Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 1077 OSGOOD STREET 4/30/2018 (2) o �A L/gRER PIE Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS pORTH Albert P.Manzi 111,Esq.Chairmano`tt,•� ,6, Associate Members 6 °c Michael P.Li orto Ellen P.McIntyre,Vice-Chairman ° � P Richard J.Byers,Esq.Clerk '' y r p Tyler Speck D.Paul Koch Jr.,Esq ;r ZoningraBrownEnfod rcement Officer �SSACHUSES Legal Notice North Andover Board of Appeals Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at North Andover Town Hall at 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA on Tuesday, August 14th 2012, at 7:30PM to all parties interested in the petition of William Yameen (Angus Realty Corp) for property located at 1077 Osgood Street (Map 35, Parcel 27), North Andover, MA 01845. The applicant plans to construct a bank, a new permanent structure in the GB Zoning District. A Variance is requested under Section 4.136, (Watershed Protection Division) and 4.136 c.ii(3), 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. NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF APPEALS Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at North Andover Town Hall at 120 Main Street, North Andover, By order of the Board of Appeals MA on Tuesday,August 14th 2012, at 7:30PM to all parties interested Albert P. Manzi 111, Esq., Chairman in the petition of William Yameen q (Angus Realty Corp)for property lo- cated at 1077 Osgood Street(Map 35, Parcel 27), North Andover, MA 01845. The applicant plans to construct a bank,a new permanent structure in the GB Zoning District. A Variance is requested under Published in the Eagle'rr;hune nn: - y K Section 4.136, (Watershed Protec- t'o m>;M o o I N� t'1 o tion Division)and 4.136 c.ii(3),of the July 31, 2012 07 0 0�a 0a 0.m t''0 v 1 Z o D �Co m a N m Q j oN Zoning Bylaws.and supporting ma August 7, 2012 w Cr o' o m o w m y. d N w w n:_-v rlCD _g °m O z terialspare available forreviewat the m o N 3 rn y 3�. °. w�.; y 7 Z O y.>0 office of the Zoning Department to a (Dtreet,North w a C.S- 3 p o mCo m p m? J' 00 �_�CL 0-0 m ID p= Andover,cated at lMA, M600 onday,00d SWednesday ro N. �'<o o co 5.m o. A 2�m v 01°a v c m �'n Z and Thursday from the hours of hours Mo y 5:_3 o 3< 0 6 C, m`�c �� �°O W N o< sfO-2•v 0 of 808:00-05:30 and Friday from 8 00 to �aO�c �a �3� m'00 ��w �� �r»v�_'_:r:: I�m 11:30. 02- 3 5 s a M�m v a o 2 0 o 3 O m��f�, N By order of the Board of Appeals �D m°c r'3�5 ,5.m m m N a�°�, Albert P.Manzi III,Esq.Chairman °'v ooNNz�w� ao� :­,4CD <=vim ET-7/31,8/7/12 yw oc m oEp3 5�m 3 51 mommN�w�m� �w Dv o- � - THOMAS P. SMITH ATTORNEY CAFFREY & SMITH, P.C. i P.O.BOX 1317 TEL(978)686-6151 300 ESSEX STREET FAX(978)683-3399 I LAWRENCE,MA 01842 TSMITH@CAFFREYSMITH.COM [INNFI[[ t integrating design, expertise and technology a Richard Barthelmes,P.E. 199 Newbury Street,Suite 115•Danvers, MA 01923 978.777.7250, Ext. 12•fax 978.777.8650 rbarthelmes@lynnfieldeng.com www.lynnfieldeng.com z Aug. 14. 2012 1 : 34PM Lynch, DeSimone & Men LLP No. 1680 P. 1 pC @1G0W R pICHMID A.NYLEN,JR. AUG 14 2011i LYNCH,DESIMONE &NYLEN,LLP BOARD OF APPEALS 10 Post Office Square,Suite 970N Boston,NIA 02109 TFacsimile: 617-348-4545 Telephone: 617-345-4500 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 14,2012 TO; North.Andover ZEA FAX NO. (978) 688-9542 Attn: Ms. Angela Ciofolo FROM: Richard A.Nylen,Jr.,Esq. RE: Opposition to Variance Request;Angus Realty Corporation: 1077 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845 NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet) The document accompanying this telecopy transmission contains information from Lynch,DeSimone and Nylen, LLP, which is confidential and legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual ion sheet. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that or entity named on this transmiss any disclosure,copying,distribution,or the flaking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied d to this firm immediately. In this information is strictly prohibited and that the document should be returne regard,if you have received this telecopy in error,please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the return of the original document to us at no cost to you. i I Aug, 14, 2012 1 : 34PM lynch, DeSimone & Nylen LLP No, 1680 P. 2 LYNCH,DPSIMONE&N'Y EN,LLP AT7owm AT LAW 10 POST OFFICE SQUARE,SurrE 970N ]BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02109 Telephone: (617)348-4500 )Facsimile: (617)348-4545 Email: RNylen@LDNLLP.COM JOHN M.LYNCH.P.C. IGRNFST P.DESIMONE OF COUNSEL RicHARD A.NYLON.JR. _ STEPHEN W.DECOuRCEY August 14,2012 JAMES W.MURPHY SHANNONMICIIAUD WAYNE H.SCOTT Via Fiacsimile& 15' Class l aii Albert P. Manzi,Ill,Esq., Chair Zoning Board of Appeals 