HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-19 Correspondence COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Conservation Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Bellavance
FROM: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: Town Counsel Consultation Request
DATE: March 22, 2012
The Planning Board began the public hearing process for a Site Plan Review application for a
parcel located at the rear of 24-26 Main St. and 28-30 Main. St. The applicant, JEFFCO, has
applied for a Site Plan Review Special Permit under Section 18 of the NAZB, Downtown
Overlay District. The parcel is 24,226 sq. ft. and is located at the rear of 22-24 and 28-30 Main
St. The applicant is proposing an 8-unit multi-family residential building, with a footprint of 4,
352 sq. ft. and a total GFA of 13,056 sq. ft. Both a first floor parking space as well as an outside
parking space is included for each unit. The parcel is located in the Industrial-S zone and is also
part of the Downtown Overlay District.
The owners of the parcel applied for and received the following zoning variances on 2/13/09 for
construction of a commercial storage building:
• Variance for relief of lot area (50,000 sq. ft. required)
• Variance for frontage (150 ft. required)
• Variance for left side setback (20 ft. required)
• Variance for Floor Area Ratio (.50:1 required)
• The owner also received a modification of that ZBA Decision on 2/14/12 to allow a
change of use to Residential from Industrial use.
Site Access:
The site would be accessed by entering the driveway between the existing buildings at 28-30
Sutton St. and 22-24 Sutton St. There is an easement in the deed allowing access to this parcel
using this driveway.
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978,688.9531 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthandover.com
Upon review by Hancock Associates, it was noted that the parcel does not have access across
street frontage, as required by the Zoning Bylaw section 7.2.1. This section allows for
exceptions with a Special Permit from the Planning Board.
The Building Inspector's letter states that access to street frontage was addressed by the variance
granted by the ZBA for 150 ft. of frontage. The letter also states that the Bylaw's requirement
for access across street frontage does not apply to this lot due to the fact that the parcel is not in a
residential zone and the fact that the parcel has access easements granted by deed from abutting
parcels.
The Planning Board requests town counsel's advice regarding the following issues:
Section 7.2 Street Frontage
This section states that"In no case shall actual street frontage at the street line be less than
seventy-five (75) feet; except as allowed by Section 7.2.2". This section, Frontage Exception,
requires that exception for meeting frontage requirements be granted upon approval of a Special
Permit issued by the Planning Board.
Q: Given that the ZBA granted a variance for all of the required frontage (150 ft.) does
this requirement for a Special Permit still apply?
Section 7.2.1 Access across street frontage.
This section states that" Access across street frontage, except for corner lots, must be provided
across street frontage." It also states that"A street frontage access Special Permit may be
granted for a lot in a residential district". The SPGA is the Planning Board.
Q: Does the Planning Board have the authority to request a Special Permit application
from the applicant under this section?
Access to residential lots through commercially developed lots:
The applicant is proposing to build a residential structure and is providing access to the lot
through two commercial lots.
Q: Does the NAZB require that access to residential lots shall not be granted across the
frontage of a commercially developed lot?
The following documents are attached:
• ZBA decision, ZBA extension and ZBA Modification
• Deed (containing use restrictions and access easements affecting all three lots)
• ANR(referred to in the deed)
• Letter from Building Inspector
• Site Plan with proposed development, submitted with Site Plan Review Application
• Peer Review from Hancock Associates
Let me know if you have any questions.
Judy
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthandover.com
To:Judy Tymon,Town Planner
CC:Curt Bellavance
From:Gerald Brown, Inspector of Buildings
Date:March 5,2012
RE:Site Plan Review Application for 24-26 Main Street and Hancock Review 26 Main Street
In response to your email of February 23,2012, please find my response.
#2 Petition Number 2009-014,dated February 14,2012,"Request for Modification of Prior
Decision". In response,based on the planning meetings with you,myself,Jen from NACC,Curt,
Jeffco Inc.,and the applicants, Rear Lot,LLC filed a request for Modification of prior decision and
approved plan of a storage building in the IS Zone,(existing zoning district)with the Zoning Board of
Appeals. On February 14,2012 The Zoning Board of Appeals at a regular meeting unanimously
granted petitioners request for Modification of prior decision and approved plan to allow the new
residential use and revised plan for Town Houses as Its use Is allowed by right pursuant to the
Downtown Overlay District per Section 18 of the zoning bylaw. The ZBA Modified and approved the
revised plan flied by Andover Consultants,Inc.dated January 19,2012.
#3 Section 7.2.1 has not been addressed. In response I do not agree. I do not find a special permit Is
required by the Planning Board for access other than street frontage. The ZBA granted variances
Including street frontage(150')pursuant to the original approved decision and plan,petition#2008-
014. The original decision has not lapsed and the ZBA unanimously modified and approved the
revised plan filed by Andover Consultants, Inc.dated January 19,2012 as set forth in response#2
which includes the variance of 150'of street frontage. Additionally,the existing zoning is IS not
residential,therefore Residential District regulations do not apply to the IS zone, The subject
property has a preexisting use with respect to access,egress,and parking without the new project
going forward and has recorded easements.
Let me also add with respect to section 18.6 of the Downtown Overlay District bylaw,and given the
pre-existing and grandfathered use of the property with respect to access,egress,and parking,the
adjacent uses,and no new proposed curb cut, I find the Approved Modified Use and Plan by the ZBA
will have no detrimental impact on access,egress,and parking;and or no detrimental impact on the
neighbor or Its visual character,views,and vistas.The proposed project Is a significant improvement
to the property and neighborhood given the preexisting use, underlying zoning,and it fits with
adjacent properties.
#4 Determination of Setbacks. In response,section 18.5.3 authorizes the Building Inspector to allow
a calculation of front,side,and rear setbacks standards for new or pre-existing structures in
conformity with 18.5.3.Section 18.5.3a also states in part:
Front,side,and rear building setbacks shall be calculated as follows:The maximum front
and street-side building setback may not exceed the average front yard depth of the nearest
two(2)lots on both sides of the subject lot or(10)feet,whichever is less.
As previously stated above,On February 14,2012 The Zoning Board of Appeals at a regular meet;,,
g unanimously granted petitioners request for Modification of prior Decision and Approved PI?'
allow the new Residential Use and revised plan for Town Houses as its use is allowed by,-'
pursuant to the Downtown Overlay District per Section 18 of the zoning bylaw. Therefore,based
on the forgoing and pursuant to section 18,5.3 of the zoning bylaw,I find the modified and
approved revised plan filed by Andover Consultants,Inc.dated January 19, 2012 meets criteria of
section 18.5.3 as the ZBA already approved it,and the distance Is as allowed by section 18.5.3.
In closing,the Planning Board under site plan review special process is the remaining permitting
authority for the petition. I encourage the planning Board to approve the project as it meets the
spirit and Intent of section 18 of the zoning bylaw as an overlay district by right project and fits with
the neighborhood and surrounding uses,
i
i
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building (onservation Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: New Items for March 20, 2012 Planning Board Meeting
DATE: March 12, 2012
The following applications will be starting their public hearings at the March 20 2012 meeting:
24-26 Main St. Site Plan Review
Project Summary:
The applicant, JEFFCO, has applied for a Site Plan Review Special Permit under Section 18 of
the NAZB, Downtown Overlay District, The parcel is 24,226 sq. ft. and is located at the rear of
22-24 and 28-30 Main St. The applicant is proposing an 8-unit multi-fatnily residential building,
with a footprint of 4, 352 sq. ft. and a total GFA of 13,056 sq. ft. Both a first floor parking space
as well as an outside parking space is included for each unit. Stormwater would be directed to a
500 gallon subsurface drywell. Lisa Eggleston has reviewed the project and has provided
I in he Industrial-S zon
e and is also pa
rt of the Downtown
comments. The parcel is located t p
Overlay District.
The owners of the parcel applied for and received the following zoning variances on 2/13/09 for
construction of a commercial storage building:
• Variance for relief of lot area (50,000 sq. ft. required)
• Variance for frontage (150 ft. required)
• Variance for left side setback(20 ft. required)
• Variance for Floor Area Ratio (.50:1 required)
• The owner also received a modification of that ZBA Decision on 2/14/12 to allow a
change of use to Residential from Industrial use.
A traffic report was submitted by the applicant, authored by Dermot Kelly. The study estimates
4 v h during weekday morning peak
that the 8 condominiums would 46 vehicle trips perday, p F, Y €,p
hours and 4 vpd during weekday evening peak hours.
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthandover.com
Site Access:
The site would be accessed by entering the driveway between the existing buildings at 28-30
Sutton St. and 22-24 Sutton St. There is an easement in the deed allowing access to this parcel
using this driveway.
Upon review by Hancock Associates, it was noted that the parcel does not have access across
street frontage, as required by the Zoning Bylaw section 7.2.1. This section allows for
exceptions with a Special Permit from the Planning Board.
The Building Inspector's letter states that access to street frontage was addressed by the variance
granted by the ZBA for 150 ft. of frontage. The letter also states that the Bylaw's requirement
for access across street frontage does not apply to this lot due to the fact that the parcel is not in a
residential zone and the fact that the parcel has access easements granted by deed from abutting
parcels.
Town Counsel has advised the Planning Board to take into account the following information
regarding the access and frontage. The reference is from the ANR Handbook provided by
DHCD (Department of Housing and Community Development), which states that"A zoning
variance from the ZBA varying the lot frontage requirement is necessary in order that the lot may
be built upon for zoning purposes. It is also necessary that the lot owner obtain a frontage
waiver from the Planning Board for the purposes of the Subdivision Control Law."
350 Great Pond Road—Watershed Special Permit
Summary:
The applicant had applied to the Planning Board for a Watershed Special Permit in July 2011.
The public hearing began on July 19 and during the course of the presentation, the Board
recommended that the applicant apply for a variance from the ZBA under section 4.136.3.c.3,
which requires a variance for construction of a new permanent structure.
The applicant applied to the ZBA for a variance and that application was denied on November 8,
2011. The applicant subsequently withdrew their Watershed Special Permit application.
The current application proposed a slightly different building footprint that does utilize more of
the existing foundation. The applicant has provided a letter from a structural engineer that states
that the "existing foundation walls and footings are capable of supporting the proposed
renovations..."The size of the proposed structure is the same as in the prior application, The
Building Inspector has determined that, due to the fact that the proposed structure will utilize a
portion of the foundation, the proposed structure is not considered to be a new structure. The
garage will be demolished and a new garage will be part of the new structure.
The applicant has incorporated comments made by Lisa Eggleston for the last application. The
lower end of the driveway will consist of porous pavement and the roof runoff will be infiltrated.
70 Elm St.
Summary
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.towoofnorthandover.com
Metro PCS is applying for a renewal of their existing installation located at 70 Elm St. in the
Trinitarian Church. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the current installation. They
have included the following in their application:
• Noise Study
• RF Compliance Report
• Copy of Lease
• Structural letter
• Copy of recorded Site Plan Review Decision
The RIF Compliance Report has been sent to Mark Hutchins for review.
358 Dale St.
Summary:
The application is for a Watershed Special Permit for the construction of a new dwelling unit on
a vacant lot containing 1.48 acres in the Non-Discharge Zone. The lot was in existence prior to
January 9, 1957 and according to the documentation provided by the applicant, the lot is subject
to the setback, lot area and frontage requirements as described in section 7.8.1, for grandfathered
lots.
The application describes an underground roof stormwater collection system, a crushed stone
perimeter drain and a pervious pavement driveway and walkway. The applicant has filed an NOI
with the Conservation Commission for the clearing and grading that will be done within the 100
ft. buffer to the wetlands on the eastern edge of the property. The parcel contains endangered
species and is thus subject to MESA review(Massachusetts Endangered Specie Act).
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fox 978.688.9542 Web www.towoofnorthandover.com
March 19, 2012
North Andover Planning Board
Town Offices
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
North Andover Conservation Commission
Town Offices
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Site Plan Special Permit/Notice of Intent
26 Main Street
Applicant: Jeffco,Inc.
Dear Board and Commission Members:
We are in receipt of a peer review made by your consultant, Eggleston Environmental, in a letter to
the Board and Commission dated March 8, 2012, for the project captioned above. We have
summarized out,responses to these comments below:
Continent 2. The proposer/thytvell is sized to infrltrate only the recharge volume(0.35 in)front
half of the building roof, or 20 percent of the post-development impervious area. There is
nothing in lire Storrrrrvrder'Report documenting wiry the project cannot comply fully with the
recharge rerlrrir•ernerrt of Strurrlar tl 3, e.g. by infrltrating the entire recharge volrurre for the post-
developrnent site, as is warranted under the "maximum extent practicable"rerluirenrent for.a
redevelopment project.
Response: The project is a five - nine unit or less condominium project and as such is subject to the
stormwater management standards to the maximum extent practicable. The project is also a
redevelopment project as it is proposed on a parcel previously developed with buildings and
pavement. Importantly, as a redevelopment project, the post developed impervious area is less than
the pre developed condition and there is no loss of recharge, or more importantly, the post
developed recharge rate is comparable to the pre-developed recharge rate.
