HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-19 MUM HM
AF
MASSACH
OYER
.: rr SEP,y
i
:l NOTICE OF DEOI$ ION
t
Date, 19.,. AM5.
July 21 , F1986
Date of HnarinF,
. . JOhn B. Todd
Petitionof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises affected + + -West side of, Turnpike` -Street * (Route F 11-4). . . . . . . .
`sReferring to the above petition for a special permit from the regllirements
of the . . . . orth�Andover- Zoning iBylaw iS ction Section *8, ,ParagraphF #3
} as to permit . . , the construction of +a building iforF ,'istorage ware-
so '
. . , . . . . . . . .+. . . .
. , . .hou8ing, arid- aS�soci ate d i arkira �"- - - - - • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.: After a public hearing given on the aboveti,�tc, the Planning Beard voted
to . . . . ,det : . . . . . .t1le . . bite+ Plan Review Speeial `Permit Permit. .
I . -
based upon the fpllowing conditions:
i
i
i Signed
A y� pL � + Ac�� rt s , Vice-Oha reran
John L. Simon5, Clerk
Pant A_ Hedstrom
i John J . Burke
4 ro
TOWN OF NORTH A DO Eft
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA, 0184
685-4775
t r
x� "fir
�afA US
September S , 1936
Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk
Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover , MA 01845
Y Re: `rODD SITE PLAN REVIEW - SPECIAL PERMIT
MINI WAREHOUSING
Dear Mr. Long: '
'r
f
Th Forth Andover Planning Board held a public hearing on
Monday v ning, July 21 , 1986 at 8 : 30 p.m. in the Town Office
f Meeting Room upon the appli.oation of JOHN B. TODD, 15 Winward
Road, Lowell , MA 01852 . The hearing was advertized in the
Lawrence Eagle Tribune on July 7 and July 14 , 1986 . The follow-
ing members were present at the July 21 , 1986 meeting: Erich .
Nitzsche, Chairman; Mic-hael P . Roberts , Vice Chairman; John L.
Simons : John J. Burke and Paul. A. Hedstrom.
The petitioner seeks a Spccial Permit under SECTION 8 ,
PARAGRAPH 3 ; Site Plan Review of the Forth Andover Zoning Bylaw.
The purpose ofthe Site Plan Special Permit is to review John B.
Toