HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaiver - 880 GREAT POND ROAD 6/16/2009 TOWN"°.R." .14. 1 OWN 1, ,
°<<1` : o Town of North Andover R �S OFFICE
b..:�� ` OL
;T' p Office of the Planning Departmen1309 JUN 19 PM 3: 38
�.
3° Community Development and Services Division
°""'• 1600 Osgood Street
OWN OF
SSAci4use` NORTH ANDOVER
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 MASSACHUSETTS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Watershed Special Permit- Waiver
Date of Decision: June 16, 2009
Application of: NA Great Pond Limited Partnership
55 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02205
Premises Affected: 880 Great Pond Road, North Andover, MA 01845, Map 103, Parcel
111,within the R-1 zoning district.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2009, the applicant requested a waiver of the Watershed Protection District Special
Permit, in accordance with the North Andover Zoning Bylaw section 4.136.8, so as to allow the
construction of a 3,693 sq. ft. single family residence on a lot that had been previously approved
for a 8, 171 sq. ft. single family residence. The revised plan includes not only a smaller dwelling
unit footprint, it also includes some changes to the stormwater management system, as outlined
below under "Findings of Fact". The project was granted a Watershed Special Permit from the
Planning Board on June 4, 2008 to allow construction within the 100 ft. Non-Disturbance and
325 Non-Discharge Buffer Zone of the Watershed Protection District.
DECISION
After a Planning Board meeting on the above date, and upon a motion by T. Seibert and 2"d by
M. Walsh, a vote was taken with regard to a waiver of the Watershed Special Permit. The vote
was unanimous in favor of the waiver.
FINDING OF FACT
The Planning Board has made its decision based on the following findings:
• The new residence will have a footprint that will be 16% smaller than the original
approved residence. The footprint of the prior proposed dwelling was 4,420 as opposed
to the new proposal which is 3,693.
• All stormwater management structures that were approved with the original decision,
with the exception of a catch basin, will remain as part of the plan. The catch basin was
replaced by a crushed stone trench, that will provide greater infiltration capacity.
• A new landscaping plan will include more plantings than were provided in the original
plan.
• The plan has been approved by the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission.
CONDITIONS
The applicant has agreed to have the Town Planner perform a minimum of two inspections of the
site during the construction process.
Proper erosion control will be constructed and will remain throughout the project.
N• h Andover Planni Board
John Simons, Chairman
Courtney LaVolpicelo
Tim Seibert
Michael Walsh
2
1 _
�•
RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO
ATTORNEY AT LAW
89 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845
(978) 686-4041
FAX (978) 794-2088
attyrvivenzio @hotmail.com
February 25, 2008
Albert P. Manzi, III, Esq., Chairman
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: 880 Great Pond Road
REQUEST TO MODIFY/CLARIFY DECISION
Dear Chairman Manzi:
As you may recall, I represented NA Great Pond Limited Partnership in
obtaining a variance from your board for construction of a new residence in the Watershed
Protection District at the above address. A copy of the board's decision is attached hereto,
The variance requested and granted was pursuant to the provisions of Section
4.136.3 c. ii. 3, which states that a new permanent structure shall be an allowed use within the
Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone by Special Permit, "after a variance has been granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals."
The denial letter of the Building inspector in this case clearly states that a
variance from 4.i36.3 c. ii. 3 is required from the ZBA to construct a new permanent
structure in the Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone. See copy attached and portion highlighted in
yellow.
The applicant's petition clearly references the same section of the bylaw, and
the Memorandum attached to the petition states that"virtually the entire lot is within the
Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone and the ... residence is within the 100' buffer zone from the
wetland resource area." See copy attached and portion highlighted in yellow.
The legal notice clearly states that the petition requests " dimensional
variance from the Watershed Protection District's Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone...
Paragraph 4.136.3 c. ii. 3 for relief from the setback requirement..." See copy attached.
I)'
F
Lb 2 7 aUUo
BOARD OF APPEALS
RAYMOND A. VIVENZIO
Albert P. Manzi, III, Esq., Chairman February 25, 2008
The board's decision specifically provides that the variance granted is for a
"dimensional variance from the Watershed District's Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone..
paragraph 4.136.3 c. ii. 3..."
While the actual number"two hundred fifty(250)" is not specifically stated
in the documents described above,the definition of Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone in
paragraph 4.136.2.b. iii. precisely describes the zone as being"two hundred fifty(250) feet
horizontally from the annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochichewick..."
Also, and most compelling,the beginning paragraph of the section under
which the variance was granted repeats exactly the definition of Non-Disturbance Buffer
Zone including all numerical dimensions of the zone.
It is my client's position that is it not necessary for the ZBA's decision to
specifically reference the numeral 250, where the verbal definition in the bylaw clearly
defines the parameters of the subject zone. Also, the plans showing the precise location of the
proposed home, which is entirely within the Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone,make it
unequivocally clear that a variance was granted from the 250' Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone,
and that it was the intention of the Board of Appeals to grant such variance.
I believe that a variance from the dimensional requirements of the Non-
Disturbance Buffer Zone does not specifically need to have a number attached to it,where
the requirements of the zone are clearly referenced, and the plan of proposed construction
clearly referenced.
However,the Planning Board, I am informed, is of the opinion that the
variance from the 250' buffer zone must be explicitly stated. Consequently, I would request
that your board's prior decision be modified to specifically state that a"variance is also
granted from the two hundred fifty(250') foot horizontal dimension of the Non-Disturbance
Buffer Zone from the annual mean high water mark of Lake Cochichewick."
Thank you for your anticipated attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Raymond A. Vivenzio
RAV/mw
cc: Mr. Robert Ercolini
Mr. William McLeod