Since the dr vell is not required, the dt well has been removed minimizing excavation in the buffer
B N q dry
well
The rear of the roof will discharge to the ground surface, thus disconnecting the roof in
compliance with low impact development practice.
3. The TSS removal calculations are based on 77pereent TSS removal by the proposer/
,S'torinceptor unit. As is indicated in the supporting docamentation srrbrnitted, the Stoiwiceptor
rrrrits a-
te currently certified by the NJCAT(New Jersey Corporation forAdvanced Tech itolog})
3
26 Main Street page t of 4
6
through the TARP(Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership) Tier I program for a
TSS re►rrovrrl rate of SO pe►•ce►rt, itot 77 percent, The proposed treatment train, consisting of a
deep sump catchhasin followed by the Stormeeptor, therefore does not meet the 80 percent TSS
removal requirement of Standard 4.
Response: The project is not in New Jersey. Note the following excerpted fi•om the Introduction
of the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) Protocol for Stormwater Best
Management Practice Demonstrations, Section 1.2 Purpose: "Tire requirements for a stormwater
BMP demonstration are minimized in the Protocol to a common set of uniform criteria,
acceptable to all participating states.However, specific state requirements must be considered
when a technology proponent is pursuing certification or verification of a stormwater BMP in
that state; specific requirements for the endorsing states are described in, but are not limited
by, Appendix D. In addition, the Protocol does not completely eliminate all state review or
approval of projects proposing to use the stormwater technology, nor does it require any state
to"rubber stamp" the approval or permit of another state or regulator."
This site was designed using the Massachusetts STEP fact sheet (fact sheet #4),which was attached
to the report, designating a removal rate of 77% for tributary impervious areas less than 0.45 acres
to an STC 900 unit (the site tributary area, including off site impervious areas is 0.39 acres). At one
point, circa November 2010, the MADEP also required a calculation of WQ flow rate for
proprietary products such as a Storinceptor. The bypass rate for the STC 900 is 0.64 efs, the site
WQF using the DEP guidance is 0.5 efs. . This calculation was also included in the report. Since
the WQF is less than the bypass rate of 0.64 efs for the unit as well as the fact that the impervious
tributary area of 0.39 acres is less than the 0.45 acres of impervious area contained in the
Massachusetts issued STEP fact sheet, we chose the 77%removal rate cited in the fact sheet as the
removal rate for the unit. In addition, the vendor's PCSWMM model also indicates that the STC
900 is adequate.
i
As noted in the attached TARP Tier I comparison results, the verified removal rate is 75%. Using
this verified removal rate of 75% still results in 80% removal ofTSS. It is important to note that in
its file number review, the Massachusetts DEP did not mention that the Stormceptor unit is credited
for only 50% and, in fact, had no comments at all.
i
4. It is not clear where the roof drainage from the front of the building will go, although it
3 appears this f7ory was included in the area tr•ibulmy to the Storvnceptor unit. To the maximum
extent possible, roof downspouts should be directed away front impervious areas to enhance
infiltration of the clean roof runoff and minimize the flow across the pavement
Reese: The fiont of the building will not have gutters or downspouts so the roof area tributary to
a the proposed catch basin and Stormeeptor was included in the calculations. The rear of the roof will
discharge onto pervious surfaces in keeping with the comment.
5. Based on the log for Test Pit TP-1, at the proposed(hy)vell location, the entire to foot
excavation was in fill,possibly associated with the old railroad bridge abutment. Evidence of
trash disposal and layers of ash were also noted.Not only is this material unsuitable for
infiltration, but it may suggest the need for further investigation of the site for•potential
Hazardous wastes Test Pit TP-2 had significantly less fill and rimy be a more suitable location for
infiltration. I note that while three test pits are drown on the plan, lire log for Test Pit TP-3 was
not included in the Storrnwater Report.
Response: The test pit was in an area that was used for burning household trash which was the
7.
26 Main Street page 2 of 4
custom back in the day. There was no evidence of hazardous waste in the pit nor was there any
encountered in the other 2 test pits. Test pit 3 must have been omitted in the copy, as the original
does have it. A copy of test pit 3 data is attached.
6. Tire proposed thy well location is also only about 12 ft fi oi►r a steep entba►tkment. For most
subsrnface infiltration struclures, the DEP Handbook calls for a minintuin setback of 50 fi froin
slopes greater than 15 percent to prevent breakout of the infr"ltrated flow. While 50 ft may be
more than is needed for a si►tall shallow drywell,I believe that 12 ft is inadequate.
Response: The drywell has been removed.
7. It is not clear front the design detail whether the drywell cover is to be solid oi-grated. If grated,
I recommend a beehive grate to prevent clogging.
Response: The dry-well has been removed.
8. The design detail for the level spreader indicates that the upgradient area is to be grassed. The
flared end section should be sized in accordance with the projected discharge velocities onto the
turf, and a design detail provided on the plan.
ResPonse: The discharge velocities for the 15-inch pipe are: 1-year V=1.54 fps, 2-year V=1.91 fps,
l0-year V�2.74 fps and the 100-year isV=3.40 fps. These velocities are less than 4 fps for grass.
However. the turf in the level spreader has been reinforced with an HDPE anchored cell to enhance
resistance to outlet velocity. A detail has been added to the plans, as suggested.
9. I have the following comments oil the O&MPlan:
3 The plan should htcliirle a scherlrrle aixd log form listing the long-terns rrt(tittteltanee tasks,
and should be a stain!-alone document separate from file Construction Period
O&MISedintenf Control Plait. Ifrnd it useful to include a simple sketch plant showing the
locations of the BMPs to be maintainer!.
6
Response: A simple sketch of the BMP locations has been added, as suggested.
• Rent #3 in the O&M Plait should be re-worded to say that the catchbasins should be
f
cleaned when the sediment level is withiir two feet of the outlet pipe; this is easier to
►treasure than the depth of sediment accumulated,
Response: The wording has been revised, as suggested.
• The Stor►nceplor unit should also be cleaned a irtbri►utin of once per year; with a vacuum
truck.
Response: The Stormceptor unit requires that it be cleaned when 8'of sediment has
accumulated. The rate of accumulation is a fitnction of the specific site and will determine the
removal time. The maintenance schedule as obtained fi•om the manufacturer is cited below:
• The unit should be inspected post construction and prior to being placed in service for
proper placement and for any damage.
• Inspect the unit every six months during the first year of operation to determine the oil and
sediment accumulation rate.
• In subsequent years, inspections can be based on first year observations, or at least once per
year.
26 Main Street page 3 of 4
• Cleaning of the unit is required once the sediment depth reaches 15%of the unit's storage
capacity(generally flakes one year or longer). For the Stormceptor STC 900, the depth of
sediment at 15% capacity is 8 inches.
• Inspect the unit immediately after any oil, fuel or chemical spill.
The unit is cleaned using a standard catch basin vacuum truck and usually takes less than two
hours. A licensed waste management company should remove the contents particularly when
waste products consist of oil, fuel and/or chemical spills.
• Periodic inspection of lire dtytvell and the outlet sump and level spreader should be
included in the O&Mplan.
Response: The drywell has been removed. Inspection of the level spreader was included in the
O &M plan. Note 5 has been expanded to require repair and sediment removal, as required.
10. The Long-Terns O&MP/an indicates that snow will be plowed to jrlst off file edge of
pavement. Based on lire site configuration, it appears that much of the snow would get plowed off
the eastern end of the parking area, within the wetland buffet'zone and down gradient of the
treatment processes. Snow storage in this ar-ea shorrlrl be specifically pi-ohibited, and alternative
locations on the site designated.
Response; The end of the drive is well over 50 feet from the wetland. There is also ample room for
snow storage on the southerly side of the drive. Available snow storage area along the drive has
been depicted on the plan.
Should you have any questions concerning this correspondence, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
ANDOVER CONSULTANTS,INC.
James S. Fairweather II, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures
cc
Eggleston Environmental
MADEP-NERD
Jeffco, Inc.
26 Maid Street page 4 of 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Conservation. Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Curt Bellavance,Director ;/D
RE: Rear Lot LLC, 24 Main Street
DATE: March 20, 2012
Approximately two years ago Town Meeting approved an overlay district for the downtown area.
The overlay covers an area that centers on Main Street and most of downtown. The purpose of
this district is to allow a variety of uses within a mix of different zoning districts made up of
I
commercial, residential, and industrial.
The overlay allows residential uses within the industrial district and commercial activities within
the residential district. The purpose is to promote design guidelines and to allow best uses within
the downtown.
Our office supports using industrial property for commercial and/or residential use as we feel it
! is better suited for-property in the downtown area. We have been working with the property
9 owner and developers on preparing a multi-family use on the property located at the rear of 24
g Main Street. Our office highly recommends the use of the property for residential rather than the
permitted use of a public storage facility as we feel it is a better use for the downtown.
I
o-
6
3.
P
1.
j.
fl
u
1
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 918.688.9531 Fox 978.688.9542 Web imw.townofoorthand over.com
~
'
Enright, Jean
From: Tymon, Judy
Sent Moroh23 20122:02PM
To: Enright,
Subject: RE: Questions from the Planning Board regarding o Site Plan Review Application
/
thanks so much Jean - I will let Tom know of those errors. Hopefully I will he able to
repVnd to him after he sends an email to me,
Judy
From: Enright* Jean
Sent: Friday/ March 29/ 2012 2:00 PM
To: Tymon, Judy
Subject: RE: Questions from the Planning Board regarding a Site Plan Review Application
Judy,
I printed this out to put in the file and I noticed a couple of things on your letter--- In
the first paragraph you located the parcel as being to the rear of 24-26 Main Street and 28-
30 Main Street. It is actually 22'24 Main Street and 28-30. The new parcel is being called
26 Main St.
In the last paragraph on pg 1 you refer to the existing buildings as being on Sutton Street
(not Main St) .
I had already sent it to Tom before Z read the letter.
Jean
/
-----OrlAinal Message-----
From: Tymon` Judy
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:22 9M
To: Enright, Jean
Subject: FW: Questions from the Planning Board regarding a Site Plan Review Application
Jean,
Can you try sending this to Tom UrheIis} I am getting an error message every time I try to
email anything to him. Let me know if it goes through. Thanks.
Judy
From: Tymon/ Judy
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 12:45 PM
To:
Cc: 8ellavance^ Curt
Subject: Questions from the Planning Board regarding a Site Plan Review Application
Tom,
The Planning Board would like to hear from you regarding the attached list of questions
regarding an application for Site Plan Review for development of a parcel at the rear of 24
Main St.
Z have attached all of the documents mentioned in the letter except for the &NR. Let me know
if you have any questions or if you need more information.
The next Planning Board hearing for this project is April 3,
Thanks,
1
Judy
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to
and from municipal offices and officials are public records. For more information please
refer to: fit -Ll c a seq. �wS--RI ua. . .pw . dx.h o ,
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
z
.
1�.nrighhit, Jean
From: Tymon, Judy
Sent Tuesday, March 27. 2U122:37PM
To: 'Thomas J. Urbeis'; YCavn| McGravoy
Co: Enright, Jean
�u��� Additional Documents
Attachments: Hancock Reo|y03-1012 d� Lega| NoUoe28yNg\nS�eat8 (�ondVUn�.docx; 12O31OPB
S d ' 6PR Application.odf; 120312 Site Plan 2of4.pd[ ZBAN4inubas.pdf; O5O7O7
�
Tom, Carol,
I have enclosed additional documents for the 26 Main St. application, including:
The |o8a| ad
The application form
My summary Vf the project forthePB
The latest site plan
The July 200SANRplan
The reply from the applicant 1oHancncKsletter
Zoning Board meeting minutes(we don't have the minutes for all of the meetings. And the Current zoning administrator
—who was not here for all of the meetings—did state that the minutes for the meeting when the extension was granted
do correctly record that Joe LaGrasse voted against the extension)
Let nne know|f you need anything else.
Judith K8,Tymnon
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
120 Main Street
North Andover,Kxx 01845
Phone 978.688.9536
Fax 978.684.9542
Email
Web
Please note the MaSSaGhUSOUS Secretary of state's office has determined that most emails to and frorn mUnicipal offices and officials are pUbliC records.FOr 11101-e
p|euso consider the environment before p.muou this omoi/,
. 1
March 19, 2012
North Andover Planning Board
Town Offices
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
j RE: Site Plan Special Permit
a 26 Main Street
o-
North Andover,MA
Members of the Board:
f We are in receipt of a peer review made by your consultant, Hancock Associates, in a letter to the
Board dated February 23, 2012, for the project captioned above. We have summarized our
responses to these comments below:
Co►tunent 1. The applicant has not provided any tletails o►r proposed sig►ts for•the project. Any
sign must be in cnnfo►•Ilta►lee ►vith Zoning Section d Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations.
Response: No signs for the project are proposed.
e.