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover,MA 01845 Re: Angus Realty Corporation; 1077 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845; Opposition to Variance Request Dear Chairman Manzi and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: This office represents Mr. Frank Ragonese of 1939 Great Pond Road,North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 who is offering his opposition to the above application filed by Angus Realty Corporation(the"Applicant')seeking a Variance from the'W'atershed Protection District and 4.136.c.ii(3) of the Zoning Bylaw of North Andover, My apologies as I am unable to appear before the Board on August 14, 2012 due to a previously scheduled hearing in Norton,Massachusetts, Mr.Ragonese opposes the Variance because the Applicant has not met the three prong test' established by the Bylaw under 10.4 or Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, §10. Specifically,the Variance process is to be used for situations where the unique landform, topography or soils has created a hardship,financial or otherwise, A Variance should not be gtanted under 10,4 or Chapter 40A, §10 when it is based upon the Owner's desire to expand its substantial buildings and uses into the only vacant area remaining on the Property. The Variance should not be granted for the following reasons: A. The Watershed Bylaw Prohibits the Disturbance. The Project involves the construction of a new bank at the shopping plaza within the 250 foot non-disturbance zone of the North Andover Watershed District, The Project involves new impervious a-rea and the elimination of an approved detention basin on the west of the Property. The Bylaw was enacted almost twenty(20)years ago and prior to the Applicant's assembly of the parcels used to create the shopping center. Section 4.136 of the Bylaw was carefully drafted to protect the areas surrounding the North Andover water supply with an overlay District that Aug. 14. 2012 1 : 35PM Lynch, DeSimone & Nylen LLP No. 1680 P. 3 August 14,2012 21Page established four zones of protection including the general 400 foot zone,the non-discharge zone, the non-disturbance zone and the conservation zone. These zones and their use restrictions of setbacks are the foundation of the Watershed Protection District, The Bylaw allows certain uses within the general and conservation zones by Special Permit but prohibits most uses in the non- disturbance zone. B. The Owner does not meet the three prong test for a Variance under the Bylaw and state law. The Applicant submitted a memorandum in support of its Variance application dated July 18,2012 which fails to demonstrate that the proposal meets the three prong test necessary to be granted a Variance. The Applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof and the Board cannot make the necessary findings. 1. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the circumstances are unique relating to soil conditions,shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. The Applicant concedes that the soil conditions are not at issue. The Applicant concedes that the reason the Variance is required is due to the location of a portion of its expansive property within the restricted non-disturbance area. The plans demonstrate that there is nothing unique about this large multi-acred property than already contains multiple stores and parking. The shape is.not confining or irregular for its allowed uses, The plans demonstrate that there is nothing unique about the topography of this flat parcel. In fact,the Applicant seeks to fill in a detention basin that provides open space and stormwater infiltration,two purposes of the Bylaw. 2. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the literal enforcement of the Watershed Protection Bylaw will result in a substantial hardship to it, financially or otherwise. The Courts have issued many decisions to guide municipalities as to what constitutes a hardship. There is no demonstrated hardship. First,the Applicant has not stated what the hardship is. Second,the Applicant cannot claim a financial hardship to its shopping plaza for the past twelve (12)years based upon its inability to place a bank in the Watershed District. Third,the courts are clear that the financial hardship most be the result of the unique condition of the land and not the owner's personal or financial status. Huntington v. ZBA of Hadley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 710,715 (1981). Here there is no demonstration that the shopping plaza has suffered a substantial hardship without a bank on the premises for the past twelve (12)years. Finally,the courts do not consider the enforcement a government regulation such as a bylaw or local restriction that may result in a lesser profit or less than maximum used to be a hardship. Kirkwood v. ZBA of Rockport, 17 Mass, App. Ct. 431 (1984);Bicknell v.Boston Board of Appeals, 330 Mass. 676, 681 (1953). Aug. 14. 