Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous - Exception (580)
rn q rri --� Z o 0 CTI N N Ul s �1 O� �� �✓IPt% 1L) pred by tnc Loth/Valley Realty uevelopment, LLC Meadows Fiscal Impact Analysis Town Budget Expenditures 2002 -Excluding Schools Expenditure Category DollarAmount General Government $ 2,177,526.00 Public Safety $ 6,759,028.00 Public Works $ 3,578,137.00 Fixed Expenses (50%) $ 5,702,951.00 Health and Human Services $ 640,641.00 Culture and Recreation $ 747,549.00 Capital and Reserves $ 1,597,160.00 Total Expenditures $ 21,202,992.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant Residential Versus Non -Residential Parameters for Community Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property$ 2,601,799,700.00 (Assessors Certification Dec. 2000) Residential Assessed Value $ 2,232,864,502.54 Residential Value Percentage 85.82% (per Town Assessor 2001) Non -Residential Value Percentage 14.18% Allocation of Expenditures Excluding Schools to Land Uses Expenditure Category Residential 85% Non -Residential 15% General Government $ 1,868,752.81 $ 308,773.19 Public Safety $ 5,800,597.83 $ 958,430.17 Public Works $ 3,070,757.17 $ 507,379.83 Fixed Expenses $ 4,894,272.55 $ 808,678.45 Health and Human Services $ 549,798.11 $ 90,842.89 Culture and Recreation $ 641,546.55 $ 106,002.45 Capital and Reserves $ 1,370,682.71__$ 226.477.29 Total Expenditures $ 18,196,407.73 $ 3,006,584.27 UG' Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheets �j In 09/10/02 01:38 PM Fiscal Impact Analysis Tuesday October 29, 2002 Valley Realty Development LLC has prepared this fiscal impact analysis in support of its application to the Town of North Andover for a Comprehensive Permit for 270 units of housing. The purpose of fiscal impact analysis is to estimate the impact of a development or a land use change on the costs and revenues of governmental units serving the development. The analysis is generally based on the fiscal characteristics of the community-e.g., revenues, expenditures, land values and facilities. The analysis enables local governments to estimate the difference between costs of providing services to a new development and the revenues -taxes and user fees, for example -that will be generated by the development. pEcEddE OCTOO'�� 2 g 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS m\f ev j C� �a Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Meadows Fiscal Impact Analysis Town Budget Expenditures 2002 -Excluding Schools Expenditure Category General Government Public Safety Public Works Fixed Expenses (50%) Health and Human Services Culture and Recreation Capital and Reserves Dollar Amount $ 2,177,526.00 $ 6,759,028.00 $ 3,578,137.00 $ 5,702,951.00 $ 640,641.00 $ 747,549.00 $ 1,597,160.00 Total Expenditures $ 21,202,992.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant Residential Versus Non -Residential Parameters for Community Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property $ Residential Assessed Value $ Residential Value Percentage Non -Residential Value Percentage 2,601,799,700.00 (Assessors Certification Dec. 2000) 2,232,864,502.54 85.82% (per Town Assessor 2001) 14.18% Allocation of Expenditures Excluding Schools to Land Uses Expenditure Category Residential 85% Non -Residential 15% General Government Public Safety Public Works Fixed Expenses Health and Human Services Culture and Recreation Capital and Reserves Total Expenditures $ 1,868,752.81 $ 308,773.19 $ 5,800,597.83 $ 958,430.17 $ 3,070,757.17 $ 507,379.83 $ 4,894,272.55 $ 808,678.45 $ 549,798.11 $ 90,842.89 $ 641,546.55 $ 106,002.45 $ 1,370,682.71 $ 226,477.29 $ 18,196,407.73 $ MeadowsFiscattmpjactrevisionl.xls Sheets 3,006,584.27 5'i1^\c U 9- i0- o�_ 10/29/02 4:56 PM 1 Prepared by Eric LothNalley Realty Development, LLC Per Capita Expenditures or Cost Expenditure Category Per Capita 32,349,485.98 Per Worker 5,345,091.02 Total Population Census 2000/ $ 27,202 $ 19,175 Total Workforce per MA. DET $ 2,928,917.31 $ 483,943.69 General Government $ 68.70 $ 16.10 Public Safety $ 213.24 $ 49.98 Public Works $ 112.89 $ 26.46 Fixed Expenses $ 179.92 $ 42.17 Health and Human Services $ 20.21 $ 4.74 Culture and Recreation $ 23.58 $ 5.53 Capital and Reserves $ 50.39 $ 11.81 Total Expenditures $ 668.94 $ 156.80 Operating Costs Associated with Meadows Per Capita Costs $ 668.94 Population of Meadows 584 Total Costs $ 390,658.85 "( 1 per 1 bdrm, 2.07 per 2 bdrm, 3.01 per 3bdrm American Housing Survey 1987) Total Town Revenue 2002 Annual Town Budget Revenue Source Dollar Amount Property Taxes $ 37,694,577.00 Local Receipts $ 5,784,554.00 Intergovernmental $ 3,412,861.00 (Not Including State School Funds) Interfund Operating Transfers $ 760,774.00 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 220,000.00 Total Revenues $ 47,872,766.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant Allocation of Revenues to Residential and Non -Residential Land Uses Revenue Source Residential 85% Non -Residential 15% Property Taxes $ 32,349,485.98 $ 5,345,091.02 Local Receipts $ 4,964,304.24 $ 820,249.76 Intergovernmental $ 2,928,917.31 $ 483,943.69 Interfund Operating Transfers $ 652,896.25 $ 107,877.75 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 188,804.00 $ 31,196.00 Total Revenues $ 41,084,407.78 $ 6,788,358.22 MeadowsFiscallmpactrevisionl.xls Sheetl 6qmp- C15 10/29/02 4:56 PM Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Gross Revenue Per Capita and Per Worker Revenue Source Per Capita Per Worker Local Receipts $ 182.50 $ 42.78 Intergovernmental $ 107.67 $ 25.24 Interfund Operating Transfers $ 24.00 $ 5.63 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 6.94 $ 1.63 Total Revenues $ 321.11 $ 75.27 Property Taxes Generated By Meadows Property Value of Meadows $ 60,608,000.00 (developer estimate) Local Tax Rate 0.01266 (Annual Town Report) Total Property Taxes $ 767,297.28 Other Revenues Generated by Meadows Per Capita Residential Per Capita Revenues $ 321.11 Population of Meadows $ 584.00 Total All Other Revenues $ 187,530.12 Total Revenues Generated By Meadows Property Tax Revenue $ 767,297.28 Total Other Revenues $ 187,530.12 Total Revenues $ 954,827.40 MeadowsFisctillmpactrevisionl.xls Sheetl 10/29/02 4:56 PM 5��� '119 ci-(0- D-�- -13 Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Net Fiscal Impact of Meadows Excluding Schools Total Revenues Generated $ 954,827.40 Total Costs of Development $ 390,658.85 Net Fiscal Impact $ 564,168.55 Anticipated Number of School Age Children In Meadows Unit Size Number of Units School Age Children per Unit* Total School Age Children 1 Bedroom 45 0 2 Bedroom 147 0.14 3 Bedroom 78 0.42 Total School Age Children in Meadows *(American Housing Survey 1987) Cost to School District Associated with Meadows Current Total Spending $ Fixed Expenses $ State Aid $ Cost to Town $ Current Number of Students Current Spending Per Student New Students Total Spending due to Meadows L, Operating Revenues Associated with Meadows 0 20.58 32.76 53.34 27,241,804.00 Budget 2002 5,702,951.00 (6,274,981.00) 26,669,774.00 4190 October 2001 report to Dept. of Education 6,365.10 53 339,514.50 Property Value Of Development $ 60,608,000.00 School Mill Rate 0.00896 *(below) Property Taxes from Development to Schools $ 543,047.68 Net Fiscal Impact on School District of Development Property Tax Revenue from Meadows Applied to Schools $ 543,047.68 Total School Costs of Meadows $ (339,514.50) Net Fiscal Impact on School District $ 203,533.18 MeadowsFiscallmpactrevisionl.xls Sheetl S a +rye CtC) 9- I D 0 -�- 10/29/02 4:56 PM Prepared by Eric LothNalley Realty Development, LLC Summary- Net Positive Fiscal Impact Gross Revenue of Meadows Non School Costs of Meadows New Meadows School Costs Net Positive Impact of Meadows $ 954,827.40 $ (390, 658.85) $ (339, 514.50) $ 224,654.05 "School Mill Rate Take educational expenses, $26669774 X.85 (percent residential in town per NA assessor) $22669308 Divide by $32040390 which is prop tax revenue $37694577 X .85(res. %) so then .7075 X $12.66 (Mill Rate) =$8.96 (School Mill Rate) MeadowsFiscWlmpactrevisionl.xls Sheets 10/29/02 4:56 PM 5-�r�e aC,D�- Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Scenario 2: Regional Average Number of Children per Bedroom Cost to School District Associated with Meadows Current Total Spending $ State Aid $ Cost to Town $ Current Number of Students Current Spending Per Student New Students Total Spending due to Meadows 27,241,804.00 5,702,951.00 (6,274,981.00) 26,669,774.00 4190 6,365.10 80 * see below $ 509,208.10 Operating Revenues Associated with Meadows Property Value Of Development $ 60,608,000.00 School Mill Rate 0.00896 Total Property Taxes from Development $ 543,047.68 Net Fiscal Impact on School District of Development Property Tax Revenue from Meadows Applied to Schools $ 543,047.68 Total School Costs of Meadows $ (509,208.10) Net Fiscal Impact on School District $ 33,839.58 Summary- Net Positive Fiscal Impact Gross Revenue of Meadows $ 954,827.40 Non School Costs of Meadows $ (390,658.85) New Meadows School Costs $ (509,208.10) Net Positive Impact of Meadows $ 54,960.45 * 573 Bedrooms X.14 (see Children per Bedroom in Region) MeadowsFiscallmpactrevisionl.xls Sheets 10/29/02 4:56 PM Sgrne. a� �-c0`o� Valley Realty Development, LLC 978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax Fiscal Impact Analysis revised P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA 01810 sY�yPhTry cr,�. Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC IMeadows Fiscal Impact Analysis Town Budget Expenditures 2002 -Excluding Schools Expenditure Category General Government Public Safety Public Works Fixed Expenses (50%) Health and Human Services Culture and Recreation Capital and Reserves Dollar Amount $ 2,177,526.00 $ 6, 759, 028.00 $ 3,578,137.00 $ 5,702,951.00 $ 640, 641.00 $ 747, 549.00 $ 1,597,160.00 Total Expenditures $ 21,202,992.