Comment 2. Zoning Section 7.2 and Table 2 require 50,000 square feet of lot area and 150 feet
of frontage in all Irndrrsh ial S zone. Rear Lot LLC received variances front the Zoning Born rl of
Appeals oil Febrrtary 10, 2009 for both these items. A Variance runs Wilt the lam and
therefore could be utilizer)by the current applicant. However; Hancock is not in receipt of run
extension to lire variance. U�trler the Massachusetts Perr?tit Extension Act lire variance ivas
extender)far two years from the expiration of the varirurce. The original expir arliorr was
Febr rrrrt}j 17, 2010 with extension to Febrrary 17, 2012. Notwithstanding this fact, the vrrrirr►ace
s1►ecifrcrrlly refers to a plan dated November 25, 2008 all revised through Januaq 8, 2009.
Tlris plan trailer)fol the construction of a self4torrrge facility. Hancock believes given the
specific reference to a plan, the Applicant is regttirerl to mortify lire prior decision of the Zoning
Board for•ilne cru•rent project. The Board shoal()seek input fr•o►lr Town Counsel to verify the
validity of the variance to lire current project.
Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 14, 2012 meeting
to address all issues related to zoning.
Comment 3.Zoning Section 7.2.1 regrtires street access across the frontage. This property does
not have frontage on a street. This Zoning section was oat specij:<cally varier)in the 2009
Zoning Borrrd decision. Tire Applicant shoal address this Ime.
Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 14, 2012 meeting
to address all issues related to zoning.
26 Main Street page 1 of 5
Continent 4.Zoning Section 7.3 requires a side setback of 20 feet. The Zoning Boarrl of
Appeals granted a varirurce from this requirement to 6.2 feet oil February 17, 2009 (see
discussion above). Not►vithstaneling the variance, the Planning Boarrl now has power to waive
side setback requirements under Section 18 of the Zorrirrg Bylaws. The Board should determine
if this new process takes precedence over a grant or request for grant of varirurce from the ZBA.
The Applicant should provide information to support such a waiver.
Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 14, 2012 ineeting
to address all issues related to zoning
Comrrrerrt 5. Zoning Section 7.6 requires a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. The Zoning Board
of Appeals granted a variance from this requirement on February 17, 2009 (see rliscussiorr
above). The current application does not state the proposed floor area ratio. The proposal
appears to e-xceerl 0.50.
Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 14, 2012 meeting
to address all issues related to zoning.
Commrent 6. The applicant slroulrl dimension the proposed parking sImees to demonstrate
Compliance with Section 8.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Response: The driveways have been dimensioned as suggested.
I
Comment 7. The applicant slroulrl demonstrate compliance with Section 8.5.c Entrance and
Exit Driveway, which states, "For facilities containing five (5) or more stalls, such drives shall
be a minimum of twelve [12)feet wide for one-way use and twenty(20)feet wide for two-carry
use. The minimum curb radius shall befrfteen (15)feet". The applicant slroulrl de►norrstr•ate
i that adequate access exists for emergency vehicles oil the lot curd within the existing easements
on the abetting properties In addition existing par•Icing rtr'eas arrd other•per•tirre►rt site ferrtrrr•es
on the abutting properties should be shown on the plan to determine if they interfere with
access to the site. To prevent fixture parking and access issues Hancock recommends that the
i Boarrl require pavement striping, in accordance with Zorrirrg Section 8.5.r1, he provided to
designate par•Icitrg a!•errs a tid travel r'orrtes on the abetting properties. The Board should also
investigate the need to review the trvo abutting properties tinder a formal Site Plan Review
process if nrodifleatiorr to the parking layout and access drives is required
Response-. The parcel has existing deeded access easements with deeded rights to overflow
parking on the fi•ont lots. Striping to delineate the access drives is not necessary, but can be
provided if so directed by the Board.
Comment 8.Zoning Section 8.5.r1 states "Design standards and,speciftcrttiorrs forparkirrg
stir arcing, rh'ainage and curbing shall be those set forth hi the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Town of North Andover; as arrterrrled, unless fvrriverl
or modified by the Planning Board irr accordance with Section 8.1.8." The Rules and
Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in North Andover Section 6.8.1 Table IA
require« minimum centerline slope of 1 %. The grading shown on the plan appears to be at
less Nrarr 1/2 percettt. This lack of slope is extrer►tely difficult to construct curd will likely create
rn'eas of ponding and freezing. The applicant should revise rile gr'arlirrg to a rrtirrirrrurrr of a 1
slope. Hancock defers to Lisa Eggleston for other•stor•r!lwrrter`rrr(erCrgenrerrt related issues.
Response: The proposed longitudinal grade of the proposed drive is 0.5%, snatching the existing
grade. On behalf ofthe Applicant we request that the Planning Board waive the 1% slope
26 Main Street page 2 of 5
requirement as the slope is on a private driveway with low maneuvering speeds.
Conmtent 9. The applicant has not provide(I any information oil flow they intend to light the
parking area,Zoning Section 8.5f.
Response: No site lights are proposed. The fi•ont entry of each unit will have a wall light. There
may also be a wall mounted light over the deck of each unit.
Comment 10.Zoning Section 8.5.e.i-NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP states "A north
narrow and a location reap showing surromiding ma(lw(rys and land uses(a(Ijacent to the site
(1"=1500). Locations Map should show at least one intersection: of two existing Town
roadways. "Tire 'Locrts Plan'contained within the Proposed Site Plan, is at a scale of I "=800'.
The locus map is too large a scale to provi(le the Board with the required context.
Response: We believe that the larger scale depicted is easier to read and conveys the necessary
information intended by a locus plan. However, on behalf of the Applicant, we request that the
Planning Board waive this requirement.
Comment 11. Zoning Section 8.5.e. v- TOPOGRAPHY states "Tire present and proposed
topography of the site, utilizing two foot(2) contour intervals. The contours shall extend at
least fifty (50)feet beyond the site boundaries by estimation of the professional submitting the
plant." The present and proposed topograpMy do not extend fifty (50)feet beyond the
botarrd(wies of the site as required by this section.
Response: Offsite topography contributing to the property from the south was estimated using
aerial information (Google Earth) supplemented with a held inspection. Offsite topography to the
north does not slope to the property as depicted on the plans and as verified by a held inspection.
The offsite tributary areas are depicted in the drainage report and were included in the pre vs post
developed runoff calculations. On behalf of the Applicant, we request that the Planning Board
s waive the requirement of depicting offsite topography 50 feet beyond the limits of the parcel, on
i the plan, as it is accurately accounted for where needed.
Comment 12. Zoning Section 8.5.e. vi-ZONING INFORMATIONstales"All applicable
Zoning Byl(aty infor►rr(rtion shall be provi(led regtrr(ling the site's development. This information
i shall be placed in a table and list all parlrtng,setbacks,percent of lot coverage,floor-area-ratio,
number-of dwelling units, total amount of squat-e feet, size of signs and(my other(applicable
zoning information nrecessary for the proper review of the site plan by the Town Planner and
Planning Boar-(l." The table with the required information is not shown oil the plans.
Response: The project was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 14, 2012 meeting
to address all issues related to zoning. The zoning table has been added to sheet 2 of4.
Comment 13.Zoning Section 8.5.e.xii-LOCATION OF WALLS/SIGNS states 'Iderttijlcrttiont
of the location, height and materials to be used for all retaining walls and signs located on the
site. Signs will be reviewed using the guitlelines sel forth in Section 6.7(H) of lire Zoning
Bylaw." h is not clear froth the submitted plants whether signs are proposed and if they comply
Wilt the Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0-Signs rand Outtloor Lighting Regulations.
Response: No signs or retaining walls are proposed.
Comment 14. Zoning Section 8.5.e.xiv- OUTDOOR STORAGEIDISPLAYAREAS states
"Itlentti�cation of the location and thpe of outdoor storage and display(rreas on the site. It is
26 Main Street page 3 of 5
not clear f►•o►n the submitted plans whether outdoor storage or display (weirs are prooposed.
Response: No outside storage or display areas are proposed for this residential project.
Comment 15. Zoning Section 8.5. e.xv-LANDSCAPING PLAN states "Identification of the
location and landscape seherlrrle of all per•irrreter and interior landscaping, including hilt not
limited to pr•oposedpaving materials for walkwa}:s,fences, stoueivalls and all planting materials
to be placed oar lire site. Ira arklition, rill existing trees over 12 inches DBH, to be saved or•
removed shall he shoivtt oil the site plan. Any l(nulscaping require(l by the Town Bylarvs shall
be indicated oil the site plan in tabula/-for'►n shorving the anrornrt requir-ed and the amount
pr'ovi(le(l." It is unclean•from the submitted plans whether'there are existing trees over-12"ill
(liamele)•and if they are to he save(l or•remove(/.
Response_There are no trees with a diameter at breast height of 12"or more within the limit of
proposed work.
Comment 16. Zoning Section 8.5. e.xvi-REFUSE AREAS states "Identification of fire location
of each out(loor refuse storage area, including lire method of storage and screening: All refuse
areas must be fully enclosed." The method of refuse storage and raer(screening ru•e not
detailed oil the submitted plans.
Response: Trash will be stored in trash barrels within the garages of each unit. A private trash
removal contractor will remove the trash weekly.
Comment 17.Zoning Section 8. 5. e.xvii-LIGHTING FACILITIES states "Alenti fleation of
lire proposed illumination, indicating the(lirection and the degree of illumination offered by the
proposer/lighting facilities, including an example of the light fixtrue to he rrserL" It is unclear
front the submitted plans whether'ally illrmrinrtion is proposed and if the type, direction and
degree of illumination confor►rr to the guidelines set forth in Section 60-Signs and Oulrloor
Lighting Regulations of lire Zoning Bylaw.
Response: Na site lights are proposed. The front entry of each unit will have a wall light. There
may also be a wall mounted light over the deck of each uni.
Comment 18. Zorrirrg Section 18.4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation states"Provision for'
safe and convenient pedestrian access shall be incorporated i►rto plarns./or ne►v co►rslr'rrctio►r of
buildings and parking areas, and should be designer/in concert with l(arrdscaping plans noted
below. New construction should improve pe(lestri(m access to buildings, sidewalks and policing
areas, and should be completed with consider-ation of safety, hanlicapped access and visual
quality. Wlrer•e(rpprop►'i(rte, (rpplica►its roe encorn'aged to pr•ovi(le pe(lestria►r arrd/or bic},cle
o ronrole edestr'irr n and bicycle
11irr areas in order l }
xrtlrs connecting tlteir site with abutting p Ir
1 g
circulation and safely. When p(ar•Ici►rg is loc(rted in lire r•earr;perlestriarr access vi(t a pe(lestr'i(arh-
or-center/alley or rvalirrvay through to the prinrrrry street is e►rcnruage(l." The applicant has not
indicated(any provisions for pedestrian or bicycle circulation on lire plans.
Response: No obstructions of existing walkways or bicycle routes are proposed.
Conrnre►it 19. Zoning Section 18.5.4 Orientation states "Buil(lings shall be oriented parallel
rvitlr the front setback line to establish and p►•esel•ve a consistent buil(ling litre, with pi irnru►'
entrances oriented towar(l the street. The front facade of a principal building shall farce onto a
public street and not towards a parking lot." Thep)
opose(l building aloes not have it pr i►rra►}�
entrances oriented toward the street.
26 Main Street page 4 of 5
Response_This requirement is for an alignment on an existing street so as to preserve a consistent
building line with adjacent properties. This particular requirement is not applicable for the
proposed structure which is located behind the existing structures.
Co►►tnneut 20. The fire ehief should be co►lsulfed as to adequacy of the e►►nergency vehicle access
a►td the proposed Inydra►rt locatio►ts The applicatio►t also does not indicate if the buildings are
to be sprinklered or not.
Response: The building is required to be sprinklered and it will be.
Co►intent 21. The applicant should indicate areas of s►rory storage on the plan.
Response: There is ample area for snow storage along the perimeter of the proposed drive. An
area along the southerly side of the drive has been added indicating this.
Colrunent 22. The landscaping plan should show all underground utilities to ensure that no
conflicts exist. Note 4 should be corrected to re►hove the reference to "athletic ftelds".
Response: The appropriate revisions to the Landscaping Flan have been made.
Cot►nne►tt 23. Under the Dow►ttoivit Overlay District Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaw, file
Planning Board is tasked to review the project with regard to urban design features,
architectural features, on-site and off-site improve►tnents, building orientation, articulation,
transparency and location of door and entrances to►tteet the intent of the secdo►t; "to provide
I gootLv, services and housing in a more compact envir•outtlent; to encourage redevelopntenf, and,
to create a vibrant, walkable,pedestrian and bicycle friendly envirolnnent". As this change is
►tore a subjective a revieiv, Hancock defers to the judgnne►lt of the Board in I'evie)v of the
project's compliance with these goals.
Response; No response required.
i.
3
Should you have any questions concerning this correspondence, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
i ANDOVER CONSULTANTS,INC.
James S. Fairweather II, F.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures
cc
Conservation Commission
Hancock Associates
Jeffco, Inc.