2012 1 : 35PM Lynch, DeSimone & Nylen LLP No- 1680 P. 4 August 14,2012 31Page 3. The Variance will cause harm to the public good and derogate from the purpose of the$ylaw. The third test requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the Project will not substantially halm the public good or substantial derogation from the Bylaw. In addition to proposing a use not allowed under the Bylaw the application is deficient as pointed out by the Planning Department and the Building Inspector. The application does not include stormwater calculations with more than 20,000 square feet of new impervious surface being presented. Impervious areas are the types of uses which the non-disturbance Zone is designed to protect against. Second,there is no demonstration that the project complies with the Wetlands Protection Bylaw or the Wetlands Act. Third,the design ignores the fact that the substantial number of trucks are sent to the same vicinity as the bank. Trucks idle and create queues due to the existing traffic circulation patterns that sometimes spill out onto Osgood Street creating a public safety issue. The bank will take up an area where trucks line up and will add traffic. C. The Applicant and the Board cannot rely upon the findings in prior permits. The Applicant has suggested that the prior approval of a parking area on the property supports the issuance of this Variance. This is not a compelling or correct argument. The Applicant must meet the three prong requirements of the Variance and cannot rely upon the prior actions or prioi proceedings. Callahan &Sonsy.Board of Appeals of Lenox,30 Mass.App. Ct. 36,40 (1991);Lopes v Board of Appeals of Fairhaven,27 Mass. App. Ct. 754(1989). SUMMARY The intention of the Bylaw and the state statute is to grant Variances only under last resort conditions where the unique character,shape or topography presents a hardship. There is no right under M.G.L.,c. 40A, §10 or the Bylaw to a Variance. The Courts have stated expressly that Variances are to be issued sparingly in contrast to the more flexible Special permits. Mendes y, Board of Appeals of Barnstable,28 Mass, App. Ct. 527, 531 (1989): "The power of variation is to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances peculiar in their nature, and with due regard to the main purpose of a zoning ordinance to preserve the property rights of others . . ." heal Prop. Inc.v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 319 Mass. 180, 184-185 (1946). Aug. 14. 2012 1 : 36PM Lynch, DeSimone & Men LLP No, 1680 P. 5 t August 14,2012 4J_Page The Courts have also stated that all three elements and findings must be made. Failure to meet any one of the three shall result in the denial of the Variance. K4kwood v.Board of ADVeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423,427(1984), In this instance, as noted above,the Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence that it meets any of the three tests. The Applicant seeks to maximize the use of a lot and has not been harmed, This is not a hardship. Please deny the Variance. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Eard A.Nylen, x, RAN/kad H:\Rngonesell_eaer to North Andover ZDA 08.14-12.docx Y' 1 Printed:02E13-2013 @9:13:12 Essex North Registry M. Paul Iann"cillo Register Trans#: 4019 CAFFREY & SMITH Oper:KEVINZ Book: PL Page: 16866 Ctl#: 41 Rec:2-13-2013 ® 9:13:08a DOC DESCRIPTION TRANS AMT PLAN --------- Surcharge CPA $20.00 5.00 TECH FEE 20.00 Plan recording 5.00 50.00 Total fees: -------- 75,00 Book:-13344 Page 59 Inst# 4246 Ctl#: 42 Rec:2-13-2013 @ 9:13:08a NAND 1077 OSGOOD ST DOC DESCRIPTION TRANS AMT NOTICE --------- Surcharge CPA $20.00 50.00 recording fee 20.00 5.00 TECH FEE 50.00 Document Copy -Man 5.00 9.00 Total fees: ------DO *** Total charges: 159.00 CHECK PM 22537 159.00 iEssex North Registry , w h ' Bk 13344 P959 04246 02-13-2013 a1 09913a Space above this line is for Registry use only NORTHERN ESSEX DISTRICT REGISTRY OF DEEDS M.Paul 14nnucd&o A division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Regist -af Dee& DOCUMENT COVER SHEET For use with documents that do not meet Document formatting standards This is the first page of the document-Do not'remove PRINT OR TYPE' DOCUMENT TYPE: VALCa S NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet) 3 TOWN:. PROPERTY ADDRESS:�� INDEXING SHALL BE ABSTRACTED FROM THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED • i i Bk 13344 Pg60 #4246 Town of North Andover ='rCEIVED ' ZONING BOARD OF AMAMI'," ` "���•� <�;,. Albcrt P.`Manzi]ll,EM.CWnwaw "°it Earn P.McIntyre,via-0dwan of, a .. 2013.JAN 22 Pm 1: 05 Richatid J.Byers,Esq.Clerk •`-_'_ '-t�' D.Paul Koch Jr.,E'ay. s ; Allan(:usdrr ` MASSAGIiU5�? .: 1�fichael P.laporro 'd.,�ti+n,...•'iP� . . Deney Morgand al ss teNus Douglas LwWn This 16 to am*that twenty(20)days Town c;Icd I'mm Ssnmp hm mated from date of dsdsion,fkd wlthou ahg 0f an mppeall pate 62 /.t Any appeal shall be filed within(20) Notice of Decision Jayas A,lira Shaw days after the date of filing of this Year 2013 Town Clark notice in the office of the Town Clerk, er Mass.Gen.L.ch.40A 17 Pro at: 1077 Osgood Street North Andover,MA 01845 NAME: William Yameen,Angus Realty Corp HEARING(S): 14 Aug 2012,9 Oct 2012, 13 Nov2012, 8 Dec 2012 and Jan 8,2013 ADDRESS: 1077 Osgood Street(Map 35 Pamel 27), PETITION: 2012-007 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,January 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM on the application of William Yameen (Angus Realty Corp) for property located at 1077 Osgood Street(Map 35 Parcel 27),North Andover,MA 01845. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section 4.136, (Watershed Protection.Division) and 4.136 c ii (3). Applicant proposes the Construction of a bank (a new permanent structure) and is requesting a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in the GB Zoning District. 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 July 31,2012 and August 7,2012. The following regular voting members were present:Albert P.Manzi III,Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J. Byers,D.Paul Koch Jr.and Allan Cuscia. Associate members present were Michael Liporto,Deney Morganthal and Douglas Ludgin. Upon a motion by Richard Byers to GRANT the Variance to allow Under Section 4.136,and 4.136 c ii (3) of the Watershed Protection Division to construct a new permanent structure of a bank within the "Non-Disturbance Zone"this is allowed by Special Permit by the Planning Board only after a Variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Allan Cuscia second the motion to Grant the Variance All those In favor:Albert P.Manzi III,Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J.Byers and Allan Cuscia Not in Favor.D.Paul Koch Jr 4-1 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 the intent of the purpose of this bylaw The Board also finds that this use,as developed by the building&site plans, is,an,apMpriate.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 Chet parking provisions required. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided to the propos ' tire. The Board ::V. Page 1 of 2 f, Bk 13344 Pg61 #4246 finds that the new proposed bank will not be substantially more detrimental to the area and that this use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Bylaw.. Site: 1077 Osgood StreegMap 33 Parcel 27), North Andover,MA 01845 Under Section 4.136 and 4.136 c.ii(3)of the Zoning Bylaw,The Construction of a new Permanent Structure within the"Non-Disturbance Zone"is allowed by Special Permit by the Planning Board only atter a Variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.GB District. Plan(s)Title: 1)"Plot Plan of Land"containing one(1)sheet. Prepared by Lynnfield Engineering, INC.,199 Newbury Strect Suite 11,Danvers Ma.01923,dated July 18,2012. 2)"Proposed Schematic Layout Plan",containing one(1)sheet,Prepared by Lynnfield Engineering,INC.,199 Newbury Street Suite 11,Danvers MA,01923,dated July 18, 2012. 3)`Exterior Elevations of the Pentucket Bank(in color)"containing two(2)shect, showing all four(4)sides of bank.Prepared by Lloyd Architects,2 High Cliff,and Plymouth MA.02360,dated June f7.2012. 4)Preliminary Floor Plan,showing interior. S)Traffic impact and Access Study Prepared by Bayside Engineering Woburn MA, Dated November 27,2012 6)Preliminary Stormwater Analysis and Calculations Butcher Boy Markets Dated December 11 2012 Voting in favor: Albert P.Manzi IIi Ellen P.McIntyre,Richard J.Byers,Allan Cuseia Voting in the Negative: D.Paul Koch Jr. Voting results 4-1 The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions Under Section 4.136 and 4.136 c.ii(3)of the Zoning Bylaw,for the Construction of a new Permanent Structure of a bank within the"Non-Disturbance Zone"in a GB Zoning 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 two(2)years of the date of the grant,it shall lapse,and may be re-established only atter notice,and a new hearing. L�2- - - 04A-4 d No Andover Zoninj Board of Appeals AArt P.Manzi HL Esq.,Chairman Ellen P.McIntyre, Vice-Chairman Richard J.Byers,Esq.,Clerk D.Paul Koch Jr.,Esq., Allan Cuscia Decision 2012-007 Page 2 of 2 46 "EX NORTH RE I %STRY OF DEEDS Lkll!FIENCE,MASS. 0 b il , ? --"'UE COPY:ATTEST )e,-a REGISTER OF DEEDS Of NORi1{1H °s""%•° Zoning Bylaw Denial OL F p Town Of North Andover Building Department `�*•a,;;;o::• 400 Osgood