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant Residential Versus Non -Residential Parameters for Community Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property $ 2,601,799,700.00 (Assessors Certification Dec. 2000) Residential Assessed Value $ 2,232,864,502.54 Residential Value Percentage 85.82% (per Town Assessor 2001) Non -Residential Value Percentage 14.18% Allocation of Expenditures Excluding Schools to Land Uses Expenditure Category Residential 85% Non -Residential 15% General Government Public Safety Public Works Fixed Expenses Health and Human Services Culture and Recreation Capital and Reserves Total Expenditures $ 1,868,752.81 $ 308,773.19 $ 5,800,597.83 $ 958,430.17 $ 3,070,757.17 $ 507,379.83 $ 4,894,272.55 $ 808,678.45 $ 549,798.11 $ 90,842.89 $ 641,546.55 $ 106,002.45 $ 1,370,682.71 $ 226,477.29 $ 18,196,407.73 $ 3,006,584.27 Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Per Capita Expenditures or Cost Expenditure Category Per Capita 32,349,485.98 Per Worker 5,345,091.02 Total Population Census 2000/ $ 27,202 $ 19,175 Total Workforce per MA. DET $ 2,928,917.31 $ 483,943.69 General Government $ 68.70 $ 16.10 Public Safety $ 213.24 $ 49.98 Public Works $ 112.89 $ 26.46 Fixed Expenses $ 179.92 $ 42.17 Health and Human Services $ 20.21 $ 4.74 Culture and Recreation $ 23.58 $ 5.53 Capital and Reserves $ 50.39 $ 11.81 Total Expenditures $ 668.94 $ 156.80 Operating Costs Associated with Meadows Per Capita Costs $ 668.94 Population of Meadows 584 ' Total Costs $ 390,658.85 '( 1 per 1 bdrm, 2.07 per 2 bdrm, 3.01 per 3bdrm American Housing Survey 1987) Total Town Revenue 2002 Annual Town Budget Revenue Source Dollar Amount Property Taxes $ 37,694,577.00 Local Receipts $ 5,784,554.00 Intergovernmental $ 3,412,861.00 (Not Including State School Funds) Interfund Operating Transfers $ 760,774.00 Miscellaneous. Revenue $ 220,000.00 Total Revenues $ 47,872,766.00. Budget 2002 Town Warrant Allocation of Revenues to Residential and Non -Residential Land Uses Revenue Source Residential 85% Non -Residential 15% Property Taxes $ 32,349,485.98 $ 5,345,091.02 Local Receipts $ 4,964,304.24 $ 820,249.76 Intergovernmental $ 2,928,917.31 $ 483,943.69 Interfund Operating Transfers $ 652;896.25 $ 107,877.75 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 188,804.00 $ 31,196.00 Total Revenues $ 41,084,407.78 $ 6,788,358.22 Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10:wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM Z�_ I Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Gross Revenue Per Capita and Per Worker Revenue Source Per Capita Per Worker Local Receipts $ 182.50 $ 42.78 Intergovernmental $ 107.67 $ 25.24 Interfund Operating Transfers $ 24.00 $ 5.63 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 6.94 $ 1.63 Total Revenues $ 321.11 $ 75.27 Property Taxes Generated By Meadows Property Value of Meadows $ 60,608,000.00 (developer estimate) Local Tax Rate 0.01266 (Annual Town Report) Total Property Taxes $ 767,297.28 Other Revenues Generated by Meadows Per Capita Residential Per Capita Revenues $ 321.11 Population of Meadows $ = 584.00 Total All Other Revenues $ 187,530.12 Total Revenues Generated By Meadows Property Tax Revenue $ 767,297.28 Total Other Revenues $ 187,530.12 Total Revenues $ 954,827.40 Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Net Fiscal Impact of Meadows Excluding Schools Total Revenues Generated $ 954,827.40 Total Costs of Development $ 390,658.85 Net Fiscal Impact $ 564,168.55 Anticipated Number of School Age Children In Meadows Unit Size Number of Units School Age Children per Unit* Total School Age Children 1 Bedroom 45 0 0 2 Bedroom 147 0.14 20.58 3 Bedroom 78 0.42 32.76 Total School Age Children in Meadows 53.34 *(American Housing Survey 1987) Cost to School District Associated with Meadows Current Total Spending $ 27,241,804.00 Budget 2002 Fixed Expenses $ 5,702,951.00 State Aid $ (6,274,981.00) Cost to Town $ 26,669,774.00 Current Number of Students 4190 October 21 Dept. of E. Current Spending Per Student $ 6,365.10 New Students 53 Total Spending due to Meadows $ 339,514.50 Operating Revenues Associated with Meadows Property Value Of Development $ 60,608,000.00 School Mill Rate 0.00896 *(below) Property Taxes from Development to Schools $ 543,047.68 Net Fiscal Impact on School District of Development Property Tax Revenue from Meadows Applied to Schools $ 543,047.68 Total School Costs of Meadows $ (339,514.50) Net Fiscal Impact on School District $ 203,533.18 Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development, LLC Summary- Net Positive Fiscal Impact Gross Revenue of Meadows $ 954,827.40 Non School Costs of Meadows $ (390,658.85) New Meadows School Costs $ (339,514.50) Net Positive Impact of Meadows $ 224,654.05 'School Mill Rate Take educational expenses, $26669774 X .85 (percent residential in town per NA assessor) $22669308 Divide by $32040390 which is prop tax revenue $37694577 X .85(res. %) so then .7075 X $12.66 (Mill Rate) =$8.96 (School Mill Rate) Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheen 09/10/02 01:38 PM 10/07/2002 10:32 JANE SWrFr Governor 9784702690 NORTH ATLANTIC COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Metropolitan Boston -- Northeast Regional OBice DEP File # 242-1169 PAGE 02 BOB DURAND Secretary LAUREN A. LISS Commissioner JE: NOTiE .l'CAT?ONF 1�JETLANDS PPOTECT-ION ACT .FIL19 NLTMBER NORTH Al':fDc?yER DATE: 10/2/2002 11:66 �AM (city/town.) The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Notice of Intent filed in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40): Applicant: Owner: VALLEY REALTY .DEVELOPMENT Address: PO BOX 3039 Address: ANDOVER, MA 01810 LOCUS: 2357 TURNPIKE ST IF C--HECXW THE FOLLOWING ITEMS) APPLY TO THIS NOTICE OF INTENT: A.-,(XZThis project has been assigned the following .file #: 242-1169 Although a file # is being issued, please note the following: Detention basins need emergency spillways_ There 'should be no increase in the 100 y1• storm discharge rate. Applicant should provide data that they have sized Stormceptor correctly to obtain max TSS removal that equals 80'/o. Street sweeping should be by vacuum sweeper. 1. Q SP1 plication has been forwarded to 'Waterways Regulatory Program to determine if a Chapter 91 License is required. 2_() Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Corps of Engineers for review (call 1-800-362-4367 for information) - D. () 401 Water .Quality Certification The project described in your Notice of Intent requires a 401 Water Quality Certification from tb Department of Environmental Protection and may require submittal of a 401 application form. S e below for. further details: .1.0 Based upon the information submitted in and with your Notice of Intent a separate 401 Water Ouslity. Certification application form is not required. The Department has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and finds that there is reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted in a manner that will not violate the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, provided that: (see page 2 for additional information) This tnlort"lion is available in alternate format by tallie6 our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574.6872. 206A Lowdl St. Wilmington, MA 01987 9,�Pat�hone (978) 661-7600 . Fax (978) e61.le16 • TT09 (978) 061-7679 `p Printed on Recyrded Paper lU/Ui/�'UUL LU. 6L JANE SWJJ'T Governor 71041UZbyd NUKIH AILANiiC COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS iEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Metropolitan Boston -- Northeast Regional Office DEP File # 242-1169 PAGE 02 BOB DURAND Secretary LAUREN A. LISS Commksiner kE: NO'r1F1CAT?ONQF-VIETLANDS PROTECTION ACT FILE NUMBER NORTH A4DOVER, DATE: 10/2/2002 11:06 AM (city/town.) The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Notice of .Intent filed in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40): Applicant: Owner: VALLEY REALTY DEVELOPMENT Address: PO BOX 3039 Address: 1,iNDOVER, MA 01810 LOCUS: 2357 TURNPIKE ST . IF CHECIaD; THE FOLLOWING ITEMS) APPLY TO THIS NOTICE OF INTENT; A.- XIThis project has been assigned the following .file #: 242-1169 Although a file # is being issued, please note the following: Detention basins need emergency spillways. There should be no increase in the 100 yr storm discharge rate. Applicant should provide data that they have sized Stormceptor correctly to obtain max TSS removal that equals 80%. Street sweeping should be by vacuum sweeper. C n Ott RAb;;I" 1.01.pplicaiioil has been forwarded to Waterways Regulatory Program to determine if a Chapter 191 License is required. 2.O I Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Corps of Engineers for reviyew (call 1-800-362-4367 for information). D. () 401 Nater .Quality Certification The project described in your Notice of Intent requires a 401 Water Quality Certification from tb Department of Environmental Protection and may require submittal of a 401 application form. See below for. further details: .1. () Based upon the information submitted in and with your Notice of Intent a separate 401 Water iQuality. Certification application form is not required. The Department has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and finds that there is reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted in a manner that will not violate the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, provided that: (see page 2 for additional information) Tbia lnfotroution is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 5746871. 