26 Main Street page 5 of 5
VkO Th
rown of North Andover I R, ,
Office of tlie Planning Deparh�nent
Community Development and, Services DiVIS1011
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 A 4us
LE'GAL NOTICE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40-A, Section 11,the North Andover Planning
Board will bold a public hearing as follows:
Purpose of Public Hearing: Application for Special Permit—Site Plan Review under sections
8.3, 10.3, and 18 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. Applicant
proposes COIIStRIC0011 of an eight(8) unit residential CODdorninium
project with two(2)parking spaces per unit on a lot with access to
Main Street via existing casements on two existing lots fronting on
Main Street at 22-24 and 28-30 Main Street and all existing curb
cut at the noted lots.
Applicant/Petitioner: Jeffco, Inc.
110 Box 802
Andover, MA 0181.0
Owner of Land: Real-Lot, LLC
24 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01.845
Address of Premises Affected 26 Main Street
(rear of 22-24 and 28-30 Main Street)
Assessors Map and Lot: Map 28,Lot 14
Public Hearing Date &Time Tuesday, March 20,2012 @ 7:00 pill,
Location of Public Hearing Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA
2nd Floor Conference Room.
Information Available A copy of the plan and application is on file in the Planning Board
office at 1600 Osgood Street,North Andover, MA, and may be
inspected during office hours.
Advertised on: March 6 and March 13, 2012
All interested persons may appear and be heard. Persons nec(ling special accommodations and / or those
interested in viewing the application materials should contact the North Andover Planning Department at
(978)688-9535.
BOARDMAPITA9.,.SM-9541 WHI1AN6: 688-9,54.5 (."ONS-'I�t%fA'I'[Ot,1688-()530 11FA1,111089-9540 ITATI8f^JaNG688-9535
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Conservation Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: New Items for March 20, 2012 Planning Board Meeting
II
DATE: March 12, 2012 _.
The following applications will be starting their public hearings at the March 20 2012 meeting:
24-26 Main St. Site Plan Review
Project Sumi naiy:
The applicant, JEF FCO, has applied for a Site Plan Review Special Permit under Section 18 of
the NAZB, Downtown Overlay District. The parcel is 24,22E sq. ft. and is located at the rear of
22-24 and 28-30 Main St. The applicant is proposing an 8-unlit multi-family residential building,
with a footprint of 4, 352 sq. ft. and a total GFA of 13,056 sq. ft. Both a first floor parking space
as well as an outside parking space is included for each unit. Stormwater would be directed to a
500 gallon subsurface drywell. Lisa Eggleston has reviewed the project and has provided
comments. The parcel is located in the Industrial-S zone and is also part of the Downtown
Overlay District.
The owners of the parcel applied for and received the following zoning variances on 2/13/09 for
construction of commercial storage building:
• Variance for relief of lot area (50,000 sq. ft. required)
• Variance for frontage (150 ft. required)
• Variance for left side setback (20 ft. required)
• Variance for Floor Area Ratio (.50:1 required)
• The owner also received a modification of that ZBA Decision on 2/14/12 to allow a
change of use to Residential from Industrial use.
r A traffic report was submitted by the applicant, authored by Dermot Kelly. The study estimates
that the 8 condominiums would 46 vehicle trips per day, 4 vph during weekday morning peak
hours and 4 vpd during weekday evening peak hours.
1600 Os0oorl Street,Nortln Andover,Mossaclnusells 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.townolnodhandover.corrn
I
Site Access:
The site would be accessed by entering the driveway between the existing buildings at 28-30
Sutton St. and 22-24 Sutton St. There is an easement in the (Iced allowing access to this parcel
using this driveway.
Upon review by Hancock Associates, it was noted that the parcel does not have access across
street frontage, as required by the Zoning Bylaw section 7.2.1. This section allows for
exceptions with a Special Permit from the Planning Board.
The Building Inspector's letter states that access to street frontage was addressed by the variance
granted by the ZBA for 150 ft. of frontage. The letter also states that the Bylaw's requirement
for access across street Frontage does not apply to this lot due to the fact that the parcel is not in a
residential zone and the fact that the parcel has access easements granted by deed from abutting
parcels.
Town Counsel has advised the Planning Board to take into account the following information
regarding the access and frontage. The reference is from the ANR Handbook provided by
DFICD (Department of Housing and Community Development), which states that"A zoning
variance from the ZBA varying the lot frontage requirement is necessary in order that the lot may
be built upon for zoning purposes. It is also necessary that the lot owner obtain a frontage
waiver from the Planning Board for the purposes of the Subdivision Control Law."
350 Great Pond Road—Watershed Special Permit
Summary:
The applicant had applied to the Planning Board for a Watershed Special Permit in July 2011.
The public hearing began on July 19 and during the course of the presentation, the Board
recommended that the applicant apply for a variance from the ZBA under section 4.136.3.c.3,
which requires a variance for construction of a new permanent structure.
The applicant applied to the ZBA for a variance and that application was denied on November 8,
2011. The applicant subsequently withdrew their Watershed Special Permit application.
The current application proposed a slightly different building footprint that does utilize more of
the existing foundation. The applicant has provided a letter from a structural engineer that states
that the "existing foundation walls and footings are capable of supporting the proposed
renovations..."The size of the proposed structure is the same as in the prior application. The
Building Inspector has determined that, due to the fact that the proposed structure will utilize a
portion of the foundation,the proposed structure is not considered to be a new structure. The
garage will be demolished and a new garage will be part of the new structure.
The applicant has incorporated comments made by Lisa Eggleston for the last application. The
lower end of the driveway will consist of porous pavement and the roof runoff will be infiltrated.
70 Elm St.
Summary
1600 Osgood Street,Norfli Andover,Massadjusetts, 01845
Phone 978.688.9531 Fox 978.688.9542 Web vww.townofnortbaridover.corrr
Metro PCS is applying for a renewal of their existing installation located at 70 Elm St. in the
Trinitarian Church. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the current installation. They
have included the following in their application:
® Noise Study
• RF Compliance Report
• Copy of Lease
® Structural letter
• Copy of recorded Site Plan Review Decision
The RF Compliance Report has been sent to Mark Hutchins for review.
358 Dale St.
Summary:
The application is for a Watershed Special Permit for the construction of a new dwelling unit on
a vacant lot containing 1.48 acres in the Non-Discharge Zone. The lot was in existence prior to
January 9, 1957 and according to the documentation provided by the applicant,the lot is subject
to the setback, lot area and frontage requirements as described in section 7.8.1, for grandfathered
lots.
The application describes an underground roof stormwater collection system, a crushed stone
perimeter drain and a pervious pavement driveway and walkway. The applicant has filed an NOI
with the Conservation Commission for the clearing and grading that will be done within the 100
ft, buffer to the wetlands on the eastern edge of the property. The parcel contains endangered
species and is thus subject to MESA review(Massachusetts Endangered Specie Act).
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massnchusetts 01845
Phone 978,688.9531 Fax 978.688.9542 Web wwoomokorthandoverwii
ti
� a
1�g�1CF1OS�t7
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division
-Special Per-tifil — Site MR RevieNv A } Jlicatioii
-
Please type or print clearly.
1.Petitioner: Jcffco, Inc.
Petitioner's Address: 110 Box 802.Andover htA 0 18 10
Telephone number: 479-475-8075 —
2.Owners of the Land: Rear Lot,t_t.c.
Address: 24 Main Street Nor€h Andover,l\1A 01845
Number of years of ownership: 3.� .�. . .�.
3.Year lot was created: 1946
4.Description of Proposed Project:
ect:
construction afan 8-unit residential ccrtdouiisiut Project�v�tt 2 va Tr t'n sp e: €tUon ig a s ace and c>nc-exterior
At and $ v� `�n a lot with access to Alain Scree€via exislin g easements on two existing lots fronting on Main Street
drivewa t�iZrkin» � _--
�? 2 ,0 Main Street ar d in e`isting curb cut at.the noted lots.
5.Description of Premises: 24,776 SF pared iit Industrial S zoning district and Downtown Overlay
6.Address of Property Being Affected: 26 Main Street(rear o1`22.24 and 28.30 Mait)Street)
Zoning District: Industrial S
Assessors Map: 28 Lot#:14,
Registry of Deeds: Book#: 11232 Page#: 29}
7.Existing Lot:
Lot Area(Sq.Ft): M,776 Building Height: nra -
Street Frontage: 0 ti Side Setbacks: Wil
Front Setback: 'ira Rear Setback: T'°`rt
Floor Area Ratio; t'!a Lot Coverage:
8,Proposed Lot(if applicable):
Lot Area(Sq.Ft): ?4,77G _ Building Height: 35 6
Street Frontage:_ {}t Side Setbacks: 10 ft.40 tl
Front Setback: "'a Rear Setback: 57 ft
Floor Area Ratio: 0 5-'7=1 Lot Coverage: 17.6%
u
i
I 1600 Osgood Street,forth Andover,Bldg.20,Suite 2.36 Planning Dept.,Mossochusells 01845
Phone 978.688.9535 fox 978.688.9542 Web ww+v lnwnolfnof.lhandoyer.ca_m
i
's
I
r
3g.
B
Y.
9.Required Lot(as required by Zoning Bylaw):
Lot Area(Sq.Ft): %000 Building Height:
Street Frontage: 15011 Side Setbacks: 20 it
Front Setback: 30 ft Rear Setback 30 li "
Floor Area Ratio: 0.5 : I Lot Coverage; 35%o,
10.Existing Building(if applicable):
Ground Floor(Sq.Ft.): f#of Floors:
Total Sq.Ft,: Height:
Use. Type of Construction: --_
11.Proposed Building:
Ground Floor(Sq.Ft.): 4.351 #of Floors: 3
Total Sq.Ft. 13,056 Height: 3311
od ir;I,nc
Use: Residential C[indU111illili111 Type of Construction:
i
U.Has there been a previous application for a Special Permit from the Planning Board on these premises?
if so,when and for what type of construction?
i
13.Section of Zoning Bylaw that Special Permit Is tieing
j Requested SectEUn 18 DoWTnow i Overlay M-trict
3
I
! 14,Petitioner and landowner signature(s):
Every application for a Special Permit shall be made on this form,which is the official form of the Planning Board. Every
g application shall be filed with the Town Clerk's office.It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to furnish all supporting
documentation with this application.The dated copy of this application received by the Town Cleric or Planning Office does
not absolve the applicant from this responsibility. The petitioner shall be responsible for all expenses for Tiling and legal
notification. Failure to comply with application requirements, as cited herein and in the Planning Board Rules and
Regulations may result in a di i al by the Planning Board o his application as incomplete.
i
I Petitioner's Signature: ._. � =S
f
I Print or type name here:
I Owner's Signature: ��'
Print or type name here:
15.Please list title of plans and documents you will be attaching to this application,
Site Plait,"PandView sheets 1.2,3 K 4 of 4 dated January 19,201 2
I an&c 3 e Plan prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc.
Storn ivoter Region,prepared fair Jeffico, Inc.dated January M 2012
1' it�i° lx nl`7
1600 Osgood$trees,North Andover,Bldg.20,Suite 2-36 Planning Dept.,Mossocitusells 01845
' Phone 978.688.9535 fax 978.688.9542 Web www,lawr ofno,ti,nndovkJ,cun1
REAR LOT, LLC
?d Maita Street
North Aril er. NI 018•15
�SanU;atT 2 21)12
Dtmlillic 1. SC.Ilisr, 1:�cltairc
89 Math Street
North ,lndovcr, MA f IRS
RE! I&Iter )f:\whotization for Pcnrutting
I
Dear Atturncr ScMiae:
!� pttrslmm u)and in furthcrance c}f the terms act f6fth m,ithin the Purchase and Sales
! Agi-ccimm livreiriafter ("Agreement"), this cermmunicatiun shall,muthcrrize tour client jeffcaa
Inc, to Commence with site perttutting with respect to Rear 1,cn, HE mAth the'rum,of
l
North Andover for m, and all bnd use permits including;but not linaited to M mliing,
Cunu seivatjon,Znfling,and Building.
t
l
ff
Vert' trtflti't•«urs,
Rc"tr Lot,Ll A:
k By its Manager
t
Allied 11. Manzi 111, 1:sclt3ire
i
CC: ;llbett 11, Manri Jr•, Manager
i
1 EeceND:
[mho Ua/T FQz
--- __ f" fP+w CQNIp PRC ERO..@1 CON M
\ PRCPa5C0 CO R p--) 0:9 UWY P=w/WT
rw u amK uCr-..-..- PRCPO'.1]]yt'UfRMD ND
ausnne wAMR — 1 ..T^ e1Ley&A A.= A wuc
t —Pw PROPO=w=R 1♦>a rtAw PCa00[lL'lARW
EA-W 2'PCR
OflWNAC[ PROP9S:0 2vlQi
rv- - Y�_-'-��+� R",L• xSS.s PROPo°=vcT awc L/til. ..l.�J [ri•S1nC iPf➢1111Vf
_��=- ��„^~•'•••:+•,.r�.�IrI I r�k`., .y t a ® y v-t :pi MST Poi \J.I�IAAI.IJ.I�hA/ FPx]04°a"3b 1AFIILVPANYRiT
`� �.w ROW G CA1.�14,'C CAi HIWO=..TN19
fp 4N �� DC.`Tali 8 YNRC 1 \ l IS \\ � �,' PRa'u5G0 N19flNIT PRCPC.i?)GTL VALK
smucruRc 1 "a„ / �:^w.. ,., _ `� `�J�•�,J.t✓� 1�� �. w. r
nz-2. �.� `.
xr avr e,.ao fu,•'lU `��,;,, - ��� 1 k �w ~ `"��arTm ,nab". ^+ �.,.,... �'��. •� .1��^^
w,r s coo P,ya, •L+' � i}�`".�/r
O
'� e]s atuTr musr
1 oAw Pnu ou wT.Pxu m,aa 1 w c n" :j ,t "i�
�I naUMT�0.PW Np¢ 0.PK • wool tsi�
ur
f
1r \ '\ rnR,e CL61t SGVL
SAUNDERS
STREET 1 SITE PLAN
-� "PONDVIEW"
26 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASS.
INDUSTRIAL S ZONING DISTRICT PREPARED FOR: JfFFCO,INC.
DATE: Janucry 19,2C12 REV March 12, 202••
ZONING ANALYSIS
trN �a _cuoMD® SCAE.E: 7"=20'
[AT AP£A ]A0 5. 24.T16 SF.
rRunrAa ,w sr. art.
rwawr�raAac x rT.• "/. t)ndaver
30R, consu€tarts
PCNI TKTOAPt ]a lT.• a2 rt. Inc.
2137 SF. i East ,Mg 01
4FAX xGalT 55 PT,•• 1]ir. McShuan,Mast.01844
MAx tar covatACY ",. n.ax 0 20 40 60 W Fk,
aaa:s om:t loRano.—o+ay
••w n ana a•wn.•M po.nea."o.war •R.N•.a warn,IZ 2011 P••r,.w•w•v"m.au Sl'IffT 2 OF 4 0 t0 20 Meter
P:W V t-vt\yRc�tE Punawc
Town of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
tikUitTfY
Albert P.Nlanzi 111,Esq.Cliabywan Associate AlevIbm(
Men P.McIntyre,Vice-Chahwall Thomas 1).Ippolito
RichardJ.Byers,Esq.Clerk Daniel S.Braese,Esq.
Michael P.Liporto
Joseph D.LaGmse
Zold1g.Hifian-ement Qftei*
RicharaM,Yawancourt
Gerald A.Brown
&'S's
ApplicUlit wants to Miter the proposed limse oil the property to make it look liarniollious and stay in
character with the other homes ill the neighborhood.
Abutters from tlic-neighborhood welcomed the new change but had concerns, such as fencing, size
of proposed house,privacy and setbacks.'File biggest concertos of the abutters were parking,
drainage and size of structure.
The applicant returned to the podium to address some of these concerns of the abjitters as well as the
board.
Cilairmall Manzi felt that the abutters had very legitimate concerns especially with the drainage,size
of structure and street parking,The Chairman suggested that the applicant, and part of the
applicant's design team and some of the abutters' should attend a workshop and discuss these issues.
Board would like to continue this matter oil 40-42 Highland View Avenue.
Motioned to continiie was made by Byers
Second to contiriiie was made by Vice-Chairman, Mcliltyre.
All were in favor 5-0 to continue.
A short recess was taken and Chairman Manzi (lid not return. Vicc.-Chairman opened file 111cetilig
with a continued hearing from Rear Lot LLC.
4, Conflimed Hearing
Rear Lot LLC
a)Atty Scalise,spoke for his applicant and stated that they were looking for a variance request to
cojistrtieta storage btiilcliiig. Scalise stated tbat*Bcn Osgood will go through the changes that have
been made since the last licaring. Osgood stated that the,proposed building is smaller then originally
planned and showed the Board the new plans.
The Board asked questions to both Scalise and Osgood,such as fencing along the property line,
lights,hours of operations,shrubs etc.
Abutters voiced their concern and stated that the'appearance, structure and size,(lid not fit ill with tile
neighborhood.
Scalise returned to the podium to answer more questions to both the Board members and abutters
and also stated that lie would like to work with the neighbors (abutters)to make adjustments to the
building to try and please the neighbors.
Motion to continue Rear Lot LLC.was madc by Vaillancourt
Byers second to continue Real,Lot I.I.C.
All in favoi-5-0 to colitillue.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to adjourn meeting at 10:40.
Page 2 of 2
Town of North Andover
ZONING BOAIW OF APPEALS
Albeit P.himizi 111,Esq.Cliabywau Asforiale.Membei-s
Ellen P.hichityre.Kee-Cliabyliall Thomas D.113polito
Richard J.Byers,Esq.Clok 0 Daniel S.Braese,lisq.
Joseph D.LaGrasse Nlicbael P.Liporto
Richard M.Vailloncourt ^ Zaniq&0irowent Qftei-
*"All.
"S Gerald A.Brown
Sniolak stated that lie wanted some direction from board on this issue.
Sinolak-also wanted to bear what the board felt was appropriate.
Manzi stated he had made some inquiries to town counsel regarding this issue with the return of
fees.
Manzi also stated that Curt Bellavance along with Town Counsel sent out a letter to Department of
Revenue asking for clarification of fee rcinibursein exit.A letter was received from Department of
Revenue stamped February 3d in answer to the letter fi-oin Curt and Town Counsel.
Manzi stated that letter offered no opinion on where the responsibility lies on reimbursement of fees.
Manzi stated that he did not feel the board had full authority to reimburse fees,but this may need to
go to selectman to make this decision.
The board asked questions to Sinolak regarding the fees.
Board also asked Brian Leathe if lie ever returned fees to an applicant. Brian stated that they have
never returned any fees.
Byers stated that even if they did vote to return the money back to the applicant, the town manager
may not want to return these fees.
Board debated on fees. Soine board members stated their opinion, such as, should there b'ca
breakdown regards to work done on the project. Some felt fees
i akdown on what should be returned with regal
.should not be returned at all,because it is associated with getting a permit. While others wanted
more information than what they had in front of them.
Lagrasse made a motion to vote that lie was not in favor or support of the reiniburseinent of fees.
Byers second the inotion that lie was not in favor or support of the reimbursement of fees,
Al Manzi was in support of returning fees.
It was four to one in favor of not supporting the fees.
C_QMMUNICA7'I0NS OLD-BUSINESS
Request for a I time extension granted on Feb 2009
Rear lot LLC Variance I-S 24 Mnin Street Mal) 28 Pat-eel 14
(Board members present to hear this applicant Ellen McIntyre, Richard Byers,Richard Vail lancoull,
Joseph LaGrasse,Thomas Ippolito, and Michael Liporto).
Manzi passed the gave] over to McIntyre just for this hearing.
Applicant was not present for this hearing,but they were requesting per a letter to ask for an
extension on this project.
Board menibers talked about extending the hearing even though applicant was not present.
Page 5 of 6 Febmaly 9,2010
Town of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
F
r�
Albert P.Manzi 111,Esq.Cliahman Amodale AlelvMx
Ellen P.hichityre, Kre-Cliah7vau 0
4 Thomas D.Ippolito
Ricba'
rdj.Byers,Esq.Cleik, 7) Daniel S.Braese,Esq.
Joseph 1).LaGrasse Michael 1".Upotto
Richard K-Vaillancourt Zonh�Eilfon-ement Q#irei-
Gerald A.Brown
Byers made a motion for the extension.
Vaillalicourt second the motion.
Joseph.LaGrasse voted against the one time extension.
It was 4 to 1 in favor of the,one,time extension.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion Was made by Byers to adjourn the meeting,
Vaillartcourt second the motion
All were in favor to adjourn the meeting
Meeting adjourned at 10:00."'
Page 6 of 6 9,2010
Town of North Amlomi-
ZONING BOARD 01 A PPEA
Albert A Alanz!III,Esq. Chairman
.Chen A AIC1111're,Vice-chairman
Richard .Alsers,.Esq. Clerk
Richan1m. VaillatIC0111-1
1). 11aft/Koch Jr. US
McIntyre was very pleased with the results of the project and als
completion,
Modification of it Pi-ioi-Decision for,Rem-Lot,LLC,24 Main Sti-ect(Map 28,Parcel 14)
Atty. Domenic Scalise walked to the podium on belialf of his clients to discuss 24 Main Street(Rear Lot
LI.C) and that it is in the IS Zoning District,as well as the Downtown Over lay District.
Scalise also talked of the lot size.
Scalise gave a history of what took place at the Board and also what was granted in 2009 regarding 24
Main Street. Scalise stated at that tinic it was approved to be a Storage Facility. Scalise also talked of the
nearby area and the types of homes and stroctures surrounding that lot.
Shortly after the approval of the storage facility from the Board of Appeals,this area as well as the
surrounding neighborhood becanic part of the Downtown Overlay District.
Scalise talked of the Downtown Overlay District and how it affected the uses, setbacks and variances and
is now part of the Zoning By laws, Section 18.
Scalise also talked of the permitted uses in the Overlay District,stating that it allows for a more compact
development in this area. Scalise continued to reference Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaws regarding the
Downtown Overlay District,and also the purposes for this District, and how 24 Main Street is affected.
Scalise is requesting for his clients a modification of an existing Decision from 2009 from an Industrial
Use,to now a Residential Use,by constructing a number of town houses on this parcel.
Scalise referenced "The Permitted Extension Act", Supplied by Curt Bellavance on 14 February 2012,
allowing permits a two year extension. Scalise then spoke of another letter submitted by Curt Bellavalice
stamped February 14,2012. The letter stated that Bellavance and the office of Community Development
support the project.The Overlay District intent is to promote a variety of uses.
Scalise stated that they have filed with the Planning Board and will also'go in front of the Conservation
Board,
Ndchityreasked the Board members if they had any questions or if anyone was here for or against the
project.No one spoke tip.
The Board asked Gerald Brown,Zoning Enforcement Officer if lie had anything in addition to input into
this discussion,
Brown stated that lie and Curt Bellavance met and talked it number of thrics on this project,and both
were in support. Brown also stated as it matter of"Right"they can do-vvIiat is proposed.
The Board asked the jurisdiction that the Planning Board would have regarding this project.
Scalise answered,and listed it number of items such as lighting,parking, fencing and landscaping that
the Planning Board would have regarding the project,
Page 2 of 4 February 14,2012
719wn of North Andover
ZONING BOARD OF.4PPE&S
%%OF?Tfj
Albert A Manzi 111,Eul. Chairman %,so 0Associate Member..%0. .1�'0 i
Ellett A McIntire, Vice-Chairman MiclutelP.Liporto
I?left a al J.Byers,'s,E.y q. C I e I,I 7)?1ei-Speck
zoning B11 forcoment Officer
D. vitillancourl
D.Paull(och k. S cilu GeruldA.Brown
Vaillancourt made a motion to close the hearing.
Byers second the motion.
All Nvere in favor to close the hearing,Ellen McIntyre, Richard Byers,Richard Vaillancourt,Michael P.
Liporto, and D. Paul Koch Jr.
5-0
Mmendment to these February Minutes jjej-e stated,at the March 13 111 Board of Appeals meeting
eld sit Town Hall,for the Modifica-tion,of a Prim-Decision for Rear Lot,LLC,24 Main Strcct,�
(Map 28,Parcel 1.4).!
JjAt the March Board of Appeals Meeting an,amendtlient Nvas made,to correct the Februm,
Y,
invites. Verbiage, at the time of the February meeting lind been used litcoi-rectly,it wa�,efevenced that Rear Lot LLC,was a Public Rearing. This was not a Public 11caiing',D-14
considered only part of a Discussion amendpielit is to
�-eflect and set right the_ort-ect-Yet-biage.11'
Byers made a motion to Grant Modification of the Decision from February 13,2009,Petition 2008-2014
and allow use as a Residential Property Use ffown flouses)rather than (in industrial Use(storage
facility). Byers also referenced all of tile plans and Flaps in front of him submitted on January 27,2012.
Vaillancourt second the motion.
All those in favor to Grant the Modification of the Decision, Ellen McIntyre,Richard Byers,Richard
Vaillancourt,Michael P. Liporto and D.Paul,Koch Jr.
5-0
McIntyre gave a brief summary of cach of the Miscellaneous Correspondences that had been submitted
into the Board's Package such as;
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (time stamped January 11,2012), CHAPA(tinie stamped
January 11,2012) , FTMA(time stamped January 12,2012), Recorded copy of the Form J Lot Release
Orchard Village(time stamped January 17,2012), Community Housing monitoring activities regarding
Orchard Village(tinie stamped January 26,2012), Correspondence froinToin Urbelis(dated January 26,
2012)and Stevens Corner-Final Permit/As-Built Site Plans(time stamped January 29,2012)
Zoning Board's Annual Election
McIntyre moved onto the last item,the Annual Election.
Vaillancourt made a motion to continue Manzi its Chaimism,McIntyre as Vice Chairman and Byers as
Clerk
Koch second the motion
Page 3 of 4 February 14,2012
-- REGISTRY USE ONLY
RWI/ 1 m
,,hrm:erczo�s
F-NOTES-
_sp � Ncatlss+a District of EAeeA 55
i' ;yam
.IJ'1 sib n'v Q SITE N A SUBDIVISION OF P.,Ri AN 13 AS J -y, I'.NOF NORTH ANOOV Ab'' ,OF .IAP 26. -�1 MAIN ST � f^CORD FOR 80TH PAI LS5U1 �i REitEVELOPMENT,LLC ' °i'FO@D IN ESS£X NORT ]IS' ":T F �iTRY OF DEEDS �Cfj,�
8COK 6249 PAGE 218. {� .i PLAN NO.
Atnnt
PLAN RE=ERENCES LOCUS
N.rs.
0147 Rrgsarer ad Doeda
9452
30b9
DEED RE,ERENCES �I
BY,6249 PC 213 I
13K 559 PC 402 ~z f SOCK 5 5 PG 225
N/F SUTTON REDEt LCPMLNT,LLC
1300K$249 PG 218 -
ZONING ,-'iSTR1CT
GENERAL BUSINESS RADtA4 —
_ _ 5G5'08'25'W S5.G4' SOS'OB'2S'w 85.76'
C+�1 /t Gil' 1 :. 'P )'!FL UNDER THE SUOOIvtS[DN
LOT SUF'?/AARY _ ,_LAW NOT REQUIRED
T7•NN GF NORTM ANDOVER
LANNING BOAR,
73 66 SO.Fr. 0.1
FRONTAGE ARZR 0.1b8 ACRES .161 ACRE.., 1055
ital
FORMER A55ESSCR C.8A 100,- 43.0' C.B.A. 700h `.(' / ➢ATE
PARCEL 72 52.9S' 4,557 S.F. _
523' FORMER FORMERLY AS5E5SORS ,[ ��'
FORMER ASSESSOR LI ^'T PARCEL PARCEL
PARCEL 13 77.05' 70.643 S.F. L07 NE ! I ,
LOT 12A 54.22' 7,-n6 S.F. o FORMERLY ASSESSORS -
o I PARCEL 12
.07 13A C5.7n' 7.SD•t S.F. 21
SHRUENDER
} 1 80CK 1372 PC 179 I p
W
75 ENDGRSEMENT OF THE PLAN AS
1 t,2'- 7•- NGT K4P•�il+P. x.P'� VAL UNDER THE 5119biMSI0N CON'1?OL
{uu i' a EXISTING . ^ to LAW Li N:' .A .'J•,nCu AS TO OONFGRFAMNCE'M TH THE
-.'7 gN ri EXISTING 'J W.F.C. m TOWN C" i:G�,I...ANU'V'CR 79NINC BYLAW AND REGULATIONS.
dvt11 4 ? n W.F.D. c M - ce e
U jSv�lti}�. C a ,mi r N28-30
� 4
SQOH ....-. 46.00 SI3DF
FND Np5'OS'45'E `�-- N0�O8'25"E 63.22' �� I�— NGS'O8'25"E 65,7E' _ 75.00' __,. 511'32'3C�n PNd
SOS'O8'25'W 505Q8'25"A' ' 134.20' Marchiondal
-
48.11' MAIN STREET -.�_..
I & Associates, L.P.
(PUBUC- 50'WIDE-• 189S COUNTY 4AYOUT) .
Engineering a.-td
-1 CERTIFY T}iAT'PHIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RU,.ES AND _ ,ri73 Pianrung CanauiLnnts
REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF OEEDS OF'DIE
COMMONwF,ALTP. OF MASSACHUSETTS•'
52 Montvpin Avenue
Suitc F
ce
Stoneham, NA 62f50
?tL: (7$1) 435-6121
ANR SUBDIVISION PLAN ORW. DEC: �'HK: FAX: (781) 438-8554
mpi1: engi,6rr g4marchionCG.com
_ I wab0o-wwwnAtchiRrlda o1n
22-24, 28-30 MAIN STREET - DA E. 7-7 D5
E � — --Y�.-.�;\PRp�tTS\706-OS EIRa Ct\SURVEY\Rrertl.tlw9
sTEPHEN MELRsauc, R.L.s. NORTH AIVDOVER, MA
PREPARE,} FOR ""i1 ANR FLAN
20 70 0 2Q ' 60 SUTTON REDEVELOPMENT, LLC _---T�� " M.r1 A.NO.7Ds-p2 scA� 7"-p'
- } 28-30 MAIN STREET QESGRIPT701i - 1 PA" S H E E
A - NORTH ANOOVER, MA m
FES 5_7A y
URBELIS&FIFLDSTEFL,LIT
155 FEDERAL SrREET
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETFS 02110-1727
Telephone 978-4754552
THOMAS J.URBUIS Telephone 617-338-2200
e-mail tju@i)uf-1aw.com Telecopier 617-338-0122
March 29, 2012
Judy Tymon, Town Planner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: JEFFCO Site Plan
Review Special Permit
Dear Judy:
You have informcd me that the Planning Board requests advice regarding the following
three issues:
1. Section 7.2 Street Frontage
This section states that"In no case shall actual street frontage at the street line be less
than seventy-five (75) feet; except as allowed by Section 7.2.2." This section, Frontage
Exception, requires that exception for meeting frontage requirements be granted upon approval
of a Special Permit issued by the Planning Board.
Q. Given that the ZBA granted a variance for all of the required frontage (150
ft.) does this requirement for a Special Permit still apply?
RESPONSE:
In my opinion, no, The ZBA's variance stated:
................. ..........._ ....... ___.......................__ ............
"Upon a motion by Joseph D. LaGrasse and 2 nd by Richard M. Vaillancourt, the
Board voted to GRANT a dimensional Variance from Section 7, Paragraph 7.2
and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw for relief of 150' from the requirements for
Street Frontage."
W.VVp.5 1\work\n,anjove\corTespVymon Itr-jeffco.docx
URBEIAS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 2
The ZBA's foregoing broad grant of a variance from Paragraph 7.2 (titled "Street
Frontage") which specifically deals with street frontage would, in my opinion, include the grant
of variance from 7.2.2 as it relates to a special permit under that specific section.
2. Section 7.2.1 Access across street frontage.
This section states that"Access across street frontage, except for corner lots, must be
provided across street frontage." It also states that"A street frontage access Special Permit may
be granted for a lot in a residential district," The SPGA is the Planning Board.
Q. Does the Planning Board have the authority to request a Special Permit
application from the applicant under this section?
W,'SPONSE:
In my opinion, no. For the same reason as stated in response to the prior question, in my
............
opinion, the broad variance rant from Paragraph 7.2 includes variance from 7.2.1 as it relates to
a special permit under that specific section.
3. Access to residential lots through commercially developed lots:
The applicant is proposing to build a residential structure and is providing access to the
lot through two commercial lots.
Q. Does the NAZB require that access to residential lots shall not be granted
across the frontage of a commercially developed lot?
RESPONSE:
Under the circumstances of this particular application, in my opinion, the answer is no,
This application is under Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaw, the Downtown Overlay District. The
bylaw states the following as its purpose:
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LIT
March 29, 2012
Page 3
"18.0 Purpose.
Downtown zoning is the creation of a specific zoning overlay district for the
unique needs of small mixed use commercial areas: to provide goods, services
and housing in a more compact environment; to encourage redevelopment; and, to
create a vibrant, walkable, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment, The
Downtown Overlay District seeks to preserve and erihance the existing mixed
uses of downtown North Andover.
It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Downtown Overlay District to
establish reasonable standards that permit and control mixed residential,
commercial, governmental, institutional, and office uses in the Town of North
Andover. Furthermore, it is the intent of this district to:
I. Encourage a diverse mix of residential, business, commercial, office,
governmental, institutional and entertainment uses for workers,
visitors, and residents.
2. Encourage mixed uses within the same structure.
1 Encourage first floor retail space.
4. Encourage a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment so that
commercial enterprises and consumer services do not rely on
automobile traffic to bring consumers into the area.
S. Permit uses that promote conversion of existing buildings in a mariner
that maintains and enhances the visual character and architectural scale
of existing development within the district.
6. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential and
nonresidential uses within and abutting the district.
7. Allow for more compact development than may be permitted in other
zoning districts to reduce the impacts of sprawl.
8. Encourage consolidation of curb cuts for vehicular access and promote
more efficient and economical parking facilities.
9. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion,
10. Allow for an appropriate density of land uses and people to support a
vibrant downtown.
This bylaw is intended to be used in conjunction with the existing zoning and
other regulations as adopted by the town, including historic district regulations,
design guidelines, and other local bylaws designed to encourage appropriate and
consistent patterns of village development."
WittLtbe laws"vela and residential uses, there does not appear to be
bylaw!," ................ ........... ar
anything in that bylaw which, on its face, requires that access to residential lots shall not be
.......... ..........................
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 4
across the frontage of a commercially developed lot.
............ ................. ............
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
In our discussions you also asked about the criteria which the Board should use in
evaluating this special permit application.
The special permit application states that it is pursuant to Site Plan Review (Section 8.3)
and Section 18 of the Bylaw, both of which should be considered by the Board because the
applicant has stated so in the application for the special permit. Furthermore, the grant of
variances stated as a condition, in part:
441. Variance 2008-014 shall be contingent on a Planning Board Site Plan
Review Special Permit with the accompanying signed Site Plan."
Thus, the applicant was required, by the variance, to obtain a Planning Board Site Plan
Review Special Permit.
A. Section 8.3— Site Plan Review:
Subsections 6 and 7 (in part) state:
446, Review Criteria/Design Guidelines
a) The following criteria and design guidelines shall be used by the
Planning Board in evaluating the site plan review and all information
submitted as part of the application.
i) General
a) Conformance with all appropriate provisions of the Zoning
Bylaw.
b) Protection of abutting, properties from detrimental site
characteristics.
ii) Environmental
a) Protection of unique or important natural, historic or scenic
features.
b) Adequacy of proposed methods of refuse disposal.
c) Ability of proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems
within and adjacent to the site to serve the proposed use.
d) Adequacy of the proposed drainage system within and adjacent
to the site to handle the increased runoff resulting from the
URBELTS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 5
development.
e) Provision of adequate landscaping, including the screening of
adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape
islands in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the
street frontage.
f) Adequacy of the soil erosion plan and any plan for protection
of steep slopes, both during and after construction,
g) Protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of
lighting, Including parking lot and building exterior lighting.
h) The proposed development must not present a demonstrable
adverse impact on the surrounding area resulting from
excessive noise, dust, smoke, or vibration which are higher
than levels now experienced from uses permitted in the
surrounding area.
iii) Design
a) Buildings shall be located with respect to setbacks placement
of parking landscaping and entrances and exits with
surrounding buildings and development.
b) The buildings shall relate harmoniously to each other in
architectural style, the location and building exits and
entrances.
c) Screening shall be provided for storage areas, loading docks,
dumpsters, rooftop equipment, utility buildings and similar
features.
d) Electric, telephone, cable t.v., and other such lines and
equipment must be placed underground.
e) Demonstrate that the scale, massing and detailing of buildings
are compatible with those prevalent in the surrounding area.
iv) Traffic/Parking
a) The location and number of curb cuts shall be minimized to
reduce turning movements, and hazardous exits and entrances,
b) Provision for access to adjoining properties shall be provided
as appropriate.
c) Driveways shall be located opposite each other wherever
possible.
d) Joint access driveways between adjoining properties shall be
.................
e
e) jsi a I I provide for traffic safety,
and access to and from minor streets servicing one family
dwellings shall be minimized.
7. Findings of the Planning Board
a) With the concurring vote of four members, of the Planning Board shall
either A) approve, B) approve with conditions, or Q deny a site plan
submitted for review.
URBELIS&MELDSTEEL, LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 6
i) The Planning Board shall approve a site plan with the following
conditions are met:
A. The site plan complies with all current Bylaw requirements of
the Town, and;
B. The site plan has been submitted in accordance with the
regulations and procedures as outlined in this section and
Section 10.31 (Conditions for Approval of Special Permit.)
ii) The Planning Board shall conditionally approve a site plan when
the following conditions are met:
a) The application needs to go to any Town Board/Department or
Commission for approvals, or requires approvals by any state,
and/or federal agency and;
b) The site plan generally complies with Town Bylaw
requirements, but requires minor changes in order to be
completely in compliance with the 'town Bylaw regulations.
iii) The Planning Board may deny approval of a site plan for the
following reasons:
a) The plan does not include all the materials or information
required in this section, or has failed to adhere to the
procedures for Site Plan Review as outlined in this section, and
Section 10.3 (Special Permits), or;
b) The plan as presented is not in corripliance with Town Bylaws,
or;
c) The plan has been drawn incorrectly or in such form that the
Planning Board is unable to determine what information is
being presented for review, or;
d) The applicants have failed to incorporate and adhere to any
condition(s) for approval granted by any Town Board,
Department or Commission, or requirements called for by any
state or federal agency, which has proper authority upon which
to place conditions on a matter before the Planning, Board.
