Department of Public Works
X Planning Historical Commission
Other Building Department
t
Site Description
Lot#12 Campion Road
North Andover,Massachusetts
Introduction
4
Wetlands Preservation,Inc. (WPI)is submitting this Site Description in support of a Request for a
Determination of Applicability for Lot#12 on Campion Road in North Andover,MA. This lot is the last
parcel in the Campion Road subdivision to be developed and appears to have been the storage/laydown j
yard for the construction of the subdivision.The lot was not considered a wetland during subdivision
permitting and has well developed upland soils overlain by a silty fill material.This fill material had been
spread throughout much of the lot and has subsequently become compacted presumably by construction
vehicles. This compaction and silt content of the fill material has resulted in the development of surface
soil conditions typically indicative of hydric soils and subsequently the development of hydrophytic
vegetation in a portion of the lot.
It is our contention that the area in question should not be considered a jurisdictional wetland under either
the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(MWPA)or the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw
(NAWPB)as it is isolated,was anthropogenically created with clearly undisturbed upland soils
underlying it,does not provide those wetland functions that would lead to the protection of the down
gradient Lake Cochichewick,North Andover's drinking water reservoir or other functions typically
associated with functioning wetland areas.
I
Existing Conditions
The lot is depicted on the South Groveland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey(USGS)
topographic map(Attachment 1). The lot is bound by Campion Road to the east and residential properties
to the north,south and west. It is located within the watershed of Lake Cochichewick. The lot is I
currently vegetated primarily with crab apple(Malus coronaria)saplings though black locust(Robinia
psuedoacacia),white ash(Fraxinus americana)and red maple(Acer rubrum)trees are present. Shrub
species include the invasive species multiflora rose(Rosa multiflora),Tatarian honeysuckle(Lonicera
tatarica)and autumn olive(Eleangus umbellata).
The site is depicted on the Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS) Soil Survey,Essex County,
Massachusetts(Attachment 2). According to the soil survey,the site is underlain by Sutton fine sandy
loams with slopes ranging from 3 to 15 percent.This soil is ranked as a moderately well drained,upland
soil by the NRCS.
The site is depicted on the Natural Heritage Atlas(13`h Edition), South Groveland Quadrangle published
by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program(NHESP). Based on a review of
the Atlas,the property does not contain areas mapped as Priority Habitat of Rare Species(Attachment 3).
i
The site is not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate
I
Maps(FIRM)as an area of flooding,Community Panels 25009CO229F and 25009CO228F(Attachment I
4)
f
I
The area in question is vegetated with hydrophytic vegetation including purple loosestrife(Lythrum
salicaria), soft rush(Juncus effussus), sedges(Carex sp.)and goldenrods(Solidago sp.)in the herbaceous
layer and silky dogwood(Cornus amomum),red osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera)and multiflora rose
in the shrub canopy.
On November 21,2013,WPI submitted a letter to the North Andover Conservation Commission(NACC)
requesting to excavate shallow test pits within this area to examine the underlying soil profile which was
suspected to consist of undisturbed upland soils. On December 10,2013,the applicant and WPI
representatives met onsite with the NACC Conservation Administrator,Jennifer Hughes,to conduct the
test pit investigations.
Three test pits were excavated within the area in question and included the lowest areas of the topography
of the lot. The locations of the test pits can be seen on the accompanying site plans. All three pits were
found to contain fill material with depths ranging from 10 to 32-inches overlaying undisturbed upland
soils. Table 1 below summarizes the findings in each test pit and describes the soil profiles based on the
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States utilizing the Munsell color chart. It was agreed by
all parties within the field that the compacted fill acts as a perched water table whereby water is not
provided an opportunity to infiltrate naturally into the underlying soils and thus pools on the surface
creating hydric conditions.
Table 1. Summary of the three test pits excavated at the site.
Test Pit# Horizons Depth in. Color Texture
Fill 32 10YR 4/1 Granular,fill
I A 0-6 10 YR 2/1 Fine,sandy loam
B 6-18 10YR 5/6 Fine,sandy loam
Fill 12 10YR 4/1 Granular,fill
2 A 0-12 10YR 3/2 Fine,sandy loam
B 12-20 10YR 5/4 Fine,sandy loam
Fill 10 10YR 4/1 Granular,fill
3 A 0-14 10YR 3/1 Fine,sandy loam
B 14-20+ 10YR 2.5Y 5/4 Fine,sandy loam
The compacted nature of the soil in this wet area and its vegetation cover do not provide functions that
would normally be associated with a functioning wetland and its functions do not provide the protection
of the down gradient reservoir by not allowing precipitation and surface runoff to infiltrate and reduce
stormwater discharges to the Lake. This increases the potential for sediments and potential toxicants to
reach Lake Cochichewick. Additionally,because the compacted silty soil does not allow infiltration and
attenuation of flows, it appears to contribute to flooding issues on Bonny Lane.
Proposed Activities
The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on Lot#12 and to incorporate in the design
an infiltration system that will collect and infiltrate runoff from both new impervious surfaces and from
surface and road runoff from the lot.
The applicant is proposing to install an infiltration device on the downslope boundary of the wet area to
promote infiltration of the surface water sheeting off the lot and the road. This will not only benefit the
applicant by decreasing the risk of flooding into his home but it will also benefit home owners on Bonny
Lane that have previously voiced concern over runoff/flooding emanating from the Campion Road
subdivision. Perhaps most importantly,the infiltration device will substantially treat stormwater runoff
by allowing it to infiltrate through the soil thereby increasing the quality of water discharging to Lake
Cochichewick. It will also act to slow runoff discharges therefore retaining more water within the
watershed.
Conclusion
As previously stated, it is our opinion that the area in question should not be considered a jurisdictional
wetland under the MWPA and the NAWPB for the reason that it does not function as a wetland and is a
result of fill deposition during subdivision construction. The anthropogenic nature of this area does not
allow the wetland to infiltrate water into the underlying substrate and acceptance of this position will
allow construction of a house and associated infiltration system that will act to reduce sediment load and
potential toxicant release into Lake Cochichewick, infiltrate stormwater thus retain added water within the
watershed and attenuate the flooding issue of down gradient neighbors. The applicant is proposing to
provide the NACC with site plans documenting the proposed work including the installation of erosion
control barriers and the infiltration of stormwater from the house on the site(i.e. dry wells for roof runoff) `
and will provide as-built plans documenting the final constructed condition on the lot.
i
I�
i
RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO
ATTORNEY AT LAW
89 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 o O
_ l�
(978) 686-4041
FAX(978) 794-2088
attyrvivenzio@hotmail.com
June 13, 2013
Mr. Gerald Brown,Building Commissioner
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: 107 Campion Road
Assessor's Map 62, Lot 89
Dear Mr. Brown:
I represent Dimitrios"Jim" Saragas, owner of the above-described
lot of land. He would like to build a single-family residence upon this lot,but his builder
advises me that he has been informed by your office that the zoning in this area requires
two (2)acres, whereas the Saragas lot contains but one (1)acre.
This same scenario occurred ten(10) years ago,when Mr. Satagas
planned to build a home at that time. The then inspector,Michael McGuire, informed him
that the zoning freeze for the subdivision had expired, and that lot size in this zone had
gone from one to two acres. Mr. Saragas hired me to represent him at the time, and I had
a title examination performed upon all of the surrounding adjoining lots.
It was determined by the title examiner that Mr. Saragas' lot
existed as a separate lot, and was not owned in combination with any contiguous lot since
1986.That was one (1) year before the zoning change from 1 to 2 acres.
On July 8, 2003, 1 sent Mr. McGuire a letter advising him that I 4
was of the opinion that the subject lot was"grandfathered"under the provisions of the
first sentence of paragraph 4 of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 6,
exempting certain lots from increases in area and frontage requirements. In support of
this position,I submitted the title examiner's report(Atty. Wayne Belair),the town
meeting warrant from 1987, a copy of Adamowicz vs. Town of Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, h
a copy of a Form U lot release from 1991 with several signatures thereon, as well as other
documentation.
i
r"
RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO
I thereafter met with D. Robert Nicetta, then Building
Commissioner/Zoning Officer, and he concurred that the lot
had existed as aseparately-
owned parcel since 1986. A copy of his August 27,2003 letter to me is enclosed
herewith. It was my belief at the time that the client had then gone forward with plans to
build a home there, but for personal reasons he did not proceed.
What I have done at the present time was to ask Atty. Belair,the
title examiner, to update all that he had done before ten(10) years ago. He has done so,
and rendered a cover report dated June 12, 2013. As you can see, Mr. Saragas never
acquired any part of any other lot,nor conveyed out any portion of his lot. Atty. Belair's
report shows that Mr..Saragas' lot is the same"as it first appeared when it was
configured by the original developer in 1986."
Consequently, I reiterate my request as made in 2003, and ask you
to treat the subject lot as being exempt from all increases in"area frontage,width and
, g , ,
Y
or depth requirements"'enacted after 1986.
Kindly advise me of your decision at your earliest convenience.
The following documents are enclosed herewith:
1) my letter to Mr.McGuire dated July 8, 2003 (2 pages)
2) Atty. Belair's letter to me dated June 30, 2003 (7 pages)
3) copy of Atty. Belair's letter to me dated June 12, 2013 (2 pages)
4) copy of Mr. Saragas' recorded deed(2 pages)
5) copy of Mr.Nicetta's letter to me dated August 27, 2003 (1 page)
6) copy of Municipal Lien Certificate for the lot from 2002 (1 page)
7) copy of portion of assessor's map (1 page)
8) copy of 1987 Annual Town Meeting Warrant(2 pages)
9) copy of Form U Lot Release Form(1 page)
10)copy of Adamowicz vs. Town of Ipswich case (5 pages)
11)copy of Registry of Deeds plan# 10534 (1 page)
Sincerely, m
Raymond A. Vivenzio "
Enclosures
RAV/sw
cc: Dimitrios G. Saragas
Belau and Zipeto
Attorneys at Law
375 Common Street
Lawrence, Massachusetts 01840
(978) 7944898
(978) 6835003
]Fax: (978)i794,,0012
Wayne L. Belair
Ellen A. Zipeto
June 12, 2013
Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq.
89 Main St.
No. Andover, MA 01845
Re: Land on Campion Road,North Andover
Assessors Reference: Map 62, Lot 89
Current Owner: Dimitrios G. Saragas
Dear Attorney Vivenzio:
Pursuant to your request, I have again examined the title to the above described
parcel as well as those abutting it. You have in your possession my letter of June 30,
2003 in which I outlined the title history of the said lot as well as those abutting it. At
i
that time,I gave my opinion that the subject locus was a separate lot and had not been
held in common with any contiguous lot within the subdivision from its inception in
1985. I examined and reported the title histo to each abutting lot from the time the
p
r1' g
subdivision was formulated on paper in 1986 through June of 2003. For your
information, I am enclosing copies of that 2003 report for your review and so that you
may incorporate those findings with those in my report of this day.
Please be advised that I have examined the titles to the subject locus and all of the
abutting lots from my last report of June 30, 2003 through June 11, 2013. 1 report to you
that while the most of the abutters have since sold or re-configured their respective lots,
the subject locus,Assessors Reference Map 62, Lot 89, has remained intact. Dimitrios G.
Saragas has neither obtained nor conveyed any portion of that lot since he obtained-it
back on May 4, 2002. It remains in the same configuration as it did when I last reported
its history ten years ago. He continues to own the lot as it first appeared when it was
configured by the original developer in 1986 and identified as Lot 12A on North Essex
Registry of Deeds Plan.#10534.
I hope that my findings have been helpful. Should you require anything further of
c� op �
I
me, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Wa L. Belair, Esq.
WLB/mc
i
` -- STREET - `'c / r
i/ \ i----- -- 1.10ac
138 _,40 y / 73 1.77 ac 25
_ /
/
23 /
•l /' 9.7 ac //�/` - ' 5.56 ec 3 a pl? 153 2
59
/ 26 '"r
c.. 1.334 ac 3A
FZpjV z 60 ry/�/ IA
24
0 � / O// 7.333 ac 'eS7sf 1sc 3.66 ac
�^ 3 C/.QjO� 1 71 /m 27 aC
2 //�`N/ 1.333 ace/ 1.07 ,A
6.1 ac
55? a 99 zA
20 ac/ 4 Cb. 1.0 ac 79 A 4A
1.326 ac �/ 'np/pN 1.01 80 81 5 M
A 21 !g>• 1.0 ac 1.0 82 ` cD
/ O 28114-
139 .Z 1.0� O
7.0277 ac
1 Zf 43.57:s1 e Z
\ A 74 /aI 29 98 83 F-
6.9 ac 1.14 ac � 1.0 Q
1.0 ac „ 45.336 s! §h16 92 � ac J J
CL
e 76 I > 93 1.0 ac s� 84 Lu
6.26 ac 30 1.0 ac a/ 45,530 sf 97 1.0 ac 15 09 7.0 ac Lu
5 1.0 ac a91 '^ 8A
27.33 ac ` 104.451 ac c 15 / /' 31 14A 85
46,206 sf !a4• 1.0 ac
1 t02ac '/ m 96 90
IJa 13 -D 6 9
� 77 3sr 7.37 ac YS
til ¢ 94 t.0 ac 8 86
1.00 ac a/
�cK
los
9A 2.638 ac 89- 103 ac
r� 1v
�''a
/9 33 5gF 7.o ac 88 87
57
16 / .062 sf 32 I tec 1.0 ac 2.26 ac
1 7.07 ac 84.283 s( 10 IIA 68,goo r s
ss.sss 9f 41 qc I0APA
a1,ss49r ,A 95 1.476 ac 48
8A
42 1.679 ac 49
34
198 .� JA ,)8• 10 53.172 sf
$
43.576 sf y 9 o
/ 35 50
IA ay �z, P T 47 63.260 sr
45.649 sf 43 .1 b hA 1;A e<
13 58 44 ' 45 46
z36 1.1 ac 4. , ;>s
45.35691 INC ,5p• 19fi• 15e' ') 51
14~ %r LANE 12 51.544 9r
32 33 "*/ 37 Sa tae• 15,•
„5
31
W 30 127 � 12'�p 12 �° 1 45,217 sf 38 57 I9 ,5 14 13 558.892 st
W 126 0 �? o!• 0 34 ( 2.7 ac
6 25 24 yX '� ,' a52 ac 1311 1\ R 56 55 54 53 _
S 29 ler ?P. 1 a 1.4 ac
110 109 108 23 - c9 Sj 125 a se o.:>o°c o,sp°` 65.212 sf 67,360 65.212 sf
0.53.c 0.51.c 107 106 10 0.eo.. 10 sf
J5170• ,03• 40 28 oso.c 136 0.50,1c s'l POND
69 l09 0a• HICKORY s4• 104 100 4, 137 40 39 135 13211
fog ++0' 0.628c t9 18 /
111 112 11 114 g.9 10 y 4 a, !o!. O.SOB x 103 102 01
..9 36 /
115 Jo0.521 ec 0 so 11. 134 0 132
R 3 g 116 117 118 11 SCC a• ..so.
1
119 98•
01 ROAD 37 �` 1 - EM Nv -- -
121 128• 147 IBA c 133 / Fes% 2214
ay
e° 1 e ° 9 0ac °'1Jec 122 ,s 124
123 0.563.c_ 12 41.745 st Lake
12 Cochichewick
OSl3� OSOr� ' 18 67 29.665 Af
43.864 f
a D 15 14
66 2.37.c
{ 1 1 49.014 68 17
14 43.707 sf
18
t 6.931 ac 65 69 13 51.380 5f
46.80,sf
10A 13 44.722 18 121.c
e
61 64 70
5.03 ec 45.141 `-� 44.605 sf 19
12
63 FISCAL 2001 MAPS DRAWN BY FRANK S. GILES. P.L.S.
45.656:! 26 SEE PLAT NO. 35
MEASUREMENTS ARE SCALED ONLY NOT FOR SURVEY PURPOSE. 62
SCALE - 400 FEET = 1 INCH ,.5'$ 62
OCD FqR56• 1.33
M ROgD Jog.
i t\
!' ,
A-True-C Annual Town Meeting 6
7;
'own Clerk TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 8
1987 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT 9
. :.
In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and in 12
' compliance with Chapter 39 of the General Laws, and as recently amended ..13
by Chapter 8, Section 9A of the Acts of 1974 and our North Andover Town 14
Bylaws, Chapter 2, Section 2.4, and the Town of North Andover Charter; 15
,� . . Chapter. 2, Section 3, the inhabitants of the Town of North Andover';"16
qualified to vote in Town affairs met in the Volpe Sports Complex,';:17
Merrimack College on Monday, May 4, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. , and then and
{
articles:
there act upon the following 1F
ANNUAL TOWN ELECTIONS lc
Article 1. ANNUAL TOWN ELECTIONS. The election of the Town
been acted upon at the,
Officers appearing on the ballot have already P E
+�r Annual Town Election on March 2, 1987. (Petition of the Selectmen) pj
�f m
all Town
Article 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS NOT ON BALLOT. To elect 2
Officers not required by law to be elected by ballot. (Petition of tfie,,.:2
Selectmen) VOTED unanimously to adopt. 2 `
TOWN FINANCES 2
Article 3. REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES. To see if the
ilk tc
Town will vote to accept the reports of receipts and expenditures as
resented b the Selectmen (in the 1986 Annual Town Report) . (Petition 'I
P Y
fir ';;d • ;� of the Selectmen) VOTED unanimously to accept the reports
=e
presented. ;
'
Article 4. COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. To see if the Town
will vote to fix the salary and compensation of the elected officers of
a i``I, aA the Town, as provided by Section 108 of Chapter 41 of the General Laws;"
(Petition of the Selectmen) VOTED unanimously to fix the following
���$ ��`` 6, ' salaries of the elected officers of the Town effective from July
1987: i
a� 1
Board of Selectmen/Licensing Commissioners, each per annum $2,000;
300'
Chairman, .Board'of Selectmen, .per annum
Moderator
aifil,G yIF r100.' `
For each Regular Town Meeting �
For each Special Town Meeting
Article 5. GENERAL APPROPRIATION ARTICLE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988 Tp, ,
see what action the Town will take as to the budget recommendations
;o "
the Advisory Board for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1987 .and
ending June 30, 1988. (Petition of the Selectmen) VOTED unanimously i
to adopt the following with corrections:
s�.. ,,.. Sal. & Wages Expenses Total xy,
f f�i fd v GENERAL GOVETORE NT
STAFF AGENCIES c
9,069 $ 19,390
i; :: :;•` 1. Selectmen $ 9
2. Treasurer . 103,892 51,950 155,89,
3. Tax Collector 48,171 31,850 80,02:;
4. Assessor 64,370 33,410 97,78.d`
a.
`.i
124
r^a.; "s3
1 F
1 It
r
v
Article 7. FISCAL, YEAR 1987 S o see what' .sums 4'
4°7 �r =e 'down will vote to transfer into various lima TRANSFERS.
s of ,the Fiscal
x!,� ear 1987 operating budget from other line items of said budget and � I
i iron ether available funds. � " ° AI
t True
g Special Needs— ,. 60 r000,
.J Medicare ` 18 188#1
1 Accounting Expenses 30,8,18
7Y
gp g
'm 4 L+
aQ l da i:' rt. 6 ,, 1985,ATM! ,7,359
t
B.P.W. Salaries 40,88 .�
Y (Petition oaf the Selectmen) QED to raise and appropriate the
susn of $148,000 and to transfer from Article 62 of the 1985 Annual `Pawn
a95= eeti g the rum of, 7,359 for this article. �
ICLES OF THE BALANCED GROWTH POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE
Article S. AMENDMENT To THE DIMENSIONAL REQGIGEMERTs Or THE. +
To see if the Town will vote to amend the '2caninel bylaw as
dhows
. In Fable 2 (Suimrzary of' Limensional Requirements) ander ;the column 9 � ,
' i le Pel,. substitute the' number 87.,1201 for .the number 65,346 s,.it �
3ra
� mans to ' ,rat area Minimum SF11.
d8 k (Petition of the Selectmen's Steering Committee for a Balanced
�cawth Policy Plan)
l P a The purpose of this article is to amend 'the' minimum lot
inthe -1 district from 1.5acres to 2.0 acres.
..tea adopt the article (ave 747, nay 118) .
gArticle, 9. REZONING OF CERTAIN P AS TO R-1. ' To see if the
awn will `vote to amend the,,-':exist ng Zoning gala such 'that . all
P ies: within: -'t e area. . de igna ed., as the , Lake, ochichewicic '
, ►C1 sr;ate ci,that';are. ciirrent l ° , oneel ,,R,4 and those areas; presently zoned
r .,
. ) south cif .;thy, ourxent lac Cochicewipk�, watershed i
t ry.i and east, of the Eastern Massachusetts Electric QQmpany ;right
sway up .,to .thea Town . boundary with `Middleton' would be,,re oned s
ntia1:, .(P,�1 r�'a shown: n_ e map entitled' Proposed -, pning' Map,
. ,'Andover`,,� anuar.y 6 1987.,-, ,(Petition:9f the $gl.ect tenls Steering
tee fir a,,Sa an ed, dw Poli y,Plan
The aur nose of this article i to rezone from rang 1 acre �r
1
acre. minimum lot sire areas in the � Lake �achi, hewi.c
el . e shed ahVin the southeast sector, `as de er ibed above, '
tp adapt the article (aye 649, nay 724).
Article. 10.11 PTMMD RESIDENTI&LP . To see if the Town'
,4ng..will.crote:° to�,a end the . qpi g ylAw�as follpws:
new,`.,ae tion, .SPot 9n 8.5 Planned . Residential oevelopment
o
on',-S,5 Planned Residential, Development (PRID)
ar ,*` tar
`"-,t.�:Pca pro t the more efficient use of Land .in .harmony with its
rig natural features,
127 i
i
FORM U.
TOWN OF NORM ANDOVER
LUT RELEASE FOl1Ii
subDiviSxON
ASSESSOItS MAP
SUBOIVISIDN LOTS) /� /`
,?ERMAI�IEN ADDRESS �1S IIY • � 0
STREETJ.
APPLICANT
. Pt10NE
DATE OV APPLICATION
TOWN USC AMLOW THIS LINE
P,LANNYNG BOARD
TLAN C DAI'E APPROVED '
DATE REJECTED
GOtYSLitV ON. 1M' SSION
-CO SE ION M N u DATE APPi{@V>;U ►a �S ��
DATE REJECTED
BOARD OF uZALTH
H1:e1,LH i A I DATE APPROM o � /
DATZ REJECTED
DMAThENT Or PUBLIC WORKS
DRIVEWAY PERMIT , �/'. ' � —`�"—
SCWSR/WAKXRR CONNECTIONS '
PIRIC D&T.
RZC$IVED BY BUILDING INSPECTION
DATE
L'11is form 611611 be signed by the agents of cite Planning all,, Health Boards,
:he Conservacion Commission prior to the issualice of any building permits
.or the: subJeet lot. This form .sllall..,wt releive tote -eyplicautt frail) the
:ampliahee of any applicable ',Gown requirement or Bylaw,
1
3y:) iviass. '/51. 395 Mass. 757 757
Massachusetts Property Ins.Underwriting Association v.'Norringto� - .
Adamowicz v.Ipswich.
injury. t that does not mean that, because MPIUA could
invoke iss preclusion.against Person, it can also invoke issue
preclusion a ' st Norrington. Issue preclusion is a rule de-
signed to "reli ve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple t EPHRAIM A. ADAMOWICZ & others' vs. TOWN of IPswlcx.
lawsuits,conse judicial resources,and,by preventing incon-
sistent decisions, courage reliance on adjudication." Allen F' Suffolk..May 7, 1985.—August 22, 1985.
v.McCurry, 449 U. 90, 94.(1980). Allowingthe application
.
of issue reclusion a g e aPP on Present wILKINS,LIACOS,AaRAbLs,NOLAN,&O'CONNOR,JJ.
P ' st the insured, but not against the k
injured person, does no olence to the substantive rinci le
that an injured P P Zoning, Lot, Exemption. Statute, Construction.
� party succee only to the insured's rights against
the insurer: In the Criminal c e, Person had his day in court. For a determination whether a particular lot is not held in common ownership
Norrington, however, has had o opportunity to litigate the with any adjoining land, and thus fulfils a condition for an exemption.
question whether Person expected intended'to shoot Thomas. under G. L. c. 4oA, § 6, fourth par., from restrictive zoning changes,
Fairness requires that he be- given at. opportunity. By not the statute looks to the most recent instrument of record prior to the
applying issue preclusion to Norrin n, we place no undue = effective date.of the zoning change from which exemption is sought.
burden on MPIUA. .MPIUA'has not pr iously been required 2 [760 � ]
to litigate the critical coverage question. eeks only to enjoy _' CERTIFICATION of questions of law to the Supreme Judicial
the benefit of a finding in a case to which it wa nota party.. "'� Court by the-United States Court of Appeals for the First f
MPIUA is-not entitled to summary judg ant. If, in his e; Circuit.
wrongful death action, Norrington establishes son's liabil- Douglas A. Randall for the plaintiffs. f
?I
ity, and if Norrington establishes that person di of expect ? Charles C. Dalton, Town Counsel, for the defendant.
or intend to injure Thomas, then Norrington will b entitled ABRAMS, J. We address three questions certified to this
to a judgment declaring that Thomas's death is cov ed by . court by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Cir-
MPIUA's insurance policy.-We remand this case to the Su rior cuit,2 pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass.
Court for further proceedings consistent With this opinion.
'Mary T. Adamowicz, Elizabeth M. Fleming, John R. Fleming, Ann-
So ordered. Gallo, Louis E. Gallo, Jr., Jo C. Garland, Philip J. Hansbury, Charles
r Lambros,trustee,Helen C.Lang,Robert M.Lang,Nancy Lee MacDonald,
Armand Marcaurele, John H. Moore, James A. Nelson, Mary T. Nelson,
Lillian T. Pacheco, Carole E. Phillips, Richard C. Phillips, A. Daniel
Rubenstein,Delilah R.Rubenstein,Louis C.Schlaufman,John A.Thoren,
Jr.—,TtMlk M. Torpezer, Shirley M. Torpezer, Lorraine F. Walsh, Thomas
J. Walsh, Marvin Weiss, Vera J. Weiss; and Eva L. Wright.
( The questions are as follows:(1)Does holding 1 [that the word"record-
ing," as it appears in G. L. c. 40A, § 6, does not-necessarily refer.to the
recording of a "plan"] correctly state the law of the Commonwealth?; (2)
Does holding 2[that it should be taken to refer"to the most recent instrument
of record prior to the effective date of the zoning change from which the
i exemption is sought"] correctly state the law of the Commonwealth?; and.
(3)Does a lot meet the requirement set forth in the quoted statutory language
t if the most recent Instrument of record prior to a restrictive zoning change
C-
395 Mass. 757
.759
Adamowicz V.Ipswich.
t - Ad=Owicz v.Ipswich.
700 (1981). The Court of.Appeals asks us to interpret the first
sentence of the fourth paragraph of The Zoning Act, G. L. land, entitling them to an injunction or to damages. See
c. 40A, § 6 (1984 ed.), which exempts certain lots from in- Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621.
creased zoning restrictions provided certain conditions are met, =- After the Massachusetts Appeals Court's decision in Sieber v.
including the condition that the lot "at the time of recording Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wellfleet, supra, a judge of the
or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in com- Federal District Court concluded that Massachusetts law, as
mon ownership with any adjoining land." interpreted by Sieber, permitted the plaintiffs to build; thus,
While this case was pending at the Federal District Court they could not assert a Federal claim of"taking;"for nothing
level, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a Superior had been taken.3 The plaintiffs'request for a mandatory injunc-
Court holding that in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph tion ordering building permits was denied by the Federal Dis-
trict Court judge on the basis of the.Sieber decision. The town
recent instrument of record.por to the effective date of the ," refused to issue the permits. The plaintiffs appealed.
zoning change from which the exemption is sought." Sieber.•. . In the appeal to the Court of Appeals, the town stated that
v. Gauthier, Superior Court, Barnstable County, No. 40548 its refusal to issue the permits rested on its view that, in Sieber
(1981), aff'd sub nom. Sieber v. Zoning Bd. o Appeals o V.ZoningBd. ofAppeals ofWellfleet, supra,the Massachusetts
Wellfleet, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 985 (1983) f pp f Appeals Court incorrectly interpreted the first sentence of the
The following facts accompany the request for certification: j fourth paragraph of G. L. c. 40A, § 6.4 The town.contends
The plaintiff Adamowicz and others own certain lots in Ipswich that the Legislature did not intend to provide broad"grandfather
—..- (town). These lots are not big enough to allow building under clause"protection under the relevant sentence of G. L. c. 40A,
the town's restrictive zoning requirements. Before the enact- § 6• Thus, it claims that the language at issue does.not protect
ment of The.Zoning Act, G. L. c. 40A, by St. 1975, c. 808, owners of lots held in common at the time a deed or a plan
§ 3, the plaintiffs could build on their lots because of"grand- on which they were shown was first recorded. The town con-
father"provisions in the town's zoning by-law and in § 5A of cedes that under its interpretation the statutory language is
the older version of G. L. C. 40A (as amended through meaningless because almost every lot In the Commonwealth
was, at one time or another, part of a larger parcel of land that
St. 1961, c. 435, §§ 1, 3). Afer Massachusetts enacted the
1975 Zoning Act and the town.amended its zoning law in 1977 ; was later.subdivided as shown on a recorded plan ora.iecorded
so as to require larger minimum lot size, the town refused to deed.
give one or more of the plaintiffs permission to build houses
on their lots. The town asserts that the 1975 Zoning Act dep- 'The judge also decided that the town's delay and•refusal to follow
y Massachusetts law requiring issuance of the building permits did not deprive
rived the plaintiffs of their "grandfather" rights because the
do not meet all of the conditims containedin the statutory the plaintiffs of any rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- i
language. <Since the Sieber decision,the town has refused to issue building permits
to The plaintiffs sued the town in Fed eral court under 42 U.S.C. �' by decisions of the Appeals ape Court tly on the II It oe s witho t salief that y ins that nota Appeals
§ 1983 (1982), claiming •• g
that Massachusetts deprivation of saying
Court decisions may appropriately be cited as sources of Massachusetts
their preexisting building rights "inversely condemned" their law."Ford v.Flaherty,364 Mass. 382,388{1973). "An intermediate court
is a maker of law in the same sense as the supreme court." Kaplan,
reveals that the lot was separately owned,even though a previously recorded Do Intermediate Appellate Courts Have a Lawmaking Function?,68 Mass.
part of land held 4 L. Rev. 10, 12 (1985). A town or any other person affected by an Appeals
subdivision plan may reveal that the lot was at one time
in common ownership? i Court decision is governed by the Appeals Court decision until and unless
either that court or this court declares otherwise.
i
` 1
• , ,a
I - _ 760 395 Mass. 757 395 Mass. 757 761
Adamowicz v.Ipswich. Adamowicz v.Ipswich.
Y` <: the judge of the Superior Court rejected the town of Wellfleet's
The Court of Appeals determined that the town raised argu- -.:-<w:. J g P j
ments of sufficient weight to make uncertain the proper in- °2` argument that in that sentence the word 'recording"necessarily
'Irefers to, the recording of a plan. In the instant case neither
F terpretation of the statutory language in question and that au-
has argued that the word "recording"i, au-
thoritative resolution-of that uncertainty would significantly -' : PAY g g refers only.to a
affect the way in which it ought to decide the appeal before _ plan.. The town of Ipswich takes the position that "the words
j it. We proceed to address the three certified questions.. `recording.or endorsement whichever occurs-sooner' . : . refer
to the earliest recorded instrument showing a lot as an identi
(1) Does the word. `.`recording," as it appears in the first g
fiable separate entity" (emphasis added
sentence of the fourth paragraph of G. L. c. 40A, § 6, neces- -' P tY ( P )> and throughout its
sarily refer to the recording of a "plan' ,=n brief, the town refers to a plan or a deed. The town thus does
We begin our answers by observing that "[b]arrenness of _ not rest its argument on the necessity of the word."recording":
accomplishment is not lightly to be imputed to the legislative. ,_5.: referring only to the recording of-a plan. Generally an issue.
branch of the government." Selectmen of Topsfeld v. State not argued is deemed waived. See Mass: R. A. P. 16 (a)(4)
as amended 367 Mass. 919 1975). We nonetheless respond
: . Raci.ng'Comm n, 324.Mass. 309;•314 (1949). See Insurance - � : .- - � ( p
to the first question posed b the Court of Appeals..
Rating Bd-. v: .Commissioner of Ins.; .356 Mass. 184,. 189 . a� - q P Y PP
t ` 'u
(1969). Nor'do we interpret a.statute so as to render it or any '� The Superior Court judge in Sieber v.. Gauthier concluded
portion of it meaningless.: See Casa Loma, Inc. v. Alcoholicthat the first sentence of the fourth paragraph:of.§- 6 does not
Beverages Control Comm'n, 377 Mass. 231., 234 (1979). The .:
necessarily refer to the recording of a plan, but rather, refers
to the recording of an instrument
construction of a statute which leads to a determination that a -fir g y ,including.a deed..We agree.
�i piece of legislation is ineffective will not be adopted if the 5 General Laws c. 4, § 7 .(1984 ed.), defines "recorded" as
statutory language "is fairly.susceptible to a construction that applying to "plans, deeds or other instruments affecting land."
would lead to a logical and sensible result."Lexington v. Bed-7. That section also provides that defined words ``shall have the
ford,378 Mass. 562, 570 (1979), quoting Bell v.. Treasurer .: meaning herein given, unless a.contrary intention clearly ap-
of Cambridge, 310 Mass. 484, 489 (1941). McCarthy V. >�'_ pears." Id. Because it is only after the plan is. recorded that:
Woburn Hous. Auth., 341 Mass. 539, 542 (1960). Berube v. r the lots are sold and deeds given to.separate owners, see G_ L.
Selectmen of Edgartown, 336 Mass. 634, 639 (1958). ':J ' c. 183, § 6A (1984 ed.), we also conclude that the sentence
-,::The,first sentence of the fourth paragraph of G. L. c. 40A, at issue means the recording of any instrument, including a
�. § 6, exempts certain lots from increased zoning restrictions if, deed.6
among other conditions, the lot "at the time of recording or :
. endorsement,whichever occurs sooner was not held in common " " 6
i In his thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum, the Superior Court
ownership with any adjoining land:" In Sieber Gauthier, judge in Sieber v. Gauthier reasoned as follows: "A subdivision as it is
II er v. ='* defined by G. L. c. 41, § 81L, is the`division of a tract of.1 into two
or more lots.' Before the Subdivision Control Law took effect, such a
II
S General Laws c.40A,§ 6,fourth par., I st sentence 1.984 ed.) provides:
division could be accomplished without review by local.planning.boards
"Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements of a 4,- simply by recording a survey plan showing the newly created lots.Regardless
I� zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply to a lot for single and two-family of whether a subdivision plan was made before or after the Subdivision
Control Law became effective,implicit in all such plans is the understandin
residential use which at the time of recording or endorsement, 'whichever p• p g ,
l; occurs sooner was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land, that potential new lines of ownership are created in a tract of land so divided.
fconformed to then existing requirements and had less than the proposed '' There is no point in creating a plan of lots already separately conveyed.
i requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area and fifty feet of v4 ± To interpret Section 6.to require separate ownership at the time of recording '
�„ frontage" (emphasis added). or endorsement of a plan showing more than one lot is to render it meaning-
�oG 3yo Niass. io i 395 Mass. 757 763
AI
}
Adamowicz'v.,Ipswich. Adamowicz v.Ipswich.
liT,
(2) Does the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of G. L. Our"conclusion was prefigured in dicta from other cases. In.
c. 40A, § 6, refer to the most recent instrument of record prior Sturges v. Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 261 (1980), a declaratory
to the effective date ofthe zoning change from which the judgment was sought as to the effect of the phrase "adjoining
exemption is sought? land" contained in the exemption provided by G. L. c. 40A,
�I The town argues that the common ownershi requirement
P q =' § 6. As in the instant case, all of the Sturges lots were held
in the sentence at issue applies to,the status of the lot as of in common ownership at the time the plan creating the lots
the date that the first instrument on which the lot is shown is
r was recorded. Although our discussion of the provisions of
recorded. It maintains that the Sieber v. Gauthier decision was § 6 other than the meaning of "adjoining land" was dictum,
in error in concluding that the.common ownership requirement = we said, "Section 6 is concerned with protecting a once valid
I` referred to the status of the lot at the time of the most recent 'X .
lot from being rendered unbuildable for residential purposes,
instrument of record prior to the effective zoning change We
s,. assuming the lot meets modest minimum area. and frontage
. do not agree: The language used by the Legislature suggests
rTM requirements"." Sturges v. Chilmark, supra:at 261. That
that it is the status of the lot at the time it is recorded which language supports the constructionthat the status"of ownership
is significant; rather than its status at the time that a plan on 3 of a lot is determined as of the date of the zoning change.'
which it first appeared was-recorded.;Because, grammatically, E,
..} Other decisions by this.court and the Appeals Court also assume _
the modifying phrase ["which at the #iwe of recordingor en- interpretation, but did not base their conclusions on.this .
�• " this
dorsement ] mu'st refer:to.the fast antecedent phrase "a lot for °.
P [ ground. See Warren v.:Zoning Bd. of Appeals.of Amherst,
single family .: residential use"], see Moulton v. Brookline
383 Mass. 1,7-8(1981) Girard v..Board ofAppealsofEdston;
Rent Control Bd., 385 Mass. 228, 230-231 (1982); Druzik v.
14 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 336-337 (1982).
_s
Board of Health of Haverhill, 324 Mass. 129, 133 (1949), the (3) "Does a lot meet the requirement set forth in the quoted
sentence means that the status of the lot immediately prior to c statutory language if the most recent instrument of record prior
the zoning change is controlling. The first recorded instrument to a restrictive zoning change reveals that the lot was separately
on which the separate lot is shown is almost always a subdivi- owned, even though a previously recorded subdivision..plan
sion_plan and by definition such a plan includes adjoining lots
may reveal that the lot was at one time part of land field in
owned,b the same person or entity; therefore, an other stat-
4 Y P Y� Y common ownership.
utory construction would make the statute ineffective. We con-
Because of our previous answers to questions one and two,
I.
dude that the statute looks to the most recent instrument of - the answer to question three is "yes." Our construction of.the
recordrior to the effective date of the zoning change..
P relevant sentence of G. L. c. 40A, § 6, is required not only
{ by logical and reasonable statutory construction but also by
Y r'}
less because such a plan by its very nature implies that the lots created = the maxim:that statutes are to be construed so as to avoid an
thereon are all initially in common ownership and then subsequently deeded
to individual owners.
"The net result of interpreting Section 6 to require separate ownership at
i There is other language in Sturges v. Chilmark, supra,however,which
the.time of recording or endorsement of a subdivision plan is to attributer'` the tows uggests supports the opposite conclusion: "The plaintiffs' lots
�r a`Catch-22' mentality to the Legislature's intent.One cannot have separate would meet all the requirements for such an exemption.under§ 6, unless
ownership before the plan because there must be a plan showing the tract `
p g - . at the time of the recording of the plan, the lots were `held in common
of land so divided before lots may be separately deeded and owned. How- „
�r Y p y ownership with an adjoining land. G. L. c. 40A, § 6. Id. at 261. In the
t ever, if there is such a plan, the separate ownership criteria of Section 6 P Y i g
Sturges case, the circumstances at.the time of the recording of.the plan and
` would never be satisfied,even to subsequent individual lot owners,because h at the time of the zoning change were.the same and nothing in that case
T initially all lots"shown on the plan were commonly owned." depended on the issue argued here..
395 Mass. 757. 395 Mass. 765
765
Adamowicz v.Ipswich.
;t ,y Liberty Mutual Ins.Co.v.commissioner of Insurance.
unconstitutional result or the likelihood thereof. Vaughan v:.
Max's Market, Inc.,
343 Mass. 394, 397 (1961), and cases .. `� •,
cited, O'Malley V. Public Improvement Comm'n of Poston
it 342 Mass. 624 (1961). Amendments to statutes, especially� � '
N LIBERTY UTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. COMMISSIO
those dealing with property, generally have prospective effectNER
.
OIIl OIIT " OF INSURANCE
y. general rule [is that] statutes operate prospectively (and two companion cased).
unless a contrary legislative intent is clearly shown."Nantucket
Conservation Found.; Inc. v. Russell
Management, Inc., 380 :
Suffolk. May 9,1985.—August Ze
. 1985.Mass. 212,
214(1980). The sentence at issue does not indicate -.n Present: Y,c.J.,wn.[rs,Ltncos,AexArs,&NOLAN,JJ.
a contrary intent. Therefore, we read § 6, fourth par., first
sentence, as having a prospective effect. Such a construction Insurance,Motor vehicle' surance.Husband and Wife,Consortium.Dam-
furthers the purpose.of.§ 6, which is to protect once-valid ages,Loss of consorti ,Loss of.companionship.ond society. Commis-
buildable residential .lots: See Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at sioner of Insurance.
261.
1i
The answer to the first'question certified to this court is that The Commissioner of Irisuran e; although giving no specific notice or.
r ;'` :. opportunity to be heard with espect to his decision, acted lawfully in .
I in the first sentence of'the fourth paragraph of G. L. c. 40A
directing that the standard fo of compulsory private passenger au-
!` §6,the word"recording"does not necessarily.refer t0 a plan. tomobile.insurance policy durin 1985 provide less coverage for certain
The answer,to the second question is that compliance Of aclaims involving loss of consorti and loss of parental companionship
lot with the common ownership requirement in the relevant and societythan.did the 1984 polic , and the authority of the Commis-
i sentence of G. L. c. 40A, .§ 6, is .deternmined b .lookiin Y sioner"could not be limited by thea ence of a filing, by or on behalf
t Y gat ''-`'' of any insurer, of a proposed form o 1985 policy containing such a
the most recent instrument of record prior to the effective date
change in coverage. [771-772]
of the zoning change from which the exemption is sought.
¢ .
P g Discussion of-the standing of individual pur asers of compulsory private
f;. The answer to the third question is that a lot does meet the passenger automobile insurance policies, d their minor children, to
statutoryrequirements if the most recent instrument of record . -= challenge the legality of action by the Comms sioner of Insurance reduc-
prior to a restrictive zoning change reveals that the lot was F ing the coverage provided by such policies iss d during 1985 from that
separately owned, even though a previously recorded subdivi- Provided in 1984. [772-774]
Sion plan may reveal that the lot was at one time art of land When this.court held, in Bilodeau v.Lumbermen t..Casualty Co., 392
P Mass. 537(1984),that persons claiming damages r loss of consortium
held in common ownership. z or for loss of parental companionship and society were entitled to a
. ..
` separate "per person" recovery within the "per acci nt" limit of the
standard form of compulsory private passenger auto bile insurance
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Inc., Carol Lawlor, &Ri hard Shire
vs. Commissioner of Insurance; and Jessica Jarzembowski & e Ann
Jarzembowski by their parents, Ann Marie & Stanley Jatzembo ski vs.
u
Commissioner of Insurance.We shall refer to the plaintiffs in these c pan-
ion actions as the individual plaintiffs.The Jarzembowskis were defe ants
in Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Jarzembowski, a companion ca to
K _ Bilodeau v.Lumbermen Mut. Casualty Co., 392 Mass.537(1984),w h
we discuss extensive) m this opinion. Except for the minor daughters f
: .>. Y p g
the Jarzembowskis, each plaintiff in the companion cases is a purchaser
-_ a 1985
,�.- .. Massachusetts private passenger automobile insurance
policy.
:•ti
N/F JOAN M.t
.ellNJF LAUREEN
N/LL/AM R SU/11YAN
N/LL/AM50N
LOCUS
IPP
DS��
p� 11�L � LOT/BB
NJF A.AfEFN/
LOCUS MAP-stet :/^•/040' \ `. �� x4 ' ' �•'°
//v •� �.
/ 1
LOT 12A
\ � A'D AR64.48.SbOtSF •
?l4�/ �\ \ NENARE4••I3.6f7ts.F
NJF E STREET wN57-Rumav LQT 111A
an AR64•I3.SbOtx�y�b
/ / NEWAREA•43,56/taE � -
�\AA\m\
NOTE JUBON/S/ON/5 BOUNDED BYCOVENANT
D7w Ai4YB.Ns5BK./973-FYid9/NS.•"Jt / 'c/ / O •�] :W
`�- �p/ NyeyY• tV,/ 6 .Y4 ¢ /`�,Q \cn N,^Qi .LOT 13
��' /tl' Po _ r �'� �c� A "y NF L45dFFRE
.���' bi8�8 ♦ e\�:', N''s �C \ 9'22 R•BOp� g�\ I
LOT 10AA
DLO AREA-99.959t a sem,/
(�, v NENAREA•98.50tts.F ��p,P^+I/ w 9.NZ
4E. li
REFERENCE PLANS / t4�az•F7 p /�y h G
L SEE PLAN ENT/TLED•OEF/N/T/YE SUBLYY/5/ON
PLAN OF LAND OF rAM%ON PALL'By NA 6 h
AVG/NEER/NG,EAY/CES/NC.RECOROEO/N `TE by EX '/ >•� ry (Q O T" �IAe
7PE ESSEX.ON]Nry NORTH O/5TR/CT RCU'A' - r yEM' PFOF`SnN 1 ^ Nom•'
OF DEEDS 45 PLAN A0 9997 •"k .at \SJ,�G
2 SEE PLAN EN77RED'PL4NOF LAND/N NORT// o \E•y� 79g7 f` �LOT ANDOVER PREPARED'FORE5REALTY7RUST• �iNEy1 9AA
047w AM13./9M OY CPRl57L4NSEN EN6/NEER/NG,TNC, s•�, \ L�'
3.SEE PLAN BY CPR/5T/ANSEN EIS NEER/NG DMD A` / \ ,'P�/OLD AREA-0.6"t
FEB/6./986. \ / '�NENARE4.4507Z Yi`75v �sJ11q'
4.5FE PLAN BY fPR/37IANSEN ENWNEER/NG fNTEO N,F `J Po \ 5 I rap
./UNE/6,NB6. BRtbKS 6C/R70L °j4syy,
9t
x VfJ X25� ,_\`N��F•ACF1 !4 �.I ej� R-C3.00 ,
• � `sem'''\•&.� �� ^heti OR/VE EASEMENT m
� /e�•p h V \ / 1
IfERT7FY]f/A77P/3 PIAN CDNFORNS s4",x_YtS,yo so SSA' LOT BA PLAN OF LAND
TO THE RULES 4ND'I 1AnONs OF D@ 67.95 N/F TDM LAUOAN/ LOLA7ED /N
REG/STER3 OF DEEDS
APPROVAL UNDER 779E a �; NORTH ANDOVER, MA.
sUBD/V/S/ON CONTROL VL
.Lw REG/S7RY USE 9VLY [AW NOT REWIRED ��' w,�
PREPARED FCR
PI /OS 3 YNORTH ANDOVER
PLANK/NG B04PD ��q,• iso iI ",D SCALE FORBES REALTY TRUST
�7 LOT 9A
..+.,7f ri"7/- 7 M/ ( A JJ I �R•BOLb i l
NOV./3./404
�j.,�Gw9/1�/o:�ay �(a•Bacn -L-azo.D' .�
wm PROPOSED
DR/YE CNR15TIANSEN EN6/NEER/N6,/NG
EASEMENT LOT BA //A KENOZ4 AVENUE - PAVERN/LL,MA.
y�Mg41A•� yv�skad�•
DATE: - �""••�+"�^e�-Ax.sxn
March 10, 2014
Mr. Gerald Brown,Building Commissioner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
I
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am the owner of the property known as 107 Campion Road,North Andover, MA, Map
62, Parcel 89, as shown as Lot 12A on a Plan of Land entitled"Plan of Land located in North
Andover, MA Prepared for Forbes Realty Trust," dated November 13, 1986 and recorded with
the Essex North District Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 1-534. The land is also described in a
QUITCLAIM DEED,recorded as Book 6848,page 163 in said Registry of Deeds. I have owned
this property since May, 2002.
I purchased the property as a single family house lot with the intent to build my home on
it. Since I have owned the property the town has assessed it as a single family house lot and I
have been paying the taxes on it. In June of 2003 at the request of the Town, I hired an attorney
to do a title examination and give an opinion on the status of my lot. The lot was created in 1985
prior to the zone change of 1987 and has not been owned in combination with any contiguous lot
since 1985. Although I started the process of pulling a building permit I decided not to build at
that time.
Last spring I applied for a building permit with the assistance of Glenn Saba from
Century Builders, Inc. Once again I was asked by the town to hire an attorney to give an opinion
on the status of the lot even though I had done this already. After I submitted my attorney's
opinion, I was told that my lot now has a wetland on it.
Since then we have had several meetings on the lot with Town representatives as well as
my surveyors and wetland consultants. We have been in front of the Conservation Commission
twice and now I am told we need to go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Community
Development and back in front of the Conservation Commission.
I hereby authorize and designate Glenn Saba, Century Builders, Inc,to represent me as
the"applicant"in all matters related to the permitting process for this lot. I understand and
certify that all representations made by my designated applicant are considered to reflect my
intent.
Sin
� I
I
i
os aragas
I�
c
i
MASSACHUSETTS JURAT
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
County of Essex
On thisrr/day of 411' _, 2014, before me, , �
, the
undersigned Notary Public of Massachusetts,personally appeared Am1111Cle s k 15�'Fkq
proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identity, which was personally known to be e
person whose name was signed on this document above in my presence, and who swore or
affirmed to me that the contents of this document are truthful and accurate to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
RONALD PAUL MARSAN
Notary Public
Sl a e of Notar Pub11C COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
y My Commission Exnires
April 17, 202r
01
Printed Name of Notary Public ;
My Commission Expires: 2' /7 - ,
i
I
I
� I
i
BK 684 i
QUITCLAIM DEET) 1r1DIVVIDUAL
�� 1
Q ( )
THAT we, George W. Koontz,Jr. and May Elizabeth Heider Koontz of Methuen, Essex County,.
Massachusetts,
FOR CONSIDERATION PAID,and in full consideration of Three Hundred Seventy Thousand
and 00/100 ($370,000.00)Dollars
GRANT TO Dimitrios G. Saragas,individually, of
wim QUITCLAIM COVENANTS
A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situated in Norah Andover,Essex County,
Massachusetts, being more particularly described as follows:
i
A lot of land being shown as Lot 12A on a Plan of Land entitled"Plan of Land located in North
Andover,MA, Prepared for Forbes Realty Trust," dated November 13, 1986 and recorded with
the Essex North District Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 1.534.
The said Lot 12A contains 43,647 square feet,more or teas,all according to said Plan.
Subject to all easements, covenants,and restrictions of record insofar as the same are now in
force and applicable.
MAY 24 02 P,41'1f
Being the same premises conveyed to the Grantors by deed of First Essex Savings Bank dated
October 31, 1991 and recorded with the Essex North District Registry of Deeds at Book 3340,
Page 285.
Witness our hand(s)and seal(s)this, - day of May,2002.
on r.
AlAe
an eth lReider Voontz
ul a 6� s e
r.
(1) 0.u N
Z ,
Li
BK 6848 PG 164
c'
I
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex,ss MAY
opt 200
Then personally appeared the above named George W.Koontz,Jr. and acknowledged the
foregoing instrument-to be his free-act-and-deed, before me.
L�
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:N(W. I j 7w--
i
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essen,ss
May �3 ,2002
Then personally appeared.the above named Mary Elizabeth Heider Koontz and
acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her fine act and deed, before me.
421
Notary Public
My
PAUL A.
PE1RI ,
L1Q �
(YQTI4RY PUBLIC '-
mm _
a�ll►MU88K�1 DO'�RE$07/0 �
I
I
i
RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO I
ATTORNEY AT LAW
89 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845
(978) 686-4041'
FAX(978) 794-20$8
at*Tvivenzio@hotmail.com
. . .Jul
y .8, 20.03.
Mr. Michael McGuire
Local Building Inspector
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
27 Charles Street
i
North Andover,
MA0 .
1845
RE: 107 Campion Road
Assessor's Map'62, Lot 89
Dear Mr. Maguire:
I represent Dimitrios "Jim" Saragas, owner
g of the above-described lot of land. �
Reference is made to your letter to Fulcrum Architects dated April 14, 2003, wherein
you state that"the protection of the lot is no longer available." I am informed that
your statement refers to the expiration of the 8 year zoning freeze pertaining to this
1985 subdivision, and the fact that the area requirement for this R1 zone was changed
to 2 acres in 1987. Mr. Saragas' lot, which he bought last year, contains one (1) acre.
. r
After Mr. Saragas came into my office last month, I had my.title examiner do a
title examination on Mr. Saragas' lot and the four{4).contiguous lots shown on the
assessor's map. After his examiil.ation was completed, Atty. Belair stated that Mr.
Saragas' lot"has existed as a separate lot and has.not been owned in combination
with any contiguous lot since 1986." See report'attached.
As a result of this,.it is apparent that Mr. Saragas' lot was in separate
ownership-one year before the zoning'changed from one acre to two acres.
This is extremely important, as under the exemption or grandfathering
language of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 6, any lot which was not held in common ownership, conformed to then
existing requirements and contained at least 50 fee of frontage and 5.000 s.f,, is
exempt from increases ases m.area and frontage requirements: This.grandfathering law is
applicable to one and two.-family.residential zones only.
COPY
.. RAYMOND.A...VIVENZiO
Mr. Michael McGuire ... July 8,'2003 .
include herewith a copy of the important case Adamowicz'vs. Town of
I swic 395 Mass. 757, and I have highlighted important parts of the court's decision
with a yellow-marker. Those sections provide that the status of ownership prior.to the
zoning change is what determines whether or not the lot shall.be grandfathered, i.e..', ,
exempt from future changes in zoning.
: Therefore, while you are correct that the eight(8)year zoning freeze,expired:
.long ago,Mr. Saragas' position is that his lot is "grandfathered" under the provisions
. of the first sentence of paragraph 4.-of G.L. c._40A, sec. 6, a completely different
section.of the law.
We would ask you to reconsider the position you took in your April 14 letter.
Mr. Sara
as would like to o forward with a'sin e
g g single family residence.for this lot,. II
meeting--a11 other zoning requirements, but-we believe it to.;be exempt from all
increases in"area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements" enacted after 1986.-
Please
986:Please inform us of your position at your earliest convenience.
I also enclose a copy of the 1987 town meeting warrant(see Article 8) and a
copy of a,signed Form U from 1991 for this lot.
Thank you for your attention to this;natter:.
Sincerely,
Ra y
and
A. i
. ym
A. V venzi
0
RAV/cs .:
Enclosures `
4
Bellair and Zi eto
P
Attorneys at Law
375 Common Street
Lawrence, Massachusetts 01840
(978) 794.4898
(978) 681,5003
Fax: (978),,794#0012
Wayne L. Belair
Ellen A. Zipeto
June 30, 2003
Raymond A. Vivenzio Esq.
.q
89 Main St. • 0
No. Andover, MA 01845
p
Re: Land on Campion Road,No. Andover
Assessors Reference: Map 62, Lot 89
Current Owner: Dimitrios G. Saragas
Dear Attorney Vivenzio:
Pursuant to our request,I have examined the title of the above referenced parcel
Y q �
in an effort to ascertain its history and that of its contiguous parcels. After a lengthy
examination, I am of the opinion that the said parcel has existed as a separate lot and has
not been owned in combination with any contiguous lot since 1986. I base my
conclusions on the research that I have included on the following pages. In an effort to
facilitate the narration, I have given a separate page to each lot.
I began this examination with the 1985 deed from Charles P. Garabedian and
Lawrence W. Vaughn as Trustees of the G.P.V. Trust to Thomas D. Laudani and James J.
Philbin,Trustees of the Forbes Realty Trust recorded at North Essex Registry of Deeds in
Book 1974 Page 150. This deed conveyed lots 1-22 inclusive on Plan#9877 and was the
last time all of these lots were held in common ownership. The parcels that are the
subject of this report are the locus, Assessors Map 62,Lot 89, and the contiguous lots,
those being AM 62,Lots 47, 88, 90 and 94
I
' z
I hope that my findings have been helpful. Should you need anything further of
me, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincer ,
Wa . Belau, Esq.
WLB/mc
enc
I
ASSESSORS REFERENCE
Map 62 Lot 89
NERD Plan#10534
Lot 12A
5/21/95 B. 1974 P. 150 Trustees of G.PV.Realty Trust conveyed
To Trustees of Forbes Realty Trust. Parcels conveyed
Lots 1-17 inclusive& 19-22 inclusive on Plan#9887
12/9186 Forbes Realty
andTru�areconfigured ana Lot 1 paI and n 12 on
Plan#9887
Plan#10534
i
3/16/87 Forbes Realty Trust conveyed Lot 21 (not
0)53 oto 9B(not locus) and
ey
on Plan#9887 and Lot 12A(locus) `
and Thomas Pennace,Trustees of the TPK Realty Trust by deed recorded
at Book 2447 Page 116
12/1/88 Trustees of TPK Realty Trust conveyed Lot 12A (locus}to Daniel P. Kiley
III at B. 2850 P.40
12/1/88 Daniel P. Kiley III mortgaged the premises to the First Essex Bank at
B. 2850 P.41
10/31/92 The First Essex Bank foreclosed that mortgage,took possession and
deeded Lot 12A to George W.Koontz,Jr. and Mary Elizabeth Heider
Koontz at B.3340 P. 283
g
5/24!02
George W.Koontz,Jr. and Mary Elizabeth Heider Koontz deeded Lot 12A
G. Sara
resent owner
as the P
to Dimitrios Gg
I
I
Vun JV LUV,) llVll 111,)U fill I)LL1711! Ql L11L1V rnn m, o(o (a4 UU1L r. U(
ASSESSORS REFERENCE
Map 62,Lot 95
Lot 18,Plan#9887
i
8/1/85 B.2016 P. 83 Trustees of G.P.V.Trust conveyed Lots 18B and 19A on
Plan#9967 to Harold Morley,Jr. (note: Lots 18B and 19A consist of a
small portion(1326 sq ft)of Lot 18 on Plan 9887,which it had reacquired
from Forbes Realty Trust and all of Lot 19 on Plan 9887) i
9/16/85 13. 2044 P. 93 Harold Morley,Jr.conveyed the said lots to
Harold Morley,Jr.as Trustee of the M.R.C. Realty Trust
6/9/88 B. 2744 P. 155 M.R.C.Realty Trust conveyed the said lots
(Lots 18B and 19A on Plan#9667)to Ibrahim El Hefni,
Wensley El Hefni,Denis D.Hamboyan,as Trustees of the
Technical Training Foundation,the current assessed owners
I
f
VVIi W LVVJ IMI 11 -JV fill VLI-nia of L1rLIV rnn nv, o(o 1u4 uui6 r, uo
ASSESSORS REFERENCE
Map 62, Lot 90
Lot 13,Plan#9887
5/21/85 B. 1974 P. 150 Trustees of G.PV,Realty Trust conveyed
To Trustees of Forbes.Realty Trust. Parcels conveyed
Lots 1-17 inclusive and 19-22 inclusive on plan#9887
10/27/86 B. 2338 P.229 Trustees of Forbes Realty Trust conveyed
isto her
Lot 13 to Christopher LaSaffre p
7/8/88 B. 2765 P. 130 Christopher LaSaffre conveyed Lot 13 to
Christopher LaSaffre and Frances LaSaffre
7/8/88 B. 2765 P. 131 Christopher LaSaffre and Frances LaSaffre mortgaged
Lot 13 to Old Stone Mortgage Co.
12/7/90 B. 3195 P.327 Old Stone Bank as successor to Old Stone Mortgage
Company foreclosed upon the mortgage,took possession of the property
and deeded it to itself
6/24/92 B. 3492 P.26 Old Stone Bank deeded the property to Kenneth P.
Fallon 111 and Judith A.Fallon
8/19/94 B.4110 P. 90 Kenneth P. Fallon III and Judith A.Fallon deeded
Lot 13 to William R. Van Arsdale and Susan P.Van Arsdale
6/30/98 B. 5103 P.29 William R. Van Arsdale and Susan P. Van Arsdale deeded
Lot 13 to Susan P.Van Arndale
i
9/15/99 B. 5553 P. 221 Susan P. Van Arsdale deeded Lot 13 to Mark S.
Weber and Andrea Q. Crowley
I
9/27/02 B. 7122 P. 132 Mark S. Weber and Andrea Q. Crowley to
Thomas Raymond Fandel and Elizabeth Bassler Fandel,the current
owners
i
u v11 vv A-u- I1V11 1 1 •././ 1111 UL L11 l 11 4 L.11 L I V 1 1111 11V1 VIU IV", UU 1 L I I UJ
1 .
ASSESSORS nFERIENCE
Map 62, Lot 88
Lot 11A,plan#10534
5/21/85 B. 1974 P. 150 Trustees of G.PV.Realty Trust conveyed
To Trustees of Forbes Realty Trust. Parcels conveyed
Lots 1-17 inclusive and 19-22 inclusive on Plan#9887
12/9/86 Forbes Realty Trust reconfigured Lot 11 and Lot 12 on
Plan#9887 and created Lot I IA and Lot 12A on
Plan#10534
�
12/19/86 Forbes Realty Trust deeded Lot I 1 A to Robert Daigle Construction Co 1
Inc.by deed recorded in B.2385 P. 85
3/11/88 Robert Daigle Construction Co.deeded Lot I IA to Gerald M. Cohen,
Trustee of the Hardcourt Estates Realty Trust by deed recorded in
B.2691 P. 86
4/27/88 Gerald M. Cogen,Trustee of the Hardcourt Estates Realty Trust deeded
Lot l l A to Magdi Bichay and Dianne Bichay by deed recorded at
B. 2716 P.202
8/1/00 Magdi Bichay and Dianne Bichay deeded Lot l IA to Russell P.
Jr. and Anne M. Spencer,the current owners by deed recorded at i
Spencer, P
P �
B. 5821 P.207
•.•+•• �� �vvv a.v.. as vv .... ua.t....aal u a.fI LIV 11111 11V1 VIV IV7 VV1L.. 11 VY
! III
ASSESSORS REFERENCE
Map 62,Lot 47
Lot 7A,Plan 8471
This parcel,while contiguous to subject Lot 12A was never part of the 22 lots that
comprised the area contained in Plan#9887. Therefore,it cannot have been held in
contiguous ownership with our subject lot
k
i
I
Town of Forth Andover pt ao'oTti 4+
Office of the Building Department
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street
4/ o+enc��r4q
forth Andover,ivlassachusetts 01845 �SSACHtlSE4
Telephune(978)688-9545
D.Robext Nicetta Fax(973)688-9542
Building Commissioner
August 27, 2003
Raymond A Vrvenzio,Esquire
i I
89 Main Street i
North Andover,Ma 01845
RE: 107 Campion Road
Assessor's Map 62,Lot 89
Dear Attorney Vivenzio:
As a result of our meeting on the referred site I concur with your opinion that the"lot has
existed as a separate lot and has not been owned in combination with any contiguous lot
since 1986".
Please advise if you require further assistance.
Yours truly,
D. Robert Nicetta
Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
I
13O:%U)OF APPF..N_S 685-9541 13111LDING GRR-9545 C0NSEWVA'r10N 688-9530 HEALTY-1698-95411 PLANNING M-9535
VJ L: VV VJaV al,v„ l VJL 111{lZ V 1,V
BK 6848 PG 162
' State less 296 UMCIPAL Llai CnTIPICATa
1vrno3NRg 2002-2134
General Laws, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MRSSMMSETTS
Chayter 6o, Section 23 OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF TAXE8
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVRR - Quarterly Billing -
120 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 Issued: May 10, 2002
978-688-9550
1 certify (roti available inferriation that all taxes, aa0e06mmts and changes now Payable tont constitute lions as of the date
of this certificate an the parcel of real estate specified in your application received on May 10, 2002 are liated below.
TO: Parcel Id: Map 063.0 Block:`OOs9 Lot 0000.0,`•
SFHAHSSN,GOERRMLAk & O'LEARY Loc8t1*n-- 107 CAMPION ROD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Acreage: 1.000
I 820A TURNPIKE STREET Legal ReferORCO; 2140 263
NORTH ANWVHR MA 01845 Aseeseed Owner(a)4 KOONTZ, ONGROB W, ,tit
NARY RLIZABEYU KOONTS
9upp0eeo Owners �
- -Jlesidentlal 189,4 O b 12.66
Open space 0 0 12.66
COR"rcial o e 15.40
Industrial 0 • 35.40
SxoWt O a 0.00
Agr. Credits a
MAY 24102 PM :18
;,.:..,
r..,,.,,,,.,,:....•:r .:�..n.•:.::... ....:d ,.....: ..
.. / C
0 coal
Tat 2 0 MSWAt Cm Zat 0 o Alkouot Om rat
. -
77.
CPA 26.36 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00
N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00
N/A 0.00 -0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00
N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00
71 n�t::! ,-. . :.+,.>)rl•:>:,�i j<.t•:.;><':l)�:.'fin y;S:i%;,:<:2<:.+ /i:�.;. .�:.
AlYilBlldRs 7 0 0 9. 2 0 0 1 2 0 0.0.
Preliminary let Due: 08/01/2001 511.36 502.04 476.79
Preliminary 2nd -Vu-0; -127'61J20101 511.16 502.06
479.79
Actual let/3rd Due: 02/11/2002 560.92 519.93 526.89
Actual 2ad/4th Due: 05/01/2002 560.92 819.93 526.69
District 26.36 0.00 0.00
Betterment and Liens 0.00 0.00 0.00
Committed Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest TO: 05/10/2002 113.95 271.49 115.35
Charges &W fees 0.00 S.00 0.00
UNYERP"
DR/URRAI. 0.00 0.00. ... 0.100
/AYWIN"
Preliminary 0.00 0.00 0.00
Actual 0.00 2,048.54 2,011.36
District 0.00 0.00 0.00
Betterments/Liana 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cotmitted Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest ere t Pal•
d
9.00 271.4e 113.3s
Merges and Fees 0.00 5.00
0.00
Abatement/Exemption 0.00 0.00 0.00
ii Deferr 1
,Tax Title Transfer 0.00
0.00
0.00
CURRRRT MWAID TARX5 (PRR DXW) 2,264.91 (0.08) 0.00 0.
+C 00) 0.00 (0.001
TOTAL-AND= Dpi S 2,284.91 (0.86)
PLRASR CONTACT TAX OFFICE /OR INT8RUT a !Rite 696-9550 i
PMA86 CONTACT NATER DEPT. AT 688-9570 10 DAYS PRIOR To C=SIWU FOR FINAL BILLINo NOT IMCLU= ON LIM.
APPOW110M BrrTSRlauf aaesemmera Sar Ysr OVR 0.60 WITS =RTeriaaT TO 13
I
I have no knowledge of any other lien outstanding. MUMS BOWDRO, Collector of Taxes
70M O/ NORTH ANDOVYR
O C
SMOLAK & VAUGHAN . C
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MEMORANDUM
i
To: Town of North Andover Zoning PP Board of Appeals
Applicant/Owner: Dimitrios Saragas
Property: 0 Campion Road (Map 62/Lot 89)
Date: April 7, 2014
i
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE
I. INTRODUCTION
i
The Petitioner,Dimitrios Saragas,is requesting a variance to allow for the
construction of a single family home and associated driveway,utilities, drainage and j
grading in a Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone within the Watershed Protection District on a
currently vacant lot,in an established residential neighborhood,ghborhood,on Campion Road.
Specifically,the Petitioner is seeking relief pursuant to Section 4.136(3)(c)(ii)(3) of the
Zoning Bylaw of the Town of North Andover,as amended (the"Zoning Bylaw") in the
form of a variance to allow for construction of a new permanent structure on a pre-
existing lawful nonconforming lot.
j
II. BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is the owner of a vacant parcel of land located at,and fronting on,
Campion Road. The lot with a proposed dwelling is shown on a plan entitled"Plan of
Land,0 Campion Road,North Andover,Mass.," dated March 3,2014,prepared by
Andover Consultants Inc. (the"Plot Plan"). The lot,which consists of 43,647 square feet
in size (the"Property" or"Lot"),is located near the end of Campion Road on a cul de
sac. The Property is designated on the Town of North Andover Assessors Maps as Map
62,Lot 89. The Petitioner acquired the Property in May,2002,as evidenced by a Deed,
dated May 24,2002,and recorded with the Essex North Registry of Deeds at Book 6848,
I
{00078261;v2}
i
j
East Mill,21 High Street,Suite 301,North Andover,MA 01845
WWW.SMOLAKVAUGHAN.COM F
j
• � it
Memo to North Andover ZBA
Re:0 Campion Road
April 7,2014
i
Page 163,although the Lot was created in 1986. A copy of the Deed and Plot Plan are
included with the Petitioner's application.
The Property is located in the Residence 1 ("R-1")Zoning District where the
proposed use of the Property for a single family residential dwelling is permitted by
right. But because the Lot was also determined to also be located in a Non-Disturbance
G
Buffer Zone within the Watershed Protection District,pursuant to Section
4.136(3)(c)(ii)(3) of the Zoning Bylaw,the construction of a new residential dwelling on
the Lot would require the issuance of a Special Permit by the Planning Board,following
the issuance of a variance to allow for new construction by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Accordingly,when the Petitioner applied for a building permit to allow for the
construction of a single family residential dwelling on the Lot,the Building Inspector
issued a denial of the building permit dated March 11,2014 (the"Denial Letter"),citing
as the basis for denial that the proposed project requires both a Watershed Special
Permit and Watershed Variance.
It should be noted that the Property constitutes a preexisting,lawful
nonconforming lot,because the Lot was lawfully laid out as a conforming lot(in
compliance with then current dimensional requirements) for the R-1 zone in 1986,prior
to zoning changes made in 1987 which thereafter increased the minimum lot size and
frontage requirements g q ents for the R-1 zone. Morespecifically,Lot 12 wa 1 '
said out on a plan
entitled"Definitive Subdivision Planf
o Land of Campion Hall located in North
Andover,Massachusetts," dated November 16,1984,which plan was approved on
March 26,1985 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 9887 on May 20,
1985. The Lot was then reconfigured,as it resent' exists as Lot 12A
gu presently on a plan entitled
"Plan of Land located in North Andover,MA.," dated November 13,1986,which plan
was approved on December 3, 1986 and recorded with the Registry of Deeds as Plan No.
10534 on December 9,1986. Since 1986, the Property has remained vacant and it has not
been held in common ownership with any adjoining land. As such,because the Lot
constitutes a preexisting,lawful nonconforming lot,the Lot does not need to comply
with certain current requirements of the Zoning Bylaws.'
The Building Commissioner in issuing the Denial Letter has confirmed that the Property does not need to j
comply with specific lot area,frontage,width,yard or depth requirements of the Zoning Bylaw since Section 6,
I
Para.4 of G.L.c.40A exempts the lot from the applicability of such requirements as the Property constitutes a
pre-existing lawful non-conforming lot. Specifically,Section 6 of M.G.L.c.40A provides,in part,that:
"Any increase in area,frontage,width,yard or depth requirements of a zoning ordinance or bylaw shall not
apply to a lot for single and two-family residential use which at the time of recording or endorsement,
whichever occurs sooner,was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land,conformed to then
existing requirements and had less than the proposed requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area
and fifty feet of frontage."See M.G.L.c.40A,s. 6,par.4. As a result,the Building Commissioner has
determined that the Propertyerty does not need
to comply with Minimum Lot Area Section 7.1
P Y ( ),Contiguous
Buildable Area(7.1.1),Minimum Lot Width(Section 7.1.2),and Minimum Street Frontage(Section 7.2)
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.
(00078261;v2) 2
a
Memo to North Andover ZBA
Re:0 Campion Road
April 7,2014
III. DISCUSSION
I
As noted above,the Petitioner is requesting a Variance for the construction of a
new permanent structure (single family residential dwelling and appurtenant
improvements) pursuant to Section 4.136(3)(c)(ii)(3) of the Zoning Bylaw.
As a general matter,Section 4.136 of the Zoning Bylaw establishes the Watershed
Protection District,which is divided into four separate zones: (i) a General Zone, (ii) a
Non-Discharge Zone, (iii) a Non-Disturbance Zone,and (iv) a Conservation Zone. The
Petitioner's Lot and project is deemed to be located in the "Non-Disturbance Zone' of
the Watershed Protection District. This is because a small isolated wetland has just
recently been identified on the Lot(the"Isolated Wetland"). If not for the Isolated
Wetland,the Property would be deemed to be located in the"General Zone" of the
Watershed Protection District,located beyond four hundred feet(400')horizontally from
the annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochichewick. And,if the Lot were located in
the General Zone rather than Non-Disturbance Zone,the Petitioner's project would be
"by right" and would not require a Variance or Special Permit for the construction of the
new residence,notwithstanding its location in the Watershed Protection District.
Further,as described in the memoranda submitted with this application by
Curtis Young of Wetlands Preservation,Inc. (the"WPI Memo") and Jennifer Hughes,
Town of North Andover Conservation Administrator (the"Hughes Memo"),the
Petitioners Property was previously used as a staging area for construction by the
original developer during the construction and development of the Campion Road
subdivision,and the top soils in the Isolated Wetland area,located on the t3'
Prop er ,were
found to be compacted and to contain certain construction fill materials which are not
consistent with the naturally occurring soils located just beneath the surface of the
Isolated Wetland area, or as otherwise located on the Lot or in the vicinity. Following
construction of the subdivision roadways and/or construction of other lots in the
subdivision(which was staged from the Petitioner's Lot),it is likely that construction
materials which had been temporarily stored on the Property were not fully excavated
from and removed from the Property. As a result of the build u f
o a shallow to layer
p P Y
of foreign construction materials/fill on the Lot,natural drainage of the Property was
altered and eventually has caused the creation of an isolated wetland. For further
discussion of the isolated wetland and the soils on the Lot,see the WPI Memo and the
Hughes Memo included with the Petitioner's application.
It is also noted that the Petitioner's Lot is located within an existing residential
development,with abutting and nearby properties developed to include single family
residential structures (including various abutting and nearby properties located
down adieu from om and closer to the lake than the subject
gr 1 Property.)
i
(00078261;v2)
3
Memo to North Andover ZBA
Re:0 Campion Road
April 7,2014
Nonetheless,because the Isolated Wetland has now been located on the Lot
(such that the Lot is within one hundred feet of the edge of a wetland resource in the
Watershed Protection District),it causes the Lot to be deemed to be located within the
"Non-Disturbance Zone" of the Wetland Protection Act,and thus,a Variance is required
from the Zoning Board as an initial step toward construction of a residential dwelling on
the Property. If a Watershed Variance is granted by the Zoning Board,the project will
remain subject to permitting with and obtaining necessary approvals from both the
Planning Board and the Conservation Commission.
IV. BASIS FOR VARIANCE
The Petitioner's proposed variance meets all of the conditions for granting of a
variance,and each of the required elements A through F appearing in Section 9 of the
�
Variance Application are addressed in this application,including as follows:
A. The particular use proposed for the land or structure: The proposed use for the
land will be for the construction of a single family residence which is an
allowed use in
the R-1 zone.
i
B. The circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or
structures especially affecting the property for which the Variance is sought which do
not a ct generally the zoning district in which the property is located: Foreign and
unnatural soil conditions on the Property,resulting from a past use of the
Property as a construction staging lot,have resulted in an Isolated Wetland
on the Property as is shown on the Plot Plan. The pertinent soil conditions are j
not naturally occurring on the Lot or in the area. If not for the Isolated
Wetland the single family residence would be permitted by right. (For
further information concerning soil conditions,see the Discussion section
above and WPI Memo and Hughes Memo included with application.)
C. Facts which make up the substantial hardship,financial or otherwise which results
from literal enforcement of the applicable zoning restrictions with respect to the land
or building for which the variance is sought:A literal enforcement of the Zoning
Bylaw,without granting relief for a variance to construct the residence,
would (by its nature and given the location of the Isolated Wetland),render
the Lot unbuildable and would effectively result in a complete loss of the
value of the Petitioner's Property,creating a substantial financial hardship to
the Petitioner. The Property was purchased at a fair market value and it has
been assessed and taxed b the Town,as though it were a buildable lot
Y $ , i
because of its status as a preexisting,lawful nonconforming lot and because
historically no wetlands were identifiable on the Property.
I
{00078261;v2) 4
i
Memo to North Andover ZBA
Re:0 Campion Road
April 7,2014
I
D. Facts relied upon to support a-finding that relief sought will be desirable and without
substantial detriment to the public good: The construction of a single family
home will enhance the aesthetics of the lot. In all respects,theP
Pro osed
single family residence will be consistent with other lots in the neighborhood,
and therefore will not be a detriment to theublic. Other abutting and
P
nearbyhomes
are constructed in closerproximity to the lake and aquifer
than
i
i the subject Lot. Further,,the Petitioner will be required to obtain all necessary
ary I
approvals from the North Andover Conservation Commission,and
consistent with the Hughes Memo and WPI Memo,it is anticipated that more
protective improvements may be constructed with development of
p the Lot
Y p
(including drainage swales and otherwise) than presently exist with respect
to the existing Isolated Wetland to protect both the watershed,wetland
resources and downgradient owners from present sheet flow.
E. Facts relied upon to support a finding that relief sought may be given without
nulli iior substantially deo$atinMfrom the intent or ut
ose of the Ordinance:
Allowing the construction of theP Pro osed residence will not derogate from
the intent or purpose of the Zoning Bylaw because the proposed use is a
permitted use in the R-1 zone and will allow development that is consistent
with and in keeping with other p g properties in the neighborhood. The use is
permitted by right and the appearance will remain consistent with other
single family homes within the neighborhood. Further,to the extent 4
development of the Property would have impact on the watershed or lake,it
is noted (i) that the Property is on public sewer and (ii) that the home
proposed to be located on the Lot is of a further distance from the lake than
many of the abutting and nearby homes and many other homes recently
approved for construction within the Watershed Protection District.
F. Submit RDA from Conservation Commission when Contiguous Buildable Area is
applied for in ZBA application: N/A;Contiguous Buildable Area is not
applicable to this application. (Note: Lot predates applicability of CBA
requirements per Section 7.1.1 of Zoning Bylaw.)
I
i
I
I
{00078261;v2} 5
i
Memo to North Andover ZBA
Re:0 Campion Road
April 7,2014
Accordingly,for the reasons stated above,and others that will be presented at
the hearing,the Petitioner respectfully requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant
the requested variance,and to allow the proposed construction of a single family
residence on the Property.
Respectfully submitted,
Dimitrios Saragas
By its attorney,
Brian G.Van an,Esq.
SMOLAK& UGHAN LLP
21 High Street,Suite 301
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Tel. (978) 327-5217
I
f
i
t
t
{00078261;v2} 6
°EµORTtl�y
o=tea:+"�*�•°°� Zoning Bylaw Denial
Town Of North Andover Building Department
.400 Osgood St. North Andover, MA. 01845
,SSACHUSEt Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542 "
y
Street: d
Map/Lot: oZ $
Applicant: r'
Request- ce
Date: p
Please be advise that aftsr review-of your Application and.Plans that your Application is
DENIED foi!the folfowiri
Item Reasons for Denial
Reference
f r!'//7
IV ^04
` 6
J�
`.r
i
r
Referred To:
Fire Health
Police Zoning Board
Conservation Department of Public Works
Planning Historical Commission
Other BUILDING DEPT
�l.r
F
"ORT11
Zoning Bylaw Review Form
p Town Of North Andover Building Department
' •- � '� 1600 Osgood St. Bldg 20 Suite 2-36
9SSACNUSE` North An
dover, MA. 01845 4
Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542
Street: 0 Great Pond Road
Ma /Lot: Map 35/Lot 4
Applicant: Stephen Dehullu
Request: Construct a New Single Family Residence.
Date: May 29, 2013
Please be advised that after review of your Application and Plans that your Application is
DENIED for the following Zoning Bylaw reasons:
Zoning R1
Item Notes Item Notes
A Lot Area F Frontage
1 Lot area Insufficient 1 Frontage Insufficient
2 Lot Area Preexisting 2 Frontage Complies X
3 Lot Area Complies X 3 Preexisting frontage j
4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
B Use 5 No access over Frontage
1 Allowed X G Contiguous Building Area
2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area
3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies X
4 Special Permit Required 3 Preexisting CBA
5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
C Setback H Building Height
1 All setbacks comply X 1 Height Exceeds Maximum
2 Front Insufficient 2 Complies X
3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height
4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information
5 Rear Insufficient ( Building Coverage
6 Preexisting setback(s) 1 Coverage exceeds maximum
7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies X
D Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting
1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information
2 In Watershed X j Sign p
3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 1 Sign not allowed N/A
r 4 Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies
5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
E Historic District K Parking
Y
1 In District review required 1 More Parking Required
2 Not in district X 2 Parking Complies X
3 Insufficient Information 3Insufficient Information
4 Pre-existing Parkin
Remedy for the above is checked below.
Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance ZBA
Site Plan Review Special Permit Setback Variance
Access other than Frontage Special Permit Parking Variance
Frontage Exception Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance
Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance
Congregate Housing Special Permit X Variance for Watershed
Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board
Independent Elderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA
Lar a Estate Condo Special Permit Earth Removal Special Permit ZBA
Planned Development District Special Permit Special Permit Use not Listed but Similar
Planned Residential Special Permit Special Permit for Sign
R-6 Density Special Permit Special permit for preexisting
nonconforming
X Watershed Special Permit
The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive j
review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the
applicant serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for Any inaccuracies, misleading
information,or other subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to
be voided at the discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled'Plan Review Narrative"shall be
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation
for the above file.You must file a new permit application form and begin the permitting process. ,
Building Department Official Signature Application Received Application Denied
Denial Sent : If Faxed Phone Number/Date:
I
a
Plan Review Narrative
The following narrative is provided to further explain the reasons for DENIAL for the
• APPLICATION for the property indicated on the reverse side:
Item Reasons for
Reference'
Section
4.136 Watershed Protection Division
4.136 Construction of a new permanent structure only after a Variance has been
3c ii(3) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
Referred To:
Fire Health
Police X Zoning Board
X Conservation Department of Public Works
X Planning Historical Commission
Other Building Department
!
I
(4) The use, or method of application of,any lawn care or garden product(fertilizer,
pesticide,herbicide)that may contribute to the degradation of the public water supply.
(5) The use of lawn care or garden products that are not organic or slow-release nitrogen.
iv. Building Requirements: all construction in the Watershed Protection District shall
comply with best management practices for erosion, siltation, and storm water control in
order to preserve the purity of the ground water and the lake; to maintain the ground water
table; and to maintain the filtration and purification functions of the land.
d. Conservation Zone
There shall exist a Conservation Zone within the Watershed Protection District which shall
consist of all land areas located within one hundred fifty(15 0) feet horizontally from the
annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochichewick, and within seventy five(75)feet
horizontally from the edge of all wetland resource areas (as defined in M.G.L. Chapter 131,
Section 40, and the town Wetland Bylaw located within the Watershed.
i. Allowed Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the conservation Zone of the
Watershed Protection District except as noted below:
(1) All uses associated with municipal water supply/treatment and public sewerP rovided
by the Town of North Andover.
(2) The Division of Public Works may conduct routine maintenance of any existing use of
property, including the maintenance and improvements of existing roadways and
drainage systems.
(3) Maintenance of fire access lanes by the fire Department.
ii. Uses Allowed by Special Permit: No Special Permits will be granted in the Conservation
Zone.
iii. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are specifically prohibited within the conservatio, i
Zone:
(1) All of the Prohibited Uses listed in Section 3(c)(iii) of this Watershed Protection
district bylaw are prohibited in the Non-Discharge Zone.
(2) Any activities which cause a change in topography or grade;
(3) Vegetation removal or cutting, other than in connection with existing agricultural
uses or maintenance of an existing landscape area;
(4) Construction or placement of any new permanent structures;
(5) Any surface or subsurface drainage, including, but not limited to, storm water runoff;
(6) Animal feedlots or the storage of manure;
(7) Construction of any septic system.
(8) Construction of any accessory structure or expansion of any existing structure by
twenty-five(25)percent or more of the gross floor area of the existing structure.
(9) The use, or method of application of, any lawn care or garden product(fertilizer, j
pesticide, herbicide)that may contribute to the degradation of the public water
supply.
(10) The use of lawn care or garden products that are not organic or slow-release nitrogen.