205A Lowell St. Wilmington, MA 01887 . Phone (978) 661-7600 . FaX (978) 661.7615 . TM9 (978) 661-7678 10 Printed on Recycled Paper OCT. 2.2002 1:54PM VHB Transportation Land Development Environmental services yan c A'Li_g= Rs'?LCiftnnc FAX Transmittal Deliver To: Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner Company. Town of North Andover Telephone No.: 978-688-9545 W. 234 P.1 From: .Andrew Ogilvie vHB Project No.: 06716.58 FAX No-- 978-688-9542 O'irlal of TOJecoPY Will be sent Date and Time. October 2, 2002 Total Number of Pages (including TrAnsmitta] Porm): 11 RE: Comprehensive Permit Application Review The Meadows North Andover, MA Hi Bob, 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown Massachusetts (12471 61792.+11770 FAX 617924 2286 Please find a copy of the engineering review for the above project If you like, I can send a copy of the report to the Applicant. Please advise, Please call me if you have any questions D2 C 2� F 1 nbsaNa—\T—tMI �is\fnx nlcetM-10-M- 2.a« O3-2 D 002 BOARD OF APPEALS NORTH ATLANTIC PAGE 01 FAX COVER SHEET NOrthpoint Realty Development P -O. Box 303.9 & Andover, MA 01810 • P 978-470-8257 • F 978-470-2690 To Rob -Levy, Mark West, Julie Parrino, Bill Sullivan, Bob Nicetta From Gerry -Lynn Darcy Phone 978-470-8257 Date 10/07/02 Pages 3 including cover SuhJO*t October 7, 2002 For your review. The documents accompanying this facsimile contain information from the offices of Noathpoint Reeky Development which is confidential or privileged- The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named on this traa�ssion. please OCT. 2.2002 1:55PM VHB NO.234 P,2 Location: Owner: Applicant: Applicant's Engineer: Plan bate: TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD CHAPTER 40B PERMIT REVIEW 2357 Turnpike Street VHB No.: 06715.58 Valley Realty Development, LLC Valley Realty Development, LLC GSD Associates, 148 Main Street, Bldg A. N. Andover, MA 01845 06-03-02 Review Date: 10.01.02 The Applicant submitted plans dated Juste 3, 2002, a Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed The Meadows Residential Development Project, North Andover, MA; Prepared. by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. dated April 2002 and an Application for a Comprehensive Permit booklet dated June 10, 2002. The booklet contains the following information. - Transmittal Letter Application Form Certified Abutters List Preliminary Site Development Plans (Reduced Scale) - Report On Existing Conditions Preliminary Architectural Plans (Reduced Scale) Tabulation of Proposed Buildings By Type - PreliminaryUtilities Plan (Reduced Scale) Documents Regarding The Jurisdictional Requirements of 760 CMR 31.01 List of Required Exceptions Traffic Impacts Fees and Request For Waivers This information has been considered in the development of this technical memorandum and other various sources of information were also referenced, as needed, and are footnoted in the memorandum. VHB reviewed the Comprehensive Permit from a standard engineering practice and a public safety point of view. The following comments note questions/comments on the proposed design. VHB offers the following comments: DRAINAGE REVIEW The site plan shows a conceptual drainage system layout. Detailed pipe size and slope information, and construction details have not been included in the plan set VHB offers the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: I. The proposed drainage design, including hydraulics and hydrology, could not be reviewed for this comprehensive permit application because detailed drainage calculations were not submitted. VHB recommends that the following drainage calculations \ information be submitted for a thorough drainage review. Watershed analysis for pre- and post -development condition for 2,10 and 1M Year/24-hour storm events using IR -20 / TR -55 method. (� TN0M6%\doc9\repos!&\Meadowzc�npPMAtReviews93042-wr}dag.doe pffC ff 0U OCT_ D 3 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS OCT. 2.2002 1: 55PM VHB I NO. 234 P. 3 • Flans that illustrate the pre- and post -development drainage areas and respective flow paths- • Soil conditions and ground water table elevation data. • Drainage pipe sizing calculations using Rational method. • Gutter spread and/or catch basin inlet capacity calculations. • Culvert analysis using Federal Highway Administration methodology. • Other applicable calculations and information necessary for a thorough review. 2. No Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Calculations have been submitted. It is not clear whether the drainage system as proposed will provide the 80 percent removal of TSS required by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 's Stormwater Management Policy. VFM recommends that these calculations be submitted for review. I As a full drainage design and associated calculations were not submitted, VHB has not thoroughly reviewed the comprehensive permit application for conformance to the DEF Is Stormwater Management policy, however, VIS does note that the plans show at least three direct discharges to wetland areas. These discharges are not permitted under the Stormwater Management Policy. VHB recommends that the Applicant eliminate these discharges and submit t:,:rther Sto�;..water Management Policy information with associated calculations for review. 4. If there will be standing water in proposed detention areas for an extended period of time, VHB recommends that fencing be proposed around the perimeter of the detention basins with an access gate for maintenance. VBB recommends fencing for safety reasons. 5. The proposed detention basins do not appear to include sediment forebays. Under DEp s Stromwater Management guidelines a sediment forebay must be included in the proper design of a extended detention basin. 6. The proposed detention basins do not appear to be graded to provide proper access for maintenance purposes. 7. The rooftop drainage is not shown on the plans VBB assumes that it will be infiltrated on site as allowed under the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. The Applicant should clarify. S. The proposed roadway uses what appears to be an existing culvert crossing. The existing conditions summary makes no mention of the size or condition of this wetland crossing. The Applicant should provide detailed information regarding the existing culvert and provide a full culvert analysis for the proposed condition. VHB does not recommend re -using an existing culvert because it will be difficult to verify the load bearing capacity and current condition of any existing structure. STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE VHB has reviewed the site plans for conformance to standard engineering practices. The purpose is to document the engineering issues and potential construction issues associated with this development. VHB offers the following comments related to vehicular safety, pedestrian safety and potential construction issues. I. Vehicle turning movements for passenger vehicles and single unit vehicles (indicative of a single unit fire truck) were checked, Upon review of the revised site plan, it appears that single unit vehicles can access most building locations. It appears that a single unit vehicle may have some difficulty making the tum around movement near building S. Single unit vehicles may also have trouble maneuvering around some of the parking lots if all available 2 7'\0MM\,i=\tep&t9v&adows wmp permit Review 940424nking.doc OCT. 2.2002 1:56PM VHB NO. 234 P.4 parking is in use, if there is parking in fire lanes or if there is a significant amount of snow piles. 2. The sidewalk shown on the site plan appears to be 4 feet wide. There have been no construction details provided to verify this. The Applicant should consider using a wider sidewalk to insure proper handicap accessibility. Wheelchair ramps should be $hown at all proposed access points to insure that the design conforms to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) requirements Also, there are several sections of sidewalk which "dead end'. This is not acceptable under AAB guidelines. 3. The Applicant should verify the number of handicap accessible parking stalls and show the total number in the suuunary table to verify that proper parking ratios have been provided. 4. The proposed site appears to be in significant cut conditions in many locations. The proposed site drive in particular is shown to have a cut of up to 18 feet. The Applicant should provide test pit information to verify the location of the groundwater table. The proposed design is likely to impact the groundwater on site. 5. The proposed wall location along the north side of the proposed site drive is close to the adjacent property line. The Applicant should provide detailed structural design details of Us wall to insure that the design will not impact neighboring properties. 6. No proposed easements have been shown on the plans. The Applicant should clarify the ownership of all proposed common areas. It is unclear if the Applicant intends for the site drive to be an accepted street. VHB has assumed that the Applicant will retain ownership of the roadway. 7 The proposed site drive functions as a local residential street VHB recommends that the site drive be designed as a local roadway. Construction details, typical sections and roadway geometry information should be provided so that an appropriate review of the roadway design may be conducted. 8. The driveway at Building 19 appears to have sub -standard sight distance. The driveway is located on the inside of a curve and the proposed building may obstruct the drivers view, VHB recouunends that the Applicant investigate. 9. The Applicant has not provided a proposed roadway profile for the site driveway, therefore VHB is unable to verify the adequacy of the design. Also, VHB recommends that an existing profile on Route 114 be shown so that vertical sight distance exiting the site drive may be evaluated. 10. The Applicant has not provided a construction baseline. VHB recommends that the Applicant provide a baseline so that an appropriate review of highway geometry may be conducted. , 11. The proposed site drfve to the Lower Meadows portion of the site is approximately 1800 feet in length and ends in a modified cul-de-sac. The Subdivision Rules & Regulations require a maximum 800 -foot cul-de-sac length for public safety reasons. The Applicant should investigate the possibility of providing a secondary access point, to provide better access for emergency vehicles. 12. The Applicant stated in the application that thee solid waste would be removed from site via both curbside pick up and the use of on-site dumpsters. The location of the proposed dumpsters has not been provided. The Applicant should delineate the areas where curbside pick up will be provided and show the proposed locations of all dumpsters. The Applicant should also provide details of any proposed landscaping or other method of screening around dumpsters. 13. The location and number of fire hydrants should be reviewed by the. North Andover Fire Department to insure adequate fire protection. 14. Route 114 (Turnpike Street) is a State Highway. The Applicant will need to obtain a state hi way access permit. 3 1A%n6%\daa\rep=\M&w1 w6 comp permit &view s 3o n wrWg.dx OCT. 2.2002 1:SGPM VHB NO. 234 P.S 15. The location of snow disposal areas has not been identified on the site plan. The Applicant should show the location of proposed snow storage areas and refer to the Snow Disposal Guidelines issued by DEP for snow disposal location requirements. Ideal snow storage locations are away from wetland areas. EDW- RONMENTAL REVIE6V This review is provided for the Comprehensive Permit Application submitted by Valley Realty Development, LLC, for The Meadows Condominiums in North Andover. No field visit to verify wetland boundaries is included in this review. VHB assumes that grading plans and larger scale Plans will be submitted at a later date, and note that our review may suggest items that would be included in later designs. We also note that the North Andover Conservation Commission requires 40 scale plans for its review during the Wetlands Protection Act permitting process. The Applicant is praposirtg a 270 -unit development on a 47 -acre parcel located at 2537 Turnpike Street. The Applicant has flagged wetlands in the project area and appears to have sited the project outside of wetland resource areas, and in most cases sited structures outside the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone. However, the project will require approval from the Wetlands Protection Act for work within the IMfoot buffer zone to wetland resource areas. Without further information, we cannot comment on compliance with the WPA. VHB assumes that the Applicant is also aware that the project will need to conform to the Stormwater Management Policy (SMP). From the Site Drautage Plan, there appears to be three direct discharges to adjacent wetlands. Under the SMP for new development, new discharges can be permitted only for runoff that has been treated to remove So pereeW of the Total Suspended Solids, It appears that roof runoff has been tied into the site drainage system. In accordance with the SNIP, roof runoff is considered "clean" and should be infiltrated rather than piped into the drainage system. TRAFFIC REVIEW VHB has performed a professional and independent technical review of the Traffu Impact and Access Study , Proposed Residential Development Project (The Meadows) prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. (DJK) for a 270 -unit apartment community to be located along Route 114 in North Andover, The proposed development is being proposed under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Chapter 40B), which encourages the construction of affordable housing using locally granted permits. The law enables the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), m consultation with other municipal boards and officials, to grant a permit to a developer who is proposing state or federally sponsored low or moderate -income housing. The developer may appeal a denial decision by the ZBA to the Commonwealth's Housing Appeals Committee. This review of the transportation issues focuses on three aspects of the report a First, the technical information presented has been reviewed and compared with general industry standards for approach and application. Where incondstenaes exist or further clarification is needed, it has been dearly noted; • Second, a thorough review of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Applicant has been completed. Where VHB is not able to reach the same conclusions 4 T:\0671659\does\eepoita\Meadows comp pcnWtReview 9,W-02wrktng.da OCT. 2.2002 1:57PM VHB NO. 234 P.6 and/or the analysis does not support a specific recommendation, additional information is requested; Finally, VHB offers findings and suggestions to the ZBA as the process moves forward. These specifically focus on other issues not noted in the technical submissions for the project. In general, the traffic report has been prepared in a professional manner generally consistent with transportation industrystandards. However, from a transportation perspective, the impact analysis has five main areas of concern: ■ The existing traffic volumes were not adjusted to reflect average conditions; ■ Trip distribution/assignment of site related traffic is not specified in detail and assigns site generated traffic to existing travel patterns, which may not take into consideration the layout of the buildings and parking areas for the "Upper" and "Lower Meadows" that may impact each driveway differently than what was analyzed; ■ Accident data was not obtained or reviewed in the traffic report; ■ Existing sight distance measurements were not reported only measured distances with recommended improvements; and ■ Synchro analysis for the study area intersections assume operations conditions that are not specified in report. The following provides specific comments on the traffic study and provides traffic comments on the site plan submitted along with the study. Traffic impact and &SMs Study Review In general, the study has been prepared to industry standards using information and methods suitable for a traffic impact and access study. However, in several instances, information and conclusions presented in the report are not verifiable given the information provided in the Appendix section of the report Where specifically noted, additional information has been requested to verify statements made in the report. Introduction The description of the study area and methodology were presented in a standard manner and are accurate. However, it should be noted that the traffic report was prepared using 294 -units and not the 270 -units specified in the plans prepared by GSD Associates. It seems that the development size may have been updated but the traffic study was not 'Ilius trip generation difference will be discussed in the trip generation section to this memorandum. Existing Conditions All traffic count locations appear to be reasonable given the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development. It should be noted that there is no mention in the report to the peak hours used for the analysis. However, these hours can be determined by looking at the raw counts appended to this report and the appropriate times were used. In addition; tuning movement volumes for the Industrial Drive across from the developments south driveway were estimated and not counted, therefore, these numbers cannot be quantified. 5 1`..\0671&%\&cc\ec 9mNMaaQom comp permit Review 33Qo2.wrkingda OCT. 2.2002 . 1:57PM VHB NO.234 P.7 F_risthg Tra& Volumes — The study notes that traffic volumes were collected during the month of February 2002; however, these volumes were not adjusted to reflect average month conditions based on seasonal traffic volume information. It appears that the average conditions for this area could generate as much as 11 percent more traffic than the month of February. This information was based on data published by MassHlgltway at permanent count station 502 located on Route 114 in North Andover. This increase in traffic could have an impact on the level of service analysis prepared for the study area intersections. Automatic traffic recorder data collected, when compared to MassHighway data for Route 114, does seem reasonable. Vehicle SFeeds — Speed measurements were collected by the "floating car method" and are an acceptable method of determining vehicle speeds along a roadway. However, this method does have a small sample size and precision is difficult to obtain Vehicles speeds should have been collected with the automated traffic recorder when daily traffic volumes were recorded. Motor V_ehicieSrashes — There is no indication that accident data for this area was collected or discussed. While this appears to be a low accident location, according to MassHighway data, vehicle accident records should be reviewed through the town to determine the amount of accidents in this area and the cause of each With the addition of the developments. north