St. North Andover, MA. 01845 CHU Phone 1978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542 Street: Ma /Lot: Appiicant: ;G 6, V Request: iY.i✓f uC Date: -- Please Please be advised hat a er revierr of your Application and Plans that your Application is DENIED for the following Zoning Bylaw reasons: Zoning &-G Item Notes Item Notes A Lot Area F Frontage 1 Lot area Insufficient 1---Frontage Insufficient 2 Lot Area Preexisting 2 Frontage Complies 3 Lot Area Complies 3 Preexisting frontage 4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information B Use 5 No access over Frontage 1 1 Allowed X G Contiguous Building Area 2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area 3 Use Preexisting 2 Complies 4 Special Permit!Re uired 3 Preexisting CBA 5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information C I SetbackH Building Height 1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum 2 Front Insufficient 2 Complies 3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height 4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information 5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage 6 Preexisting setbacks 1 Coverage exceeds maximum 7 Insufficient Information 2 1 Covera a Complies D Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting 1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information 2 In Watershed x j Sign 3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 1 Sign not allowed 4 Zone to be Determined 2 Sign Complies 5 1 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information E Historic District K Parking 1 In District review required 1 More Parking Required 2 Not in district 2 Parking Complies 3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information 4 1 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 Exoe tion Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance 17 A Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance Congregate HousingSpecial Permit Variance 0' �r2/a,... 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 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: Itemsons faD46ial Reference / C-I'Sit c- (J-�'o i . is , r,?O�jr6 oAlla a OA/ 66r a V aec AGE 2 A . ' ff � Referred To: Fire Health Police Zoning Board Conservation Department of Public Works Planning Historical Commission Other BUILDING DEPT i i f NORTH 1 _°•'"` �`•"° Zoning Bylaw Denial t p Town Of North AndoverBuilding Department ,�.:�y' 400 Osgood St. North Andover, MA. 01845 SwCHUSE Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542 t Street: Ma /Lot: ; A licant: A16 !a � Request: Date: Z Please be advised_hat a er review of your Application and Plans that your Application is DENIED for the following Zoning Bylaw reasons: Zoning -1.2 Item Notes Item Notes A Lot Area F Frontage 1 Lot area Insufficient 1 Fronts a Insufficient 2 Lot Area Preexistinq 2 Frontage Complies 3 Lot Area Complies 3 1 Pre xisting frontage 4 Insufficient Information 4 1 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 4 Special PermitiRe uired 3 Preexisting CBA 5 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information C Setback i H Building Height 1 All setbacks c6mply comply1 Height Exceeds Maximum 2 Front Insufficient 2 Complies 3 Left Side Insufficient 3 Preexisting Height 4 Right Side Insufficient 4 Insufficient Information 5 Rear Insufficient I Building Coverage 6 Preexistin setbacks 1 1 Coverage exceeds maximum 7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Complies D Watershed 1 3 Coverage Preexisting 1 Not in Watershed 4 Insufficient Information 2 In Watershed ; X J Sign 3 Lot prior to 10/24/94 1 Sian 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 2 Parking Complies 3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information 4 Pre-existing Parkin Remedy for the alove 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 Exception Lot Special Permit Lot Area Variance Common Driveway Special Permit Height Variance Congregate Housing Special Permit Variance- ,r^ Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board Independent IElderly Housing Special Permit Special Permit Non-Conforming Use ZBA Large EstatelCondo 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 preexisting nonconforming Watershed S' ecial Permit 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 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. I 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: i i Itemsons .a I) is ' Reference / 1 i f,11t--r e6 c nc f�MUN�rYfi 3 0l► ��� .a o i �a Sir G er OAI fie,-- a jJa,^r:atet-* / 2 % , . _ i U I f'G!!cam I i i i i i i i i i i i Referred To: Fire Health Police Zoning Board j Conservation Department of Public Works Planning Historical Commission j Other BUILDING DEPT I i i ,ti,..� < ': �.