The above prohibitions shall not apply to any activities undertaken by the Division of Public
Works within its authority or to work completed in conjunction with the construction of the
municipal sewer system. (1994/ISTM) i
� 4
52
Rxrn,InoD.waallavr WALL BRACING REQUIREMENTS r-sq v4
L wl1 arAcfn•w.E araae scml aaJJoa eleArm wLL rNa colelMwTla1 r+:Ywos•Is SATBF�ar I \ I ? 00
4rt.PQ 9Q1 SZW SJ02J" 111801110191rLCM11hF*TiW WTIM8 W IVY APPLY I I I m
IRa4 T0rrwE wM (3)2 X 10 P.T.BEAM I W
M 11101 nAA®Pwlsro�s9r lQI1LY11100,wAID lb AT 50CAlE+'oL.lEraETEP AJD D'OL. I 11-3/4 -8'4-7/8" 7-3 24
IfY1 RYIDW•N' A1.MP80/WWPWAir/ATS110511 1 1 I
70G P�EDPM rJLO`.F•W' 4'R �1 X11 1 1 1 W •� 1 M O
A�De9tAK I I 7fla N � > N �(p
:V4"MEOW ABP10t DRAJ•M4 MATE12'0lrflat APfJeR IY F9d C01.10CrND{fid I I m m In � r•1
awma �}DlJ 5 I till) 5,5>Q I i- Z m o� Ln u�
LIWL1LY11:laQWS. w••1
D Ln
AT PLO= A. PLY1V PW6JFOXL�N lm Y 5 �7LA'A1 ----------- - ----------- ---------- W C C t0
Bf P10CR 1 AT SW PROM 011!PIL4FOX ME 9�T N.RIKMLY STARINS AT iWOATIM PLATE I I rzl ___-�_}J_� I z ) J Q {J.1 W Q
flrt.1�E9QT 4 AT PIMM IRPM OE PILL 4 FW PU 9W V100K Y 90TWO 4 FOm KX VMT" II -71d, I�"' �1� ^lO m
ffr.AM ro AT(nO10laMM APO��S'Ulp V8A8flJul LIP MO.END®d'I NtOmNs[aKIMAtY I I SO NO TUBE TVP. 7j''�I pI a ,y(InV 1rQ d L 00
DWWPLAVV a MIMMsPAPIAlO RVM0VRLL4P=PI0e'5TV5UXALLY5TA"M rt+tJr1 ii I'�II(�1 I'v(.�FORf (2)1-3/4"X9-1/2"LVL 'y, `711 11 •C O W Q1
-
>:
c �I
IN9U f@92 �{ -_1_�_+_________ = N Z Z
W10
ryi 1 -(4)2X P.T.BEAM ____ILn. m a LL
______ �( 6'9-7/8"
--------_
_
_______ � `�• •O ^ N
��o o tT��1In " I a � N Q
��' I r""U i 2 X SO P.T.JOIST @D16"O.G 2 X 10 FLOOR JOIST ABOVE Z N
S. BH5 MD 11AIL,1V j r-10'0"
5TR 4'-URWAL NOTES, 2k i i �
6'4-1/8" 9'7-7/8' 10'0" .0.0- 1010.. 5
A e•r.•rl
�' U.rrrrel rlaew or prt s w a•.ry.aeclrr•1e. ter 4rr.•ra1 eor.err<eer(su H.•II r•.rw W
co>iW opprrpraotry. - I
v e.arae.d•nw.now •roe»..�.0.w<ral wasp.r,ArrJNrckal 0ra.nq.,11.11 a1 D I
(31.3/4"X 9_1/2••LVL
•►altar•s.arq.r' 1r.p s's+•e.arrce•1.a yp11<m1•. tw.swl o-o0.ge•f.H1 b w.a n h 11\0 I I I____II-'-
c4'IYre1°1.�- a.otaa r.N.wM.c W.l Draeq.as ba»P a rl vaC•.,nc»dng 11111
- I i------
w .,ywcan..oeansteR. .r. . 14'0" I ---------I ---r--------------- ---------- D
---r---------------
4J nr 4es..r raor(awl H.m1. - --' ----
a.M a L ..wa i•rrrol G4v.roatr _ N
b.Vry n I•rr N411 ml ab.•rler<ra ad cwWte•1.a,,•Ww'ga•N.ReA1N.D11-aNL _ � 19'8•
aoo-ae.alra..•tc. _ �
11
<.rYoxla•on,rer••ory t4.rlOorary w..1g 1 I C
a.»..pa.Mr er 4.e eee a a..ar a as rew ct»n d n 1e`Nags hG 9T _ N F 2
•.fabne epp11rAr•HI•►o-+^M•tow ArWeetsRvr(NV Dna eb"eek.vl 10grw-or I �'1�•" frl I i I � �_____� Yf�� YX��( ��` I I 1-
R4waM(ael,Ir r•xr•n Rb tv Prro.nny wars wa alrp sv...l wy b eeeraroe.a eo _
oaWnl lrr mlwrrar o.O cona.rerrgw4w a,G r•ywrw.•hop itsl•r oro lrla I 1
r1.sr.••.re•..rc.Pr1r eAa.sem.aw emr�elor. b I� -1'Ir^"� I w ` • y2X�J K 'I'rJ r pl.{"J� �-- i-}--r------------
srtl Local GON. '�/r1 _ 1-I -----------
7m
r.rrro,.o.n..ore wrlsMc 11 _ _ QQ ��T IQ p� --------Oa•.r.M.rel Gar.roclar.Derr•.wit roa.ea.s• aw.•Hal2•pu< I I fJI I I YCi x 1 r1.A 12. 170 1 1 ar 'lL
r4qur«w.•11011 Joe w•.ebaoA•.Mang Ivry...�r•a plow raw,o.a..pe»11•x.11 n i i FOQ'f l fl V �j)(�j X I TMYi�:
w16 9-7/8" ?(
H..1ra to-r..r 01111 p04..•a•.er•NY pM Av'•nr•r w1 psv.Na+rM•Iq r•0 i--(3)1-3/4"X 9-1/2"LVL l"I I^fH 4-&"4
(L1 LI.� o Y�le
rwm»n. a plaDom.rwnrg r.H1»•a,bbcR o+r•grrra bWo1 rloar rwa.•ee. i; y
"04--W51414 %L454 11
e.Trbrnw. 0p ii Ir�l�� �'•�LI �'r -e°a eN6r-vHE1.1T 3'2" ao
U Nr Iwe.r..r�r.w, .rw1»..c+w.•te.x..11 wr.rr..rcr m.s.a r.rer(r.rJ I I F'fC`�^ i kr .RI
�"v o•r4son.rl•..e.a w rr4av T)••maW Yla•a wary rr.w wen trwe•a weaa. ---��-
(311-_3/4"X 9-1/2"LVL
a.we-q1p..s.Ilwn..a J r at0e.nr s1.., au r>ar AU. I-r r-
b.D.M w Dna•1.1d>b 11.11 wnn we rot4...,. ry o.carman ar.•awor raern» b I I L 1 �_ I �_ D
c.O•ceoplaer./•Ye.+9.�Yud srd w•al,v.c^ri 9olwJrW UWP..Iwwnee br -----------
>
--------- i_~-- ---- -T------------ In
<arlar.a tab xo.e•aAw)0a•r m•cM•mly yIwura pr MrM Deea W i I
crs.aeo-g.+asr.art.�.0.v..r IPTBrnaprwr.a. p _yt_1 �____I�Z ____I F•L
1.1
.•mbrw.•err»e.2. (•.1,400,000 P•, Q I---6 O ••�• 8 O• '
�7plL DElao�'t� I
a.aorr aw nre.n.werwm• b "' i i I - i1 �OGjLn AIb-
.1 'eL- UALL'
1.1p.w..rw rA-No.IAb.],e.1,4o0.OP0 pN ry i I O ID po
I.ro looe W,rnu V ].ro IIOa PH rnW.J m 7p 1 --- H ( It 0 2�
0 I ,D
p41 x '}�j
e.rr••r.•vae•a L...m.r.Jpealw.,cbrar w raMr4.aar.01.. L L_ 1 N it
1.sooerr•n.►a.•rb.].E IeooOw P.1 -I I I O Or LL M (l�l- 0.
I.re 1120 pH rnl]. ],Pin 1310 p.1(]+W N O I Lrr I�
a.rb r.aeo w!am H 4.ro I~p1 r-11 LL I
a. IMI I '! (2)1_3/4"X 9-1/2"LV
LVL hssvt.a vsr•r r..e..w-J.mern..m 1_I N
I.e.].Doo,oae pH e.ro•aJao p1 J I I L '
e II N
..Pra=wn m0.a.rJ Dna 111E T••W x
1.Men Y4orwYe•e. N I I 11 M_�__--__ _____r x=1_________________ 1.
1.0ohnn•?oH.rDL(0`a-avI utraE Lubrl>V4r•e LaN. ____ ____ I ________
a.C.Ie00p00 rH b.rd.]300 W I
a.rc O.]7001.1 a.h-.•00 pH ;D
k U.2,1 pH 5 1 I r 1
I.111E GeLanr,►••M Tal(rbr•1r, L...b P.1 }
•� '� lee pH r. b..m p.
.L9a I, l/pr i rl I 8'2" 10'4-1/2'• • '
].n.er.vonllen.,P.
a•r,ro•1•"•1]rAra..wi•aJ. /1�I%' ; �v a Q
o.8 11940000 PH b.rb ]AO pH (a ��( ry
1911 P•, I .�1-'" m I •� b O S
m ii • � L
I _ _ � i i I I •(C O
a e.lrr.e.rrweryal...rr.
u e•t•rrar r*-V W w pm<w a0v...,4'-0•brew ra+eva ro4r. D - o Cw) -O
]1/.v car.crt•w11.rm.b Mar•m a.gawlw H•rr.yA s a W
h.roet•.�.Hrrbr b�oM.t Hob(rrt moo••Hml aA00 pu Haswenl did.w8E 1 V I ble fool WxY mm In mix N I'•r 1 N
e.gsag•H.b or►•r.el••./er...H1.P•hrm•M1W»•rP•••.Y r••ttllrr eJA00 1.wIW 7 M/0064 fool liber mns fv mix 4 a N
N Ao r••.r•r•Y.11•w1 MW b M•rwW bo.4w.•mry t•MTM Aem 111111 40. wa w-•rtlxr f � ,• w=
IV�'P)a ww.wli b Ire.Iwl•.
fJ T1.•r•Irwe.a.Mrr.n taw H.qr b praNWa IR r•N•rcwwr.. ��
a.eora.re.q..re w.ora a•
b.ra.mw carrr.t..+gw•a b.ra a 11110.•1. -II���• �1�`"111 YA•• �� ^ � Z
1. A r a01Hw 1 IJ]• .. ro r bgI Y ( I O
a.ear.crre•Pre•"r•+••eo.re.r w.m..r.Hm.,r war 1 u] I (3)2 X 30 P,T.BEAM� y
a 0.111.ar r.A.w.1 Iq• ---------- I I �•.�.A
--------- -------------
uAnoarere•..wa•na est.eag Yrll ra.py Nhw rtwt apaalna•twr 11,11 r•aorrwwr.oaela+a erw __________ _____________ __________ II ^ ��(
u w...w rs.•AH,w N so-avw.er.a=per�m romra xnl.» D r,L`(�' /J
oer....1r.r.oe.a NWJU. Tw.v.ar•os...rw non m rrn-aw+..,...w.a.n1a Roma AeoL. f(TI .
11.11,111 pro.,a.Lti11ep•a er.r»m aewrr.. � �'`�'1 B�H�Jfi � �.
v Mls.a en yaI•WII I.ox.arOCA eo•.ra1 Jew s r•gxn.a 1y e•e•1b.A.aw.w.a m e•ne.r,oe..-•nvoa I • J '�
c•r.rr• aerrbre•r.e.11011•r •.0 Jow Hvv b Plor+a wvlrl]s
pN- N nm s w M Piii, giinnp� WJ. L rwxra or•»b 1
o ✓fiNvl G S I I I .�Y`2�$
eJ asa on 11.11bi b•w'•*oa..Hvl1 b rae•a o•r r era.•av ar o-•erg•J ewr a ml 6'6-1/2•'
p
poyry ww.w owr.•sol.pcw 9'0'.01....owe.awr ow mrr�Po<w nylw.w-me. SIN Flo no N� a io `; ,x .
V n r r«a.brne.a w awn..a1 La1vn<eor(mel ora H..1 appor n.r w.1y enrr.Mw.m,a
rodew0 ser rermbr.rdr.•m.w prc.a bA brlor•-1 r ext b rrgM,pr1 .,<op•a,
.ee.Trrs r.HNI••PWI•'r...•w1�•eslr11 F W-I W-.y r n•r e6•mn.r..lon.,condnlar.•m. _
rrr�1 n1.g••41^fI mr.ee b•an rt.y.roerrg.11g...r..,.ee. dam a.raw.xcn a.o•.r w -
eop .Ha•f-."ke.sr0ce n w w rab'Katbr.ar.l.rlw. .h�s.�,1,, -
v elt•.r 1rW1d••I.or1 cwsam.b w ro11o,.e.g ln0.a1...J. Ir G''.n,';lL �r�-' _ JOB NO. 1
rrmw.0rvw�YrAngW M �KW 11•y 110 sal rArRr A1.1.eTeaL.rxmea er<rOem To vuTNea Ifi'p-Am1uv- %G
110..111..01 T.,ng l,ra.� r wm, Aen+MPO.11111.M Ry 4]»H rr.l r W 1'n•f I N 1(,'
t O r ,• g'�•V� 1305 7
MTM M00 41raa•0 N A u
�� rMM ALL a0LT4 a%POalO TO rlATM'R
14'0' 22'0" SHEET NO.
.(-,b-uwrc-)Aa]w 24'0" _
w.(s1cr.11r bww (Aao9 r AwJ
r.gs0rn e..n.).•ow ewve..prwrr 11+1111]pot•poly r••R ww
M•� r 60'O•• y
•cw wan w11aw a+ow or nw.1ea.y w»A...1r `�l `,� y ,'� I I I F1 q-I N •,.%' � DI�,
wm ca R...Pro e•a m.a]P�•Foal ..n w e n I I I/1 2- G
reY_>n~0..111..1.ew R.eo ewn.u.or.y.rHl
aJ A11 c�w.seesr wu b bR•a r w.Ia.a. API rrr so1...ee1w Hou b bn.q r w.•e.ne pro<e»111 1'?i D
6� , r
1rw.rvew eurwu..w.s ArWOu..w er'9'p•^!r. c
•u/ueHae11ooH.r11r•aewr.rr.Iaw1eHr••pawn l asH1 Yg1ao-r.•I.q w.p.eesr�reao.rr4rg0.a m11•r111 ro�wwae„vraAr..Jaarw•Oro11q.na w-0•1e 0.11rP..w<vawa•Pebrwe rarrwro-nayrralserr..g.aw1yr.a,w.rm.t.o+a~ae0l0a11l.avwa.ryr.a~er011n 11ar,•w1
FOUNDATION PLAN � ��7 u��I�f� Sol
!'
C�/} �� 31�Z110 L/hL COkt11 W �
t1 NI..• -�,p L � -
Ia4.•ern' ` /�° h b 'v r >�1'1"Rl'� --. ..