driveway, Sharpner's Pond Road will change from a T -intersection to a 4 -way intersection increasing the amount of turning movements thus increasing the risk for vehicle accidents. Public Tmrrsportatiw Services —There is no=mention of public transportation along this roadway and it is assumed that there will be no bus stops to this residential development. In addition„ this study does not mention any sidewalks present along Route 114 nor does it propose sidewalk along the front of this development. However, it appears that this area of Route 114 is mostly residential use and with the addition of this 270 -unit development a sidewalk in front of this development should be considered- Summury — The analysis of the existing conditions as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study appears to be reasonable and follows general industry guidelines for the preparation of a traffic impact study. Additional information on the following would be helpful in evaluating the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding street network: Adjustment of traffic volumes to reflect average conditions Crash data statistics along the Route 114 corridor 500 feet to the north and south of this site Future Conditiogs In the study methodology section, it is noted that the proponent contacted the Planning Office for the Town of North Andover, however, Route 114 is considered state highway and there is no indication of the proponent contacting the Massachusetts Highway Department in the preparation of this study. 6 i`IAM6b9\dom\mpome Meaaews comp petaut Raview 9-30-d2-wz ng dac OCT. 2.2002 1:58PM VHB NO. 234 P.8 ,Baft mindDeueIo t Gmth — The analysis includes three specific potential projects in the vicinity of the proposed development and characterizes them as projects that will add new traffic in the vicinity of the project site. The study notes that these three specific developments (totaling 79 residential condominiums, 95 single-family homes, and 66,700 square feet of retail) would be occupied within the 5 -year project horizon. For this reason, the new vehicular traffic associated with each of these projects was assigned to the local roadway system and considered as 'background'. traffic growth. The vehicular traffic estimate for each of these projects was obtained from the Hanning Office for the Town of North Andover. However, there is no mention of traffic studies performed as part of the permitting process for each specific development or if the proponent determined this data using standard M trip generation estimates. Therefore a trip generation table and traffic network should be prepared and included in this study indicating the amount of trips generated by each development making note where the data was obtained to quantify this background traffic. In addition, a background growth rate of 1.0 percent was used to account for general 'background' growth and to account for projects not currently proposed that might be constructed in the near future. This was done to further highlight the fact that the analysis presented in the report is 'conservative'. Trip Generation — VHB verified the traffic generation used in the traffic study and finds that the method used, regression analysis, is a reasonable method to develop traffic generation. However, an argument could be made that the average rate method could also be used, in which case increases traffic by 10 vehicles during the morning and evening peak hours for 294 -units. However, since this development has changed from 294 to 270 -units the average rate method for 270 -units generates the exact same amount of trips, during the peak hours only, as the regression method for 294 -units. Therefore; this report generates a reasonable and accurate amount of traffic for 270-1nits during the peak hours and is not considered to be a conservative analysis. The daily traffic volumes generated by this site using the higher average rate method for 270 -units would generate approximately 1,582 rather than the 1,628 projected in this report, therefore, the daily traffic estimates are conservative This site could be expected to generate approximately 1,582 new daily vehicle trips, 120 morning peak hour vehicular trips and 150 evening peak hour vehicular trips. T_ra„ fic Distribution and AssiXnment — The distribution of new site -generated traffic based on observed traffic patterns appears to be reasonable, although journey -to -work data for the Town of North Andover for the census tract in which the project is sited might result in a more accurate estimate of the traffic assignment. In addition, crosideration should be given to the amount of traffic exiting each drive based on the proposed layout of the units and parking locations. For example, those entering the development and accessing the "Lower Meadow" may be inclined to access via the north driveway since it is more of a direct route. A detailed trip distribution analysis should be developed taking this into consideration. Summary — The analysis of the facture conditions as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study appears to be reasonable and follows general industry guidelines for the preparation of a traffic impact study. However, the report generates traffic for 2Wunits using the regression analysis from ITE for this land use. It appears that the more conservative approach would be to generate traffic using the average rate method. It should be noted that using the average rate method for this modified 270 -unit site generates the same amount of traffic that is being reported in this traffic study, which makes this assumption not as conservative as one may think Additional information on the following would be helpful in evaluating the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding street network: 7 1:\0671658\doc5\re=\M=dowsmmppc:mitlteview9.3Q.M4v*ln&doc OCT. 2.2002 1:58PM VHB X90.234 P.9 Develop a traffic network and table illustrating the background traffic used for this study Evaluate trip distribution of traffic to/from the site driveways using journey to work data and assigning traffic to/from the "Upper Meadow" and "Lower Meadow" to appropriate drives. s MethMo o - The traffic study used the appropriate analysis software and methods to analyze the intersections and roadways within the study area. The analysis is based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual and the software selected (Synchro) is an approved and widely recognized analysis tool for traffic operations analysis. Results - The following is a summary of the results, VHB's observations, and discussion on the mitigation planned by the Applicant for specific locations. Route 114 at the Proposed North Site Drive and SharMer✓s Pond Road - According to the analysis presented in the traffic study, the westbound Sharpner's Road approach operates at Level of Service (LOS) D during the morning and LOS C during the evening peak commuter hours. Future analysis conditions show that the level of service will worsen to a LOS E for the 2007 No -Build condition and LOS F for the 2007 Build condition. For the evening peak hour this approach will operate at a LOS D for the 2007 No -Build condition and LOS F for the 2007 Build condition Synchro analysis was performed with the westbound approach having enough room to store one vehicle making a right turn and thus simulating a two-lane analysis_ This would allow right turners enough room to pass to the right and separate from left -turners. Since these assumptions were not mentioned in the report traffic conditions on this approach should be observed to ensure these conditions are occurring. If this is not the case the level of service analyzed in this report would not be accurate and conditions could be much worse. These assumptions were made on the proposed north site driveway. Both sides of the street appear to accommodate one all purpose lane for all turning movements, however, the throat of the road flares out to a much wider width As long as vehicle queues are not extensive and bloclang the short right turn lane this analysis is considered acceptable. The Applicant has committed "that Sharpnees Pond Road be widened to accommodate two 12 foot wide approach lanes for a distance of 100 feet from Route 114". With the addition of this lane traffic operations for this approach would improve, however, with the addition of this lane more conflicts will exist at the intersection with main line traffic and traffic exiting the north site driveway, which may cause more accidents. Therefore, it is recommended that with the addition of these two new driveways a gap study be conducted. A field measurement of the number and duration of gaps should be conducted during the peak hours. This data would help determine if in fact there are enough gaps and of the appropriate duration for vehicles to exit this development. Route 114 at the proposed South Site Drive and Industrial Drive - This" analysis assumes the same conditions with the right turning vehicles that were discussed above. However, the amount of traffic exiting the Industrial Drive is considerably less. Again it should be noted that the turning movements for this drive were not counted and were estimated in the traffic report. Should these number be accurate the level of service expected for this approach will continue to operate at a LOS C or better for all conditions analyzed. 8 r.\067108\d=\rcpomWcW*ws mmp pmmltRevlew 9-�A0,V.dee Vt i . G. ce�c 1 • J7rl'I Vmb NV. e64 r. lu The eastbound site driveway approach is expected to operate at a LOS D during the weekday morning conditions and at a LOS C during the weekday evening condition. The gap study discussed above would help in determining if in fact there are enough gaps that are long enough for traffic to exit the site safely. The proponent has committed to having two lanes for egress, which will help elevate traffic congestion and maintain queues on site. istance Analvsis The traffic study used the appropriate guidelines for determine adequate sight distance for the observed and posted speed limits. However, it does not indicate the actual sight distance measurements in the field but the measurements based on future clearing of roadside vegetation and topographic ground elevations. Sight lines need to be maintained during construction as well as when the development has been completed. The proposed sight lines seem to be attainable for the proposed south site driveway, however, with the north driveway being so close to the abutting property, to the north, sight distance looking north may be more difficult to attain. This depends on how far back from the edge of pavement vegetation needs to be cleared and on the location of property lines. Parking Analysis The report does not provide a discussion of area parldng issues. In addition the total number of parking illustrated on the site plan is 784 with a parking ratio of 2.9 parking spaces per unit, on site. This seems to be incorrect and the actual number of spaces is 662 with a ratio of 245. VHS reviewed industry standards as well as other developments of this type and has found that, in general, a parking ratio of between 1.80 and 200 is the current industry standard for comparable sites. With this high of a ratio the Applicant is well above dds range. Conclusi ns and Recommendations The Applicant has made a commitment to providing on and off-site roadway infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Applicant has also committed to the installation of intersection advanced warning signs. VHB has requested additional information (discussed in detail in the previous section) including: • Traffic volumes adjustments to reflect average conditions • Crash data statistics along the Route 114 corridor 500 feet to the north and south of this site • Develop a traffic network and table illustrating the background traffic used for this study ■ Evaluate trip distribution of traffic to/from the site driveways using journey to work data and assigning traffic to/from the "Upper Meadow" and "Lower Meadow" to appropriate drives. • Existing sight distance measurements • Existing traffic operations at Sharpner's Pond Road • Gap study analysis It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRTITEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein. 9 TA0571WB\doas\rcpor0\W-xW-: mmp permit Review 9,40-02-wrWASA- QC; I . e. Glrue 1 5�:)F'M VHB NO. 234 Reviewed by: Andrew W. Ogilvie, P.E. Senior Project Engineer - Highway and Municipal Engineering Reviewed by: Robert L. Nagi, P. ., P.T.O.E. Project Manager — Traffic Systems Engineering Checked by: Timothy B. tosh, PLP Project Manager — Highway and Municipal Engineering 10 T.\0671658\does\r"m\Mcsdows comp pems{c Peview 9 M42,wrking,d« Date: % oZ Date: l0 Z 'a U Valley Realty Development, LLC 978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax September 30, 2002 Ralph Willmer McGregor & Associates, P.C. 60 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 Re: Meadows Comprehensive Application Dear Mr. Willmer: Enclosed, please find a copy of the following documents which have been submitted to the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals for the comprehensive permit application. • Comprehensive Permit Application • Letter dated July 9t' regarding correction. • Submission at August 13th public hearing.,.,, • Submission at September 10'hpublic hearing. • Copy of Wainwright Bank's application to the New England Fund for a fund reservation. • September 12'h response to.memo from Member Joseph Lagrasse. If you would like to receive any further documents which have been submitted to the ZBA, please contact me at your convenience. Thanks. Sincerely, Vail y Realty Dev ment, LLC Karen Pollastrino- cc: Gerry -Lynn Darcy, P.M. Bill Sullivan, Chairman Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner Team Members G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp. Permit\Correspondence\Wllmecltr; 071 4, - 7 U , BOARD CC/` QC r PCO. �o�x , Andover, MA 01810 BOARD OF APPEALS Town of North Andover Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Legal Notice North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals Telephone (978) 688-9541 Fax (978) 688-9542 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold the following public hearings (as continued) in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2002, at the Senior Center, 120R Main Street, North Andover, MA on Tuesday the 150, 22nd, and 29" of October at 7:30 pm to all parties interested in the appeal of Valley Realty Development, LLC, d/b/a 342 North Main Street, P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA for the premises located at 2357 Turnpike Street (The Meadows Condominiums), North Andover, MA (Map 108A Lot 17, Map 108C Lots 33,38,39). The application is pursuant to MGL Chap. 40B, Sec. 21 for a Comprehensive Permit. Said premises affecte4is the property with frontage on the west side of Turnpike Street within the R-2, and I -1 (I -One) zoning districts. Plans are available�to review at the office of the Building Department, 27 Charles St., North Andover, MA Monday through Thursday during the hours of 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. U-2 By order of Board of Appeals William J. Sullivan, Chairman Published in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on September 20, 2002.. Legal2002-031/1 UA D >00 c>c0¢ryvo oaa ¢ .0 CL(W) t' .. .o1 -¢ '0 c LL Z LL Y`O 'C OY�` CMy O NY 3'C a5 a0L and U•-NmT N.-•O�'a. i0 COO wW0 02 0Z wW0 O7v oo��«ao�m^cm0cgia�o'aoo�oH��a3;�v�mmac��L n oaf0i>EN >=D to U>0 0 «s�L m pec a1 Z~ ° n o a>i ° m 0 mZ` n^N . Eo - m cin m d N F- Em n=.` m ®LLOF-OCN~— ¢Na�oocom c.c >yod rno0 0-- 0� o0 3af OCLLQJZZ? ODQJ `OmL= C `- 0O Q)«%ON O 4? cc N O mF-� rq¢ OM naU - y at..YN•O > OO C > p�L O.Oc¢�U E '� ZZOOW�n ZZOW c 0=� cL EN c 0¢ a `m ��m c tin E�� y- as E._ 0 n m0 a> rns o 0L�" o� 0 QWm y Qm Nt Qo... 0 d�Q a.0— Q 0) 0 o I��'- E c ctr._ r cUv o. c�i o d C W J a._,-3 vow �U_�oCjc c•- ��cUoa�mo-o cm.._ c E a =U(SG Q=C7d coU. 0� moi M� c �� o 0 o m v t rno m 0 O�LLZQUW>JWmZQULOr00'O�O�>LOpC¢���..0>_IMCOCS(VCD.0Etm—"'�COmNL�j@'O`p �O 0p0 >WW -j00 Z"aowOoE�Oo>����c"x=ro�com«�a�dc�Nca�Ca 0 rca°' cicOo> IN Z N WWW ZN c no 1'-v 0 o 0 o c orn E y 0 0 0 0�.- o co o no 0 0 0 o arQ L a) o o room �p 0dw._ m nOu��¢vcv o m> EZm a�u�U¢. 0 W= W_ 0 3c. .. EZ2 aoi wcv Board of Appeals 688-9541 Building 688-9545 Conservation 688-9530 Health 688-9540 Planning 688-9535 NORTHPOINT Realty Development PO Box 3039 Andover, MA o181 o (978) 470-8257 S()l JT14POINT Reolfif Developme — 185 NE 6' Avenue Delrciy Beach, FL 33483 (561) 272-9958 Date: September 26, 2002 To: Thomas Laudani,en llastrino, Gregg Smith and Steve Trettel From: Gerry -Lynn Darcy Re: Fire/Emergency afety – The Meadows cc: Chief Dolan, Heidi Griffin, Kathleen McKenna, Lt. Melnikas, Robert Nicetta, William Sullivan' This morning I had a meeting to discuss the Meadows with North Andover Fire Chief Dolan, Lt. Melnikas and North Andover Planner, Kathleen McKenna. It seemed to be a very productive session, and I do believe that we can come to a mutually acceptable agreement on fire and emergency safety for the proposed 270 unit complex. As we all know, the Town is under equipped with respect to fire safety facilities and this fact makes it extremely difficult for the Fire Department to respond to emergencies that are far removed from any of the fire houses in the Town. The location of the Meadows is on the Town line and it is quite a distance from the closest fire house. With this being said I do think that it is important for us to make the necessary precautions in the event of a public safety emergency. I was asked if we would consider installing (acceptable) portable defibrillators throughout the complex, while additionally providing access to the community centers for local training courses to promote public safety and to expand public knowledge. Chief Dolan understood that we did not have viable land area available for potential satellite public safety offices, but he thought that we might be able to provide the Town with the ability to use the community center in the upper and lower meadows for training based sessions. I do support this idea and feel that it should be addressed at our next team meeting. Chief Dolan is also going to forward information on where to obtain the defibrillators as soon as it is received. (oj�C EodE� ll� SEP 2 7 2002 D BOARD OF APPEALS Legal Notice North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will hold the following public hearings (as continued) in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2002, at the Senior Center,12oR Main Street, North Andover, MA on Tuesday the 15f, 22nd, and 29th of October at 7:30 pm to all parties interested in the appeal of Valley Realty Development, LLC, d/b/a 342 North Main Street, P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA for the premises located at 2357 Turnpike Street (The Meadows Condominiums), North Andover, MA (Map io8A Lot 17, Map 1o8C Lots 33,38,39)• The application is pursuant to MGL Chap. 4oB, Sec. 21 for a Comprehensive Perm i -� - ,;r or Said premises affected is the property with frontage on the west side of Turnpike Street within the R-2 and I -1 (I -One) zoning districts. Plans are available to review at the office of the Building Depart., 27 Charles St., North Andover, MA Monday through Thursday during the hours of 9:0o am to 2:00 pm. Board of Appeals William J. Sullivan, Chairman To be published in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on 5ert► 1p/ W�_' Lega12002-031/1 09/25/2002 12:20 9784702690 NORTH ATLANTIC PAGE 01 )VPOW RA67 D&44t"" AO got 3039 A#44114, MA 01$10 MY) 470-M Date: September 20, 2002 To: Tom Laudam, LouVcucd, From: Gerry -Lynn Darcy WIMAfT 19SNEG U" gw4 FL PA93 W) m - Karen Pollastrino, Mark. West Re: Conservation Meeting (Sept. 12, 2oo2) — The Meadows cc: Scott Masse, Robert Nicetta, William Sullivan, Steve Trettel, Gregg Smith On Thursday, September 12, 2oo2 we attended the first public hearing with respect to the NOI Bled for The Meadows. In attendance were Tom LaudanL Mark West and myself. After fumbling with the inadequate easel provided by our staff we finally were able to display mounted site plans. Tom gave a brief overview of the project and Mark west continued with a more detailed account of the situation as it related to the Notice of Intent and various jurisdictional concerns of the Commission. Julie Parrino informed the Commission that'she had walked the entire site with Mark West, and was satisfied with the location of the wetland flags. It was also decided that an escrow account be established for peer review with Lisa Eggleston in the amount of $w 000 (currently in place with the Town). The only issues that came up were as follows: Clarification of what Lisa Eggleston will be reviewing to avoid potential overlapping of efforts on the part of VHB who will be providing peer reviewto the ZBA on general engineering issues as they relate to infrastructure and site design. The Conservation Commission does not want to have VHB review any work that pertains to site drainage, and/or jurisdictional wetland locations. It was requested by the Board that GZA (Steve Trettel) provide an affidavit stating that the plans provided are, to the best of his knowledge, accurate and true. They were concerned amount the disclaimers on lack of accuracy, especially ones referenced. by GSD. This must be addressed immediately. We are scheduled to go before the Board on October g, 2002 to continue the hearing. I would like to get some feedback from Mark West and Lisa Eggleston if at all possible prior to this date. Please contact me with any information or concerns that you may have. N m C � WI SEP 2 5 2002 D BOARD OF APPEALS y'1 i. S E: SE E 180/0I/ZOOZ atiwe iotoz) 1!.gnw )Pnpwis ad .L ttWW _ :glnsla4I 7 ..dau 0I :fans) tnoamiy 4a14es!Q aoAtggsq[rS �taJ r !PaLfi Patgea'3 -j0amat4ead *IR& J0103 ecpaW Vod fancied t IIas adSy RIPW ,g- >�g bedr00ti6 {UCelauOdry Week. o R month to ,.month of our apartment eX` 1 is. r Nd• CP Wal! r6401;;_ , Remodeled 1 ro0ni, Wit}i floor. Plenty of parking S L r to 5 � t Oi Wo"7 UancesI - 0ff ° # securrtr Oct• fst p3 434-0824 479mb. Heat included lstove 1 prdmfses{ app (heat. $BbQ mental on me +eon firm Available t01U17812463052 € GAR( SND street parlgn9._ & _$950 t a Catl 978Bi D104mz2 X nished: 97&9i5 d00a, w�Nw. ncetonPropertie5 cam , . vats r #, QN woh"i+eaf. G40D. (T $ALISB.UitY t3EACH 0eqn Bim9>tifsadfor tf lau PR NlETH1fEN ieasant ynileY n o SiLEM cif. (it ONE Bed [. � ION it tifREb. Nb spacious 2 badmom PPOI t of eq Your move ir4 mein $1050=., (11 flee, bed, ter fi `.97842 7800 near, the t obP, i front, Nbrtt[ ked. 3 & d ifeed• t `t QF710 EN1pL Y Wb, (de > ; modern furnished roots $975., mciudes heat, _ g3 �13. $1300 indu apartments 1000. sim"o. HERB x NH. Stadia' a rt electric &hot water: No $gp) 1 1 �y / vintet to #s, 4150"nent fDt*renf. seGurl �, non-smoking=buiidm9 61 RS,�Y ��7� N4i1 y�sts€e 9i8�7U _ inciude� tlt�hes Avaitnble t1BLG4lIH-- ` nowfo Juaeis# 91881543440weekly, evervtfiin9 is ` urity deposit required t i a fit A+rY ��! N OF - C EK' & cap {h . s Uiet 5O. # f WRENCE 3 ixKiroom, Call�d43 9C482aes a ftiust. Available now 6D3887.6776 YE uptiattiedt4ttlter 1JOl`iTHJJw1jDt]YER f;.c t. foilibes Washer and.dryer honk bps. T h n�i�F7HE Off Atte. k#irrarttil No chitties, �ro BERRY Ntce 3d ` . !h, is SALEM N}i & B BDRQOM g4 " � '" tx►ix4 Z4r4it'1Q i3t)ARR F yt j$ mr ti$ 314 3341 Airniiable iOA. 978 i OdP �1315 no to L 97,8475 )902. Ton wpmPOINSIst E by THE- QEP� ' �APMET b —i : afd�ires.1816.$03781 482 SA-LEM N9. 2 tredrabin5, 1 . >; r, o� SDCtA4 ct00s bath IST fipor New kitchen "Wit „ {IDES Se43�t+rt ti)=1IEii�Ry �% t?e K(NG5fflNfNewtott• Srg E k -s bjbpj C�#ild, SEii1iI DN. • ON .2°bah arttn�it ave- #Kjt N,. C try setting ' & 2 :Bedroom,_ inc +din$; •$: both'alc. $ilOU�mo: Ut�IMI ZA�1 tAi iY .,Ji Qi3S FJ`wL}„ ui ttenst+6lt*r� 3 bedro0ibn 3'acres 11ver• . hot water app anrel included No peas. lot last 9 r {ESEI t j0ofck>9 p0n ark' $1400. parkin9#750$975.4783731462 603i}4�5A6 St t1(r(3iAC, i toT� Nuit$fh] + . Aitailiti p� {fi�it3SiN N.ii., fiti ,. 1 -�IVa4Etaerite 1a .l0ii�.i993b29` 1 t F cbi RDi tueas carea, #ire of rttt�Hd�aron QN�t #3QA ira�tiRs ih► hoorfER and Ave,, 4.' inm lie e ' fts the i1 EAL bfoadband a' �erriellAable f f .i #ia$h t>e0om ats ��stDve, gas he4� �+ � ire .lepst►►t3tif ri,'"�� 8d[Aoni kvdhi995m11Y,35 i84lt.e ES N t 603642 ' dtspsrfsii,fJ jsrMtl ttt lf�31jr§l� tiEitRYw °jau KEGS%DN f t�iot``" rt i i rri�d: rig itt ances parkut9 a o4iti , r. teotitinfi tr7ater APV r r' iOW?s vailabt8 c ���6p3.43���� £ DERRx ped►4 N t)(1DERitYrW.r 4t>d57 t otr;i R �i agr ire t� Ills# ar�J .�� x_56 ata6ffi437�77J=033374 = F k r li8ohdd n An , MA oq 6 i� ing4P b sk uXURY. 7' ,. O ,3 R-A select of _ Pry 9 '_ jst &, re4tiaet1, raoht i3wa t1DiT1e5 " lite li� iieatincitlded; 91nr itlarriG , i4; the Intel' �' '`i> r�itar �nb,iiOblhai,rr Arvex tt n s+ -ilia we Imill v ,F U i, 9et9 ra16,0+29. 'Y6;,- ilia, bin in4 1� �, IoC to 5KOlt24iazzYprepfn , r ilti l� 'AA 'i �ti € 4�r#tt uririOwl. �qq�� �`t �lai:t_ �' SH'(.. �Qae�e'���!� -PF A cg i" F13\��iF�j`a,R-,"�{� ST �C,'.. IV r[le IYr+nl z c 3E6Kir ES ah the have' to� i1 �shto ..> ;, d t ittitirj s` are ; eG ' idt a of r6 A viii{ room � j.F,> ►�%I EPJ N�.E P[iF.i���REd ; �' �rttGGg�nt 1"411 hiaiistve Ir�rn+"�htvi4aj�si _ ' at►pctRlt sort;.` ct ��ttSTr� � ' perk t._, * _pre ed > the P> cetit;ttt St;rtit#g 5x181 jf $crte#lts a lrotd98ter~;the _ fl.. N3OYr�x floor AREA, tri mi t ap Fttrlphtt RIMAfti�_AiALLEX.' rooms,. waiktnl distance• art�Ztir'' tibrc74l}owiT of#ices 14earAsk for .. . -; a Joe $ dittat Us 6% P art r ale ra�hs R s>;ttr . r ' +y rX Pi 4 r at of �{ �atoff ue+a ? 2 a Q1 tinhe[r t r1er; fHut 'c mgtii WRY.,t - aw mEiadeS-alt e01Y : t Mate Nort#, ATMOv6r t�Aflw ausi»xr o Fu1�Time indW , throt ts' drii€r#nclutlee age jj t SVV>3iti1 tirlephDn2, 3 audit}► 100 nae dunitgt5le httd 97887 �tth:liu�ttt?8. ►_ i (31atkA T . inYol s end statement. tight s am to 2;lX! DEtt{E=b�lroom, pip�@$Srrt9 i�rrier of Atte i rd mise office ;c#i]ties: ideal >;andi, tadd, 9 4 . ' >yastterioryer hcokut�s $1425 rputg.<and Worn itis f s 1st iast recur - refer= +d�itf'VU$t Ue.ilBXible i tAltlliaRt 0pet$ b03672-4528x � rit7iiAiiift8lit ` L 913 famiW ? ' : 1'flsdi©it to Wd"benOf is ctY J 4e�d#ieiK fierdirrood` stn E-N1ad resume#o. f#375.8v�i94. )hnson actable l Deihl Neptune 1rie. 36dwashingto[i Stre@t Haverhill SNA 01831 - l Eir00ttr.t>p11a6ces, treat; I e : MOi� i GA EE'S SAt E ., `r of �aie decx . ttlreet Parkins; no- Phone: 97B 372 f #t t3y virtue of arid in execution Esteban pets' 50978> i-06d3 ax: (176.5214672 critarrted.in a eertatrt rinDrif3age Gar 9ratiotr, i*-rrtail: accoa!tting�nptuneunfforms cam i+ , erex 0 Opd4?1 ane Mdrt9a9e t *dated A1116 21, 2001 artd reWrdedvutth`EsSOX Gbyn � . . ilu sh ` (Northern.UfstnlKt,� Ae ist bf j�ad ,' • jj Town of North Andover Office of the Zoning'Board of Appeals tir Community Development and Services Division • _ 27 Charles Street '� _.. • North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 �cHusE D. Robert Nicetta Telephone (978) 688-9541 Building Commissioner Fax (978) 688-9542 Legal Notice North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals Notice is hereby given that the Board of. Appeals will hold the following public hearings (as continued) in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2002, at the Senior Center, 120R Main Street, North Andover, MA on Tuesday the 15'h, 22nd, and 29h of October at 7:30 pm to all parties interested in the appeal of Valley Realty Development, LLC, d/b/a 342 North Main Street, P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA for the premises located at 2357 Turnpike Street (The Meadows Condominiums), North Andover, MA (Map 108A Lot 17, Map 108C Lots 33,38,39). The application is pursuant to MGL Chap. 40B, Sec. 21 for a Comprehensive Permit. Said premises affected is the property with frontage on the west side of Turnpike Street within the R-2 and I -1 (I -One) zoning districts. Plans are available to review at the office of the Building Department, 27 Charles North Andover, MA Monday through Thursday during the _hours of 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. By order o the Board of Appeals William J. ullivan, Chairman Published in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on September 20 & 27, 2002. N G�> Legal2002-031/1 LJ Board of Appeals 688-9541 Building 688-9545 Conservation 688-9530 Health 688-9540 Plamiing 688-9535 Valley Realty Development, LLC 978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax September 12, 2002 William Sullivan, Chairman North Andover ZBA 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit - Lagrasse comments Dear Mr. Sullivan: We have reviewed the written comments (attached) presented to us by ZBA member Joseph Lagrasse at the September 10' public hearing. His comments on site layout have been referred to the design team for review. I would like to respond to his comments on "items to consider" at the bottom of the page. 1. Provide off-site improvements - as we discussed at the public hearing, the slope of Route 114 will necessitated the installation of a force main for an as yet to be determined distance. The remaining segment of sewer will be gravity, to which lateral connections can be made. 2a. Sewer pumping station - our initial plan called for two pumping stations: one on Route 114 and one in the site interior. Our current plan revision, which we have reviewed with the DPW, calls for the elimination of the pumping station on Route 114. 