B. Section 18 Criteria:
"18.6 Special Permit Standards and Criteria
In addition to the specific criteria regarding the grant of a special permit contained in
Section 10.31 of this bylaw, the Planning Board shall issue a special permit only after
consideration of the following:
a. Impact on the neighborhood visual character, including architectural design,
views and vistas; and
b. Degree to which the proposed use will share an access driveway and/or pal-king
<with an adjacent use and avoids new curb cuts."
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL, LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 7
C. Section 10.31:
All special permits (and Section 8 and Section 18 specifically reference Section 10.31)
are subject to the following:
"10.31 Conditions foi-Approval of Special Permit
L The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not approve any such
application for a Special permit unless it finds that in its judgment
all the Following conditions are met:
a. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure
or condition;
b. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
c. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or N,
pedestrians;
d. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation of the proposed use;
e. The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not grant any Special
Permit unless they make a specific finding that the use is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Bylaw,
2. In approving a Special Permit, the Special Permit Granting Authority
may attach such conditions and safeguards as are deemed necessary
to protect the neighborhood such as, but not limited to, the following:
a. Requirements of front, side, or rear yards greater than the
minimum required by this Bylaw.
b. Requirements of screening parking areas or other parts of the
premises from adjoining premises or from the street, by walls,
fences, planting, or other devices as specified by the Special Permit
Granting Authority.
c. Modification of the exterior features or appearances of the
structure:
d. Limitation of size, number of occupants, method or time of
operation, or extent of facilities;
e. Regulation of number, design and location of access drives or
other traffic features."
D. Supplementary Regulations
A regulation which the Board may want to consider is the following Section 8.1.5.c:
"c) Entrance and Exit Driveway.
i) Single-family dwellings shall have a minimum driveway entrance of
URBEIAS&FiFLDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 8
twelve (12) feet.
ii) For facilities containing fewer than five stalls, the minimum width of
entrance and exit drives shall be twelve (12) feet for one-way use and
eighteen (18) feet for two-way use, and the maximum width twenty (20)
feet.
iii) For facilities containing five (5) or more stalls, Such drives shall be a
minimum of twelve (12) feet wide for one-way use and twenty (20) feet
wide for two-way use. The minimum curb radius shall be fifteen (15) feet.
The maximum width of such driveways at the street line shall be twenty-
five (25) feet in all districts.
iv) The Planning Board may modify such width and radius limitations wheD_a
gl"eraT'e-i�—wi'd'tti'—wo—Li—ld fa_Mi_tat�fiFaM6 �Row "A' 'Ir"st Rel i di`i v Vew a-y s
hall"he-td—catm Rd designed so as-fo—im-ni�in"li"'-nize—coniliet with traffic on
public streets and provide good visibility and sight
distances for the clear observation of approaching pedestrian and vehicular
--,,traffic."
Please call if you have any questions or there is anything else that you need.
Very truly yours,
'Thomas .J.' ibclis
TJU:Iui-ip
cc: Andrew Maylor
Curt Bellavance
i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORIrS
384 OSGOOD STREET
NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845-2909
BRUCE D.THIBODEAU,P.E.
DIRECTOR
Timothy J. Willett Teleplione(978) 685-0950
Operations Alcmager Fm(978)688-9573
.v 3p� r�✓4+
� ,a
•
April 2,2012
Ms.Judith Tymon
Town Planner
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE:Proposed Site Plan--
26 Main Street
Dear Ms.Tymon:
The Division of Public Works has reviewed the above and offers the following comments.
1. A second hydrant or blow-off should be installed at the end of the proposed water main behind
unit 8 to allow for flushing in response to discolored water complaints.
2. A 6X6 anchor tee should be used for proposed hydrants.
3. Each water service:must have an outside curb stop and Erie curb box.
4. Sewer Mitigation Fees apply to all units.
Very truly yours,
1
1
i
Timothy J.Willett
Operations Manager
i
3
's
k
6 -
k
Enright, Jean
From: John Cusack[cusack.john@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: Tyrnon, Judy
Cc: Enright, Jean; cusack.john@comcast.net
Subject: letter to planning board RE Main St Rear CUSACK
Attachments: Main St REAR letter to planning board CUSACK,pdf
Good Afternoon:
Thank you once again Ms. Tymon for taking time this afternoon to listen to my concerns
regarding the proposed subdivision behind my building at 28-30 Main Street in North
Andover.
I respect and appreciate the attention you gave my concerns earlier today and have
attached a letter regarding the agenda item referred to and respectfully ask you to
distribute the attached letter from me to all board members prior to tonight's planning
board meeting.
I look forward to seeing you at the next scheduled meeting on the 17 th of April and again
appreciate the time that you allotted me to voice my concerns to you earlier today.
John Cusack
........... ............................
Please note the MaSSaChLJSettS secretary of Slates office has determined that most ernails to and from municipal offices and officials are pUblic records.For more
information please refer to:
Please consider the environment t)efore printing this email.
BreakAway Realty Trust
28 Main Street
North Andover,MA 01845
April 3,2012
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Main Street Rear Lot
Dear Planning Board:
illy sincerest apologies that I will not be able to personally attend tonigliCs planning board meeting which will
discuss (lie proposed 8 Unit subdivision behind my building at 28-30 Main Street, North Andover, IWA.
I do have a myriad of serious concerns relating to the number of units proposed in the new overlay zoning district
which the applicant is intending to use to justify it subdivision of such massive scale oil the rear parcel lot.
I have engaged the sen ices of an attorney to Clarify and challenge die validity and legality of the supposed ingress
and egress casement that was referenced at the planning board nieeting which I attended on March 20, 2012 and
lioNv the "quiet statute of enjoyment" referred to in said easement is being utilized in the applicanLs' proposal
before the planning board.
I have placed two telephone calls with messages left to the applicant (icfTca) today in hopes of meeting with them
prior to the next scheduled meeting on April 17, 2012 to discuss a number of serious concerns which I have with
their current.proposal.
I also placed a call today and spoke at length with Mr. A] Manzi, current owner of the property, to discuss my
concerns with[lie proposal before the planning board and asked Mr. Manzi that lie call the applicant and have
hint return my call as soon as possible.
As of this afternoon,I have yet to receive a return call from the applicant.
Again, my respectful apologies to the board that I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting and assure you that I
will be present at(lie planning board electing scheduled far April 17, 2012 to discuss m),concerns as a direct.
abutter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Aa," (i'""el
BreakAway Realty`rrust
28 Main Street,North Andover,MA 01845
978.688.2600 Fax:978.688.2611
Enright, .lean
From: John Cusack[cusack88@g mail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Enright, Jean
Cc: J Cu sack@l rish Hockey. com
Subject: 22-24 Main St rear lot
May 1, 2012
Dear North Andover Planning Board:
My apologies for not being able to attend tonight's planning board meeting to discuss 22-24 Main St rear lots
which directly abut my property at 28-30 Main St.
I received one of those calls from any oldest sister on Sunday requesting I get down to Florida asap relating to
my fathers health at Bethesda Medical in Boynton Beach, FL.
I have met with George Hughes to discuss a member of outstanding concerns that I do have with the Manzi land
directlybehind m property and his proposed use of an alleged easement over m property for ingress and
Yp p Y p P g Yp p Y g
j egress to the Manzi parcel .
We are in the process of discussing options that are agreeable for ingress and egress, as well as a number of
other issues relating to the 8 units being proposed and the effect that such a large scale development will have
on 28-30 Main St. as well as a number of items that we do need to meet and resolve in the very near future.
At this time, I cannot support the development and it's size and scale until further discovery and disclosure is
brought forward.
I respectfully ask that planning board that I be allowed to voice my opinions in person prior to a vote being
ff
taken.
My intent was to be at tonight's meeting to do so in person, however, the above mentioned family circumstances
will prevent me from doing so.
i Respectfully submitted,
+• John Cusack
28-30 Main Street
No. Andover, MA 01845
978.423.1004
f
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
[ire Departinent
C'entral Hre llead(piarters Fire Preven6on Office
124 MAIN STRE"ET
NORTI-1 ANDOV F.R, M AS SACI IU SFITTS 0 184 5
,AORTtl
Andrew Melnikas 11 " a6 lire Chief -
"Yelephorie(978) 688-9593
FAX (978) 688-9594
L'L 1 mcc""'Irthy
Fire Prevention Officera. ........... ...........�ea....... Lalan
......
-[I]ica sir lay jg thandoverxoni
Town of North Andover
Planning Department
1600 Osgood St.
North Andover,Ma
May 24,2012
Judy,
Chief Melnikas and I reviewed the proposed plan of development for 26 Main St. An 8 unit 2 story Town
House development by Jeffco, Inc. known as Pond View. The Departments major concern would be
accessibility to the structure in the event of a fire or other emergency requiring fire apparatus. We have
met with the builder, Doug Ahern on this concern. He has provided the department with a site plan
detailing the parking arrangements in and around this structure. The Department is satisfied with the
parking arrangements spelled out on the plan. There shall be 12 feet of unobstructed travel way to access
the structure and a total of 18 feet in front of the structure for ladder truck operations. Both the 12 foot
access and 18 foot clearance must be marked as fire lanes according to MA. General Law CMR 527 10.03
[10] It is imperative these lanes be free of obstruction at all times and maintained in perpetuity.
The Department also requires the fire sprinkler main control valve be attached to the exterior of the
building enclosed in a structure with key access,this room shall be heated during the winter season to
prevent the valve from freezing. A fire hydrant shall be installed within 50 feet of the fire department
connection.
Fire alarms and carbon monoxide warning systems shall be installed in accordance with the existing
building code. [8]
If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me anytime.
Regards,
Lt Frederick McCarthy
Fire Prevention
978-688-9590
' H 1 7
1 4"i
iH
4-
4 fl i��,
17T-im
t to
t "4703332 faXM4708M
----------
r — ----------
or
Tuk, -vj
7z- En
mi
L�J-
Main Street
T.M -!�A—
"AC
I North Andover,Massachusetts
T-LAR7ING NO—ES
I Landscape Plan
2,
armor
2 TYPICLAL S�WJB PL.AN7NG _-�&Vff S7113*WALL
� SCRe
PLAN-1 L15T
wpm
21
f Una=
i Am
I IF`
DECEFLAMING AND SWING_;, NATURAL CEDAR SPLT RAL FENCE
LEGEND:
1m C EXWNG LLHT POLO
�` [#'.TINE COuTWR Cx, PRpPOGEO ERCFIOK CONITROL
�mI J PROPOCW CONTOUR (r—.-i CKI.nNC V'RJTY POLO WJWY
TOP OF BANK - - - U[T-._._ PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
o J f ,Y. EXISTxC wnTER C C',..TELEPHONE k GABLE
PROPOOCII WATER F Ia0 KM PLOCO CLCYAi1W
:, I+` __ 4 r .}\\\�\:�e. �••----so'o—® FASNxG IANAtNAC2 �' o MISTING SEINER
>umy'":' V`�- - -_ _ '�._,w._ ~__, �--- •gym.....- °�— wr�asv xwrR
11 _ PRDPp Co oRANALC
PROfkS,D SPOT MADE
{— •'.x qa -'~-��'�-_-�. ___ _ `�`' TwI SOIL T[::T PIT wA�..w,r`�•�'i,J,� PROPOSED TRECUNC
—_——__ CA,-NC COCC OF PAKMCNT
n.Ic Prx _ EXISTING GAO
r _ g PROPOSED PAVII AND
�� I{ - '�!T P:cv: ~~r r...�_ _..�,. n^'.t.•._--_ r="[_ j ;yr^ ','` vc PRDPOCCD CAC CURBIxG
r-- II I 5 �.'Pa ram,.x w- I �Yti.r ,T �•' y,�.`"15` •.y j'• \�;���'•`s'.�,°, �'. PRc,DSCD HYDRANT ra PROPOSED GATL N LW
�1 '�- N/F „ \__. 1 `x C PARKING CPALEE ..► PROPOSED TRAMC ROW
IIV �. L ,� 5 pOSTONL a OAWC ` `
`` PRaPOCCO LAMP POLC .a PROPOCED GJRP vT P Y BOX
RIM[NT,
BCUWD
f22-2A
DEPICTED ON�IS
ERL'1lNO GTRo-LTVR �rYtie ;,::��'°"`?+` H07ET _
f RA \ PLAN WAS NPLALGCO W MCC HOCMUTH IN
III IR6 O a4RA ! %r��'".
Cm b,,vr,E1¢\ �xv PR•\ \.,`'--r _ ;� \ AVwST Colt.
-MDL AC
w,-.tee � � y, 1�� � Tr[A:kW:AT • f ,6 ,tra+[u \ 1� y/ ,-\ ,�Y.�r �s; s,`•`\ 9.