0SCALE : 1/4"=1-O"
P-IsbJ Pa- �4�o lX 4- parr 5 D- POL�IL�.[L
f.- t
U.SOAD7'3" 7'3" (71 Ui ll) �
3.. 7'3"
_______ --- ----------- --------- W "O ei u1
40 P� 15 Psf ____________ ___________ -- ,
Living Area ---- __ '� L Q 00`t
15 psf i 1 2 X 10 P.T.JOIST®16"O.C. _ 00
Sleeping Area 90 (3)2 X 30 P.T.BEAM
cc l i I � � � W 01
`r`S—' N fx,
O 11 V Z p� O LL I
20 P 10 P� I 1 VVV
Attic
GROUND SNOW LOAD(1`9)50 Psf I' _ __ (-- a� d1 m a
i
�LMxtGUlE tMtlt�OT11GWIY I.mE�ON�MNS ----------- ---------- !! Ln •� :^ (^
HEADER COLUMN SCHEDULE I �jG/t'i Y I
II // � J
3 2x10 2 2x61 }O/SONO TUBE TVP. 2) -3/ " 9- 2"LV
2 2x10 2 2x6 11
I I / I'�I) Z N I
(3)2x6 2 2x6 xI B I I
y (2)2 x 6 (2)2 x 61(2 2 4 —2)2 x 4 in I I 10 =— -- — _+ ■— — W
(2)1-3/4"LVL 2 2 1116/ 2 2 x 4 1 1 I I
2%
(3)1.3/4"LVL 3 2 x 6 (4) }�P.T.BEAM---
II I�
II
1 1 2 X 10 P.T.JOIST 016"O.C.
11
iD 1
II
io i 2 10 PL O J IST Lm 6"
II
II
(3 1- /4"X 9 1/ "L L
9 - -- - -E Y- - -- -- - __ V-- - -- -- - -- -- -
-- p
/MW
_J F -6 p
-
_
II II- II • \b \� II 3V -' - -- -- I - -�- - c"
(3)1-3/4"X 9-1/2"LVL l
FS-3V; p u
`
-
I (3 1- 4" 9 1/ L L
FB
I-tY _ 41
--
--
� 11
O 11
II
O
1 I
II I
J I
X i I I_i O 3/ "X9-12" VL
O
F _5
11 I
E
I O
lit
1II-
f•'c V V I I I
" u�-env '' 5►► - �`f'
i� »ni 'SSS
IZ 1l Q��.J (3)2X10 P_T.BEAM
14 f I ----------
-------------
.kA1.L"--.�i.lu'U1.A wL} � ``�tl Y(5
___- ,ly PLlfl�or�✓J L � (° "�'� I,lhv1 5 ,D6 NO. 13057
sM -d�ll�
S J ✓ �`. I" L 9 � �:�. SHEET NO. I
#} I
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-10" Se2
Design Criteria J
�,AY� J
Floor Loads LIVE LOAD DEAD LOAD 'O
Living Area 40psf lspsf `nF"'��/c�XG�(fZ LI/li ��'-'lq ramie Vom = _ -- __ - W M o
Sleeping Area 30 psf is psf (pp�5 r P N 6 <0 S Z > N
F�sG A r� 2 X 10 Rakers LM16"o.c. m
ZLn Ln
tJq
Attic a w/2 x 8 Ceiling Joist®16"o.c. "Q I-q O
20 psfi 10 psf
Lti
i i Q
C
O I
GROUND SNOW LOAD(Pg)SO psf 2 X 10 Rafes®16"o.c. J W
w/z x a Ceiling Joist@16o.c.
tQ r`pp
Of%UNrv+o�mwuwtfn on'txwoc MOreD ax rtwxs I -- _ - -- ^ t 2 (A r,
HEADER COLUMN SCHEDULE p LUJI 4711
3 2x10 2 2x6 x -_ _ - -_ C C > Z X
2 2x10 2 2x6 I I = Z a. O
(3)2x8 2 2x6 2 2x4
2 2 x H (2)2 x 6/(2)2 x4 (3)2 X LOFEAVI H AD-R i i 1 1 aJ m a
(2)1-3/4"LVL 2 2 x 6/ 2 2 x 4 wJ u v rtry ry Tua sae ow
(3)1-3/4'LVL(3)2 x 6 u (3)1-3 4"X 9-1/4"LVL tp
(3 1-2/4" 1 L L C J
FL SH BEA MA T BOTTOM-2 X12
Q
OQ
J
G s. 0/1 - I--1 i o3 4"o 1 {.L)
I I_
I I 1-3/4"x 11-7/8"LVL
14-- —
II r
II �L
Th GSI L)V3' , I o
1 /4 X 8" VL R ;;-- - -- .JOL$'�ISA
10 39 ii _ _ OVER FRAMING 6tgw 1,�l- ,5-11d'-� x`TY2
S7EEL COLUMN I -2x 12 Ridge r� 1L V1 73
__ - -_ -_
-S EE C U N _ TE LC W N
C.
( 1
0 X O LO R OIR
ii
x a ��j II
ZD (2 1- /4"%9 1/
N m N
2X 10
QQ m
X J
N
1 I ry
__________
__
_____________ IIS
O a --------u-I�HGus7.zs/10 i i p, •. t
xx
I I x
1 1 •a•• � I I I\
I I
II J I I /p dei l�
6
I I
t0x I - -- -- -- -- - — -- - -- -- - — -- - --
N^ I I (3)1-3 4" 1 "L L I 41
2A Se-8 0
�1�c�1•.� I I
II i iii � f�0
"s i i1E x 4-2 O
C= Q
----------
(3)1-3 4"K 1 "L L_
—2X12 5 -8 IIS _ 777-
2 x 8 Rafterrs @816"o.c.2 x 8 Ceiling Joist®16"o.c. j 1yi xx
(3)2 X 10 HEADER
W/POST NO MORE THAN 8'APART
ism
s m
II
rep L,
JOB NO.
SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN13057
SHEET NO.
SCALE : 1/4"=1'-0" I,
ALL HEADERS ARE(3)2 X B UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
Fm Se3
INTERIOR BEARING WALL
Design Criteria
Floor Loads LIVE LOAD DEAD LOADm
Z 00
fl
Living Area ao psf 15 paf 'k- �° _
gg
w n
Sleeping Area 30 psf lS psf =___- 2 > t w
nG2
In In
Attic 20 p2 10psr14-00-W 24-OD-00 N� � 5p.wpw3� a•, W00
v cPSI! .In
Nt
00
GROUND SNOW LOAD(Pal 50 psf �(�� '_� , d L Q a
a, z 0<
01
l�`�+� \ ii i50R J to
W
\ � GIRDER TRUSS
0h
Iypleal 7B022 Top CMN TBBii
Y,YIYYsn.IY M Unum YYNIep DY..Yw O.dtl Y9
LGn-SOS2.5 LG" .
cus�s.T p.Na.n
.00
GIR ER I RUSSAlL,
'(or t' �Omod GNB €
F, !
T"kal LGn-&D&2.5 I, I LGT2
rmuMl.. ulwlwt« 1 ha �It(.Vf� �IV1 J5 I-IAke11P�t IyYLt'✓� m
�1�h5
—T- _ � nw5s
iJ o ppi �_
GIRDT 55 -:2
Ippv.l MBT Q
NUT Iv2.IWY..iY MOUB D•� F ( 1■ ��VMK�J
GIRI ERT USS K
O
S ( p
z
wo
VGT' c
/( 0
1 TYIY.I YG1M fY.Y TI.N.1 161 O..Mp � \, v r� 11��� �� '^� � \ •a �
YSYWIb.gL MOW ICYIYOr.iY MDYY 1 \r V'
�oY
��` �, �, �, ' Nom o
o,� �� �,4� ,c � \off' To
IV
paJas 6L4-
14-00-00 22-00-DO 2 0
L
—
�� f 60-00-00
A- JOB{.I JOB NO.
,•I�
�`� v 13057
Ac c_ s►iBNlffBo__� _I J1�I��.:iJJfN UPwF'f �OAVIS
7 SHEET NO.
2. tt01M_ >7oW�1_..OES:� +►' 17J1�� �SU�� V
ROOF TRUSSES 024" O.C. — a,• 0S
.! � r InM.IbNYn
5
SCALE: 1 44"y=V-O" l Q{� � S . 4
5u8M I.T to1'- ALL HEADERS ARE(3)2 X 8 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
(� CoHNo>a 'f► ,5 toA �tZ lob gHr� T�t�55 �IZ/klaw Fad- UI�.1 IZ"0,L.,
e �
I 9 H 8 I 7 I 6 i 6 I 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 I
UA%L {zd - 4,"0. a LL
PEw{r��- C-Avg �,ouu*l�
6'PERIMETER
Nil x YWOOp J - -� o�� G ROOF SHEATHING
ROOF TRUSS �1
NAILING SCHEN. VENTING- tisli ROOF TRUSS BOT. CHORD n ) 5 A�j�,L-- AT BLOCIfING NDRfLLOTCH COORD!,/� W BLOCKING.SEE W/ARCH.
SIMPSON STRONG TIE LIGHT �!� PLANS AND TRUSS
GAUGE METAL ANGLE MODEL Z X
34 AT 10'o.0. LOCATION ----
(ALTERNATE 9DE5 MTH _ �1 VARIES
ANCHORS AT SIMPSON J� �a'd FW F✓t.
-STAGGERED) STRONG TIE 1 1 K�
-' IIA34 AT 10'o.c. _ t}�� `,�LL �//..,� _1
TRUSS HEAL 4,11 SOI toe-fAit, t.J-_A
2-2a TOP PLATEf�v50
LATE SIMPSON HGAIO KT Q Z
DOUBLE PF N.
j EACH SIDE w/ SWPSON N W
2x 91EM WALL
I In
FOR 92E AND RE �d� I (4) - SDS}"z3" STRONG E .T-„��//�� F
SCHEDULE SEE II`Y EACHIE
WHGAAOCH LEG BL TYP_
PLANS.
(k9 -
sz
i 'L S STUDS
519, 7UDS1
TRUSS TRUSS
2'-0” SIMPSON C5185 PSON C5185 - --
COIL STRAPS OIL STRAPS
— EACH SIDE OF H SIDE OF w
EACH STUD ACS STUD
% a
1 tRuss & TRUSS
r 2'-0- F / n s SLOT
SIMPSON STRONG TIE I ROOF TRUSS BOT. { O O I BOTTOM DOT •!$ PLYWOOD FOR
^�
LIGHT GAUGE METAL CHORD. TYPIC I I O O PLATE PLA h CSIES
ANGLE YODEL OA34 FL FLO - CONNECTION
i SHEATH[ G SHEATH[ G _.,` Illr� GJl.'►�
ROOF TRU55 Y—
QAW
%f H ri1�
U zi
1\
D (2) IOd TVP 2x6 BLOCKING D (10
1
RIM JOIST RIM IVST cQc
C G
RIM JOIST—/"
OIST -Q- `
2-2•TOP PLATE 2x6 BLOCKING WOOD SHEAR—
CS"',
j
WALLA BELOW C
V '0
cc CDI
(4) SDS }"x3" - C
I SCREWS IOP PLATES 10P PLATES '^.
0 O S W me N
h 2 F
r � ����?•.5E WnLL gNg
2x BEARING WALL.
SEE PLANS.
-� �v
2. BEARING WALL.
SEE PLANS.
—
2x PLATE FASTEN
2x PLATE FASTEN W/t6d HAILS 3 STUDS -
` W/2 ROWS 8d 04'o.c. STUD S SON SCREWS I NAILS 04'o.c. WITH SN HDU-S TH SCREWS [�1
SHEATHING PLYWOOD _ WITH SCREWS _
P�"TAG PLYWOOD SHEATHING w
SHEATHING
U
B '
"o AHIL OR A36 ROD HIT HY-150 WITH
AHLf OR A36 RODNTH
EPDXY(DRILLED ANCHOR EPDXY DRILLED ANCHOR
MTH
BOLT EACH HOLD GOWN. BOLT EACH HOLD DOWN. - 1�
�.. DOUBLE 2. /
PLATE 2xPLATE NO'T'E PROPER IINISTTALLATION 2xPLAIE
CONT. RIM
BOARD TRUSS JOIST TYP. 2x4 N ATI,Bd� T.P.T. PLATE 2x P.7. PLATE -
DOUBLE 2x U.N.O. SEE PLANS. O �o{� r -
PLATE SLABJ TOP CONC
1I( 5 -
Ir- ..I °1f CONC.70P . S
2x BEARING WALL. (/ {� —� ti1ti - �_ WE I
SEE PLANS. MU VAS
ALA,AbU woiln
�kl�L) �E'��11i �•
.lora-r5 -2-x4— p S , �7
FilrtK �I{ 6-06AK, �AL.L I Att All WAIL -
HI-
of '.
' .OORx_' �y
� �• Zoning Bylaw Denial
Town Of North Andover Building Department
400 Osgood St. North Andover, MA. 01845
S^�N°Sti Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542
Street: p
Map/Lot: oZ 99. ,
Applicant:
Request:
Date: a
Please be advise ;that aft rrevie :qf your Applicattio`and,Plans,that youhr Application is
DENIED forathe fnl owin`g�Zoning-'Bylaw reasons: ,- ' `
Item Notes - Item '. . Notes
A Lot Area - F -Frontage
1 Lot area,Insufficient, 1.. Frontagelnsuff_icient "'v
'2"';`L"ol Area Preexistin - = 2�` ' Frontage'Com lies
-Lot Area,Com ies 4, - -3 P.redxisting frontage
4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
B Use Vic-A -'*1 JVo
``' 5 _�cpess oyer Frontage
1 Allowed 6 Contiguous Building Area
2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area
3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies
4 Special Permit Required 3 Preexisting CBA
5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information
C Setback H Building Height
1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum
2 1 Front Insufficient 2 Complies
3 1 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height
4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information
5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage
6 Preexisting setbacks 1 I Coverage exceeds maximum
7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies
D I Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting
1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information
2 In Watershed j Sign
3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 1 Sign not allowed
4 Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies
5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
E Historic District K Parking
1 In District review required 1
More Parking Required
2 Not in district 1 2 Parking Complies
3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information
4 Pre-existing Parkin
Remedy for the above is checked below.
Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance
Site Plan Review Special Permit Setback Variance
Access other than Frontage Special Permit Parking Variance
Frontage Exce tion Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance
Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance
Congregate Housing Special Permit Variance
Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board
Independent Elderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA
Large Estate Condo Special Permit Earth Removal Special Permit ZBA
Planned Development District Special Permit Special Permit Use not Listed but Similar
Planned Residential Special Permit Special Permit for Sign
R-6 Densitv Special Permit Special Permit preexisting nonconforming
Watershed Special Permit
The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive review
and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the applicant
serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for DENIAL. Any inaccuracies,misleading information,or other
subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to be voided at the
discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled"Plan Review Narrative"shall be attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation for the above file.You
must file a new building permit application form and begin the permitting process.
Building Department Official Signature Application Received Application Denied
Denial Sent: If Faxed Phone Number/Date:
Plan Review Narrative
The following narrative is provided to further explain the reasons for denial for the application/
permit for the property indicated on the reverse side:
a
I