2b. As we mentioned at the public hearing, it is unlikely that the Massachusetts Highway Department will allow us to open the road to install a sewer to Sharpener's Pond Road; tunneling under the road is prohibitively expensive. However, we have asked our engineer to look at the possibility of providing a dry gravity line from our proposed on-site lift station to the limit of our property which the Town could use to connect to a line on Sharpener's Pond Road. Installation of this line will depend on the ultimate site design and overall project. 3. Density of housing - we disagree that at a density of nearly 17 units per acre is high density. Given the volume and price of condominium sales in Andover and North Andover, we are confident that Meadows is marketable. 4. School Children - at the public hearing we presented statistics on the number of school children anticipated, along with a revised fiscal impact analysis. However, I need to remind you that neither the number of children nor the fiscal impact are criteria that can by used by the ZBA is making its decision or conditioning the permit. SEP 13 2002 BOARD OF APPF.41 c P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA 01810 William Sullivan September 12, 2002 Page 2 5. Engineering details - the plans submitted with the comprehensive permit application meet the requirements of Chapter 40B and its regulations, 760 CMR 31.00; however, we will submit to the ZBA a copy of the plans filed with the Conservation Commission for the Notice of Intent and with MEPA for the ENF. Construction drawings will be presented to the Building Commissioner at the time a building permit is requested. 6. Location of trash receptacles, etc. - if they are not already shown on the plan, these details will be added; recreation space is already shown. 7. Narrative Report, etc. a. the purpose of the project was described in the comprehensive permit application; b. a traffic impact and analysis has been completed and was provided to each ZBA member; C. an NOI was filed with the Conservation Commission; and an ENF (Environmental Notification Form) was filed with MEPA; d. a list of the proposed zoning exceptions (including exceptions to all pertinent local codes, regulations, and bylaws) was also included in the application; and e. exceptions are required where any code, regulation, or bylaw is not consistent with local needs. Sincerely, Valley Realty Development, LLC � vaa��- Karen Pollastrino cc: Joseph Lagrasse, ZBA member Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner Team Members G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp. Permit\Public Hearings\September 10, 2002\zba.ltr P.O. Box 3039, Andover, MA 01810 To: North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals From: Joseph D. LaGrasse, AIA, ZBA Board Member Date: September 9, 2002 RE. Initial Comments for 2357 Turnpike Street Below is a list of important items to consider in a land use plan. Site Layout 1) Location of Buildings. Buildings 1 and 2 are too close to the highly traveled Route 114 roadway. a) Building height above the street grade should not be more than 33% of the distance from the Right of Way (R.O.W.) to the foundation. Bulk considerations are important and can be calculated using a 3:1 ratio. 2) Visuals and Acoustics. Visual and acoustical criteria are important to consider in such a large development. a) Grade berms, trees and landscaping should be included in the plan to act as buffers. 3) Circulation. The distance from Building 1 to the end of the cul-de-sac is too long. Proper planning allows for circular patterns without long dead-end streets. This may also be a safety issue with the North Andover Fire Department. a) If the plan can have two egresses, it should be required. b) Other items related to circulation that should be considered are emergency vehicle access and fire lanes, snow storage, dead end parking areas, the size of the parking spaces, handicap parking, and ADA compliance throughout the project. 4) Character. Four (4) and five (5) story buildings for residential units infringes on the Route 114 and North Andover height limitations. Such heights for buildings urbanize the project. This is NOT an urban area a) The need to keep three (3) story building heights is important to preserve the character of North Andover, remain consistent with construction concepts throughout the town, maintain public safety, . and better suit the project to the immediate neighborhood and surroundings. Below is a list of important items to consider in a Comprehensive Permit (Chapter 40B) project. 1) Provide off-site improvements, for example, sewer laterals enabling abutters the ability to connect to sewer. 2) Consider proactive future planning. a) Relocation of the sewer pumping station. b) Lay the groundwork and utilities across Route 114 to Sharpners Pond Road. 3) Explain the proposed demographics of the project and the market for such dense housing. 4) Provide statistics, such as the number of school children generated by the project. 5) Detail the grades and slopes of the driveways and sidewalks. Provide the ZBA with elevations and renderings. 6) Detail the location of trash receptacles, mail stations, UPS and delivery trucks, active and passive recreation. Require that active and passive recreation space is provided. 7) Submit a narrative report that shall include the following: a) An outline of the purpose of the project b) The on-site and off-site impacts of the project, including traffic, drainage, noise, and other environmental factors as prepared by qualified experts. c) A list of proposed zoning deviations from the requirements set forth in the North Andover Zoning By- law. d) A statement as to why compliance with the existing zoning requirement for which this project deviates is sought by Chapter 40B. E C � � Y 10 SEP 9 - 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS Town of North Andover NORTH Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals o? Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 9SSACHuS D. Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner km (M FAX TRANSMISSION FAX NUMBER: 1716' � y FROM: Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 FAX: 978-688.9542 PHONE: 978-688-9541 DATE: SUBJECT: a- Da- Ireyort Ai -,V NUMBER OF PAGES: � Telephone (978) 688-9541 Fax(978)688-9542 REMARKS: `�� ; TS r� rh D�e p � J bl e, C,©LI I d �,O,� 616 - i. {� t?. 2 rajh 2e c 1 �--p � C�Y✓D � V1 � � h OtIl Board of Appeals 688-9541 Building 688-9545 Conservation 688-9530 Health 688-9540 Planning 688-9535 DJK Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning 280 Main Street, Suite 204 North Reading, MA 01864-1300 Office: 978-664-2205 Fax: 978-664-2444 REF: 571 August 30, 2002 North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Expanded Environmental Notification Form The Meadows Route 114, North Andover, MA Dear Sir/Madam: As required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, we have enclosed one copy of the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the proposed residential development project, The Meadows, to be located along Route 114 in North Andover, MA. Upon your review of the enclosed ENF and Traffic Impact and Access Study, Wetland and Drainage Analysis, and Wastewater Analysis, please do not hesitate to contact me with questions, comments and/or you require any additional information. Sincerely, DJK ASSOCIATES, INC. Dermot J. Kelly, PE, PT President Enclosures DJK/hpt cc: Project Team 571-UOTdoc S k P 4 ` 2002 U BOARD OF APPEALS r Town of North Andover A0RT#j Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals ti Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 'SSACHU D. Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner TO: FAX TRANSMISSION FAX NUMBER: 6)7-,M- 07,32 FROM: Town of North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 FAX: 978-688-9542 PHONE: 978-688-9541 DATE: °I, 9 - 0 ;. Telephone (978) 688-9541 Fax(978)688-9542 SUBJECT: 0 `, -2- 71' 30 m P g4l'l cj NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 REMARKS: Board of Appeals 688-9541 Building 688-9545 Conservation 688-9530 Health 688-9540 Planning 688-9535 4k D - HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/Fax/Copier Last Fax Identification 816173380737 1.2.0 ae Result Pages Tvne OK 03 Sent Fax Log Report Sep -09-02 01:58 PM Date Time Duration Diagnostic Sep -09 01:46P 00:00:54 002582030022 Glennon, Michel From: ANTIGEN_MCGREGOR-NT 1 [ANTIGEN_MCGREGOR-NT 1 @McGregorLaw.com] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:45 PM To:'mglennon@townofnorthandover.com' Subject: Antigen found=*.htm* file Antigen for Exchange found header.htm matching=*.htm* file filter. The file is currently Removed. The message, "9-10-02 7:30 mtg. - Lindau - 1070 Salem St. has withdrawn, so it's possible "Meadows" is #2 if disclaimer on p.2 isn't used.", was sent from Michel Glennon and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inbound located at McGregor and Associates/MCGREGOR/MCGREGOR-NT1.