L47 AREA '\
TO.�F _
J If z a /� ip TIE LENS °V (�
BR Bt�wAY V'A ,\ yy '.; !; i.
xCALTY 1, 4.1 1'ti �PY1 F T 1 - at C
TRUST iNl J�% i 5�'/A
�CIMR[
-IN - } 1..W G+41
- � i 'r'1��.' �_.,_- '\• i 4 t ,.IT,`I,,�-5 .•��'`ram I PS �� C
_
Wq
CNLD x'L aar
y ,7L II m RCALTYfi TRUST
A1
0 CAM T.N.PHU S `Y L=PLAN. CWLC"-15DO'
NCUYET O.PNAM
NWYCTC "i •
1 4 N0'
L
Id
u 5
f i ` 0��< \
I f SAUI__�DRS
1
EXISTING� \ G CONDITIONS PLAN
ST_'_FEET \ "PONDVIEW,•
`?TC IS SHCVM CN TOWN OF NCRn AI,00 C A^.. -OR MAP D.) EXISTING CONDITIONS WERE WTAINED TRW AN NI. 1AGNT F1CtD + 26 MAIN STREET cG-
➢B PARCdL,,y N.C PARCEL IS WITHIN TWC INDUMAL-S ZONING URA CONCOCTED DY ANDDVCR CLNSULTANTS.INL.IN WWI R011, NORTH ANDOVER, M ASS-
OIS1TCICT AND SMTMx TNC COWNTORN EACRLAY DISTRN:T. 'fOPCCRApNY CnCEO UPON]9CB NOWpANM.
ary
UCNLHMARK:SPIKE IN unLTY KUC fUM CLCVAWN.GQ2,. PREPARED FOR: JEFFCO,INC.
z)RECORD DINNER IS: DATE: Janu 10,2012 REV; May 10,2012'•
RCAR LOT,LLC C.) THC LOCATION CT EXICnNG PIPES.CONCVHC.AND DTHCR UNDCRCIRWND l SCALE: I'm 20�
FH NAM SECT STRUMRCS OR VnLTICC ARE:MOWN ARC BASED UPON CKI,NG }
NORTH ANDONER,MA DIBNC ;G"Ra INPO IICB AND ARL NOT WARRANTED TO BE CORRECT.OR i
AT ALL SUCH IT•AWR[s ARE MOWN.THC SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL
0C RCSPONSMLE MR VCRIEVNG ALL UNDERGROUND U'IL1,CS,
3.) THC UMnS OF W-K—x W STMED OUT AND MAYAALCS AND STRUCTURES,PIPCS,CTC.PRIOR TO OONSTRUCnON.TIC SITE �\.EgltJOVEF
SILTTENLINCTALLM PRIOR ro TIC START OF GONSTRUCNON CONTRACTERIN RCC wITUit TKOHE PC RI7,PCINMLLI FORACONND FA ALL NG DIG SAi tcn t S
AND SITC CLEARING. NCCC:.'ARY PRE-MARKING PRIOR TO COMMLNI AN DEXCAVATIW 1�C.
A.) ORAINACE STRUCTVRCS SHALL RC C,CANfb AT TNF COMPI-II OF ACTYITY. 1 E.,t F PIeGe
THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND ALL CTORNWATER LACI TES T.)PROJECT PP.�CNCNT: ••Rmt"eC MNy TD,^.MG.;ed,t.pskl,q,puce 1°n,l Mnth4WI1.MeaP,GIB"
MAINXW IN AMER DANCE WITH n1C'CRATION AND ,ICFECO.INC. ^P.=MPy I ""Meal 0 20 0.0 60 BD Ft.
uA1NTCNANCC SCNmUU iHERF.AFTER. "PIHI APr11 iT.2M 2:Pew—ca C,
PO OCX 802
P�\1i\11w26\DWG\CTE PW-ARC DCPT.DWC HOOVER,M0.MBta ^FR Aed AR°,I 2.2912�„btllw PwAInR,p°Ppwe t,ofRc 1ba
>ee ua,cN Ts,xmz Pear raa�Ae,nmanu SHEET t of a D S FD 20 Moor
jJEGEND_ t MSI LKR�T POLE
oa-,NG Ga;IWR PROPOSED CRE71.CN`aOL
PROPOSED ODW.OUR 0— C%WAX UTLIE,R=w/my
Tap c, -OR.Sco uwaaeaRamsa—QPO=WA`ZR *tD.o
DR-AGE RR�
DDSM NO
SCAFA
DWMIING PARKM
—5�5 PP,OPEDOO SPOT DPAOC
I MI L TEST PIT
-ji 7 —————— E`P
—1,NO LaCC OF I A
—,.1 A�*
PROPOSED GPs cl.`Rs�
,v
P�—H—T PPDPODEo CATS v&vc
V
SRASEI PRo m w—
RPOPO= P� co"SM' Dox
:r
;T?lT LLC P RITDM�
SIGN TABLE
L/ --D,
-ruRE
�T
vw
r-I
iv*
N�k,�
MZ
Q\
A, ONLY
--r---N'Tr FP
Y
0
ur)
z
N/r
YET Q D sx: --X
f
F
1 7 laji
11
S AUAI
SITE PLAN
T 4 y "PONOVIEW'
26 MAIN STREET
NORTH AN-DOVER, MASS.
INDUSTRIAL 5 ZONING O[S7RtCT 4, PREPARED FOR: jEllCO.INC.
ZONING ,
— DA May 10.2012
I f ANALYSIS :E:J_'y 19.2012 R
'tTCkt
I K00RED �O,� k SCALE: 1'm2O� REV: M
LOT-C� .1 S.F.
92— Andover
�Rlml W C.'.�;.ltcn+s
Inc.
ME,-I-�- j R;—1-
018"
L., 3" Il.tx 20 40 50 80 Ft.
,R�P lig 1w=1-1% 0
f 10 20 me.,
"-PRE DOPED-
i
DEP Stormwater Management_Standards
The project is an eight unit residential condominium project not tributary to a critical area so is
subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition,the project will remove existing pavement and existing,wood frame garages resulting
in a net decrease in impervious surface areas once the project is complete. As such,the project is
also a redevelopment of an existing developed site. The new work will meet the local
requirement of maintaining a 25-foot no disturbance zone from the bordering wetland of Sutton
Pond.
Standard#1 No New Untreated Discharges
Runoff from the proposed paved driveways discharges to a deep surnp,hooded catch basin then a
precast concrete infiltration system which then discharges to.a depression and level spreader to
dissipate outlet velocity.
Standard#2 Peak Rate Attenuation
Runoff from the project discharges in a general easterly direction towards Sutton Pond. As noted
above, the work will result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces,peak rates of runoff to
Sutton Pond from the parcel and tributary off parcel areas have been calculated.
Peak rates of mnoff for the 1, 2, 10, and 100-year storm events are as follows:
I
1-year storm 2-year stone 10-year storm 100-year storm
Pre= 1.4 cfs pre= 1.9 cfs pre=3.4 cfs pre=6.1 cfs
Post— 1.2 cfs post— 1.7 cfs post=3.1 cfs post=5.7 cfs
(was 1.1 cfs) (was 1.6 cfs) (was=3.0 cfs) (was 5.6 cfs)
As can be seen,the peak rates of rlmoff,post construction,are less than the pre constniction rates due to
the decrease in impervious areas and the conversion of the bare soillweedy surface cover to lawn.
Standard#3 Rechar e
y The soils at the site according to the USDA Web Soil Survey consist of Canton fine sandy loam.
Canton soils are HSG B soil. The target depth to recharge is 0.35 inches.
1
Infiltration/Recharl4c Calculations
Total, existing impervious area= 13,015 sf
Total proposed,new impervious area= 10,545 sf 4 650 sf= 11,195 sf
Net new impervious area=-1,820 sf
p There is a decrease in impervious area resulting in no net loss of recharge post construction.
However,the proposed precast concrete galley system will provide recharge as detailed below.
Precast concrete gally infiltrations stem:
H
SS
G
V
Volume required= 11,195 sf x 0.35"/ 12"per foot=326.51 cf(2445 gallons)
Provide 2- 8 x 14 precast concrete galleys 4'-8"high
Volume provided below invert=2 x 7 ft x 13 ft x 2.36 ft=429.5 cf
429.5 of>326.5 cf, ok
Note: rear half of the roof(2,148 s fl will discharge to the grass area behind the stl ucture.
Time to drain (static method
Total volume=vol.=430cf
Bottom area=A=7 ft x 13 ft x 2= 182 sf
k(HSG B soil=0.52 in/hr(0.0433 ft/hr)
t—vol/(k '`A),t=430/(0.0433"182)=54.5 firs c 72 hrs, ok
I
i
I
i
I
3
0
3i
3
3
i
I
0
i
d
H
r
s
i
k
E
Standard 114 Water ualit
Water Quality Calculations
The infiltration system will provide the 80%TSS removal with pretreatment provided by a deep
sump hooded catch basin.
Calculate the water quality volume:
Tributary area(new) = 11, 195- (2,148 (roof))=9,047 sf
Required WQV:
Use 0.5" depth for WQV calculation.
WQV=0.5/12 ft x 9,047=3 77±ef
Provided WQV=429.5 of> 377 cf, A
INSTRUCTIONS: Version 1,Aulomated.-Mar.4,2008
1.In BMP Column,click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu
2.Select BMP from Drop Down Menu
3.After BMP is selected,TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed.
Location: 26=mIn St North Andover,MA — -1
B C D E F
TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining
BMP Rate' Load* Removed
.0.0
(1) Deep Sump and Hooded
a) Catch Basin 0.26 1,00 0.26 0.76
fA
LSubsturfaco Infiltration
> L-
0 0 Structure 0.80 0.75 0.60 0.15
E
0 0100 0.1 A 0.00 0.115
0.00 0.15 0.00 1 0J5
0 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15
Separab,,Forin Needs to
be Ccmp�eked for Each
Total TSS Removal 85% Outlet or MVP Train
Pwrdvicw
Project:
Prepared By: isf *Equals remaining load from previous BMP(E)
Date: 41117120112 which enters the BMP
Standard#5 Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs
The site is not a land use with higher potential pollutant loads.
Standard#6 Critical Areas
The project will not create any discharges to Critical Areas.
Standard#7 Redevelopment Project
There will be a reduction in impervious areas by the proposed construction in an area previously
developed and qualifies as a redevelopment project.
Standard#8 Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan has
been prepared and will be implemented to protect the adjacent properties from sedimentation
during construction. The project is not covered by a NPDES Constriction General Permit due to
the small scale of the project.
Standard#9 Operation and Maintenance Plan
An Operation and Maintenance Plan(O&M Plan)has been developed which lists the
condominium association as the responsible party. The O&M Plan details the schedule for
routine maintenance and inspection.
j Standard#10 Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
All illicit discharges at the site will be prohibited. An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement
will be submitted prior to the start of any land disturbance activities.
i
6
o-
f
k
V
H
'pt
'7
d
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Conservation Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
John Cusack
181 Kara Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
John,
i
The email that you wrote on May 1, 2012 and sent to Jean Enright in the Planning Office was
read into the record at the May 1 public hearing for the Site Plan Special Permit for 26 Main St.
The Planning Board did not close the hearing and the applicant has requested a continuance until
the June 5t", 2012 Planning Board meeting,
0
The Board would like to hear from you in person at the next meeting if that is possible for you
and they are aware of your personal circumstances in Florida. Please let me know as soon as
you can if you think you will be able to attend that meeting and let me know if you have any
questions.
Regards,
f
Judy Tymon
Town Planner
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01 B45
Phone 978.688.9531 fax 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthandover.com
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Conservation Health Planning Zoning
MEMORANDUM
John Cusack
BreakAway Realty Trust
28 Main St.
North Andover, MA 01845
John,
The email that you wrote on May 1, 2012 and sent to Jean Enright in the Planning Office was
read into the record at the May 1 public hearing for the Site Plan Special Permit for 26 Main St,
The Planning Board did not close the hearing and the applicant has requested a continuance until
the June 5'h, 2012 Planning Board meeting,
The Board would like to hear from you in person at the next meeting if that is possible for you
and they are aware of your personal circumstances in Florida. Please let me know as soon as
: you can if you think you will be able to attend that meeting and let me know if you have any
questions.
I
i
i
Regards,
Judy Tymon
z
Town Planner
a
i
i
C
I
s
R
r
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
€ Phone 978.680.9531 fox 978.688.9542 Web www.tomohorthandover,com
Scott D. Kellowacy, P.E.
Professional Civil and Ennvironnnental Designs and Inspections.
148 North St. Andover, Ma. 01810
Phone. (978) 682-5054 Cell(978)479-5648
Ma. Lise #40122
August 27, 2012
To whom this may concerti,
This letter is to confirm that applicant the for Ilse project "Pond View"located at
26 Main St, in North Andover has retained my services as Erosion Control Monitor as
required in the Order of Conditions Special Condition #48 + #49(DEP File No.242-1 S44).
Please contact me at the numbers listed above with any questions or concerns.
u
Wincerely,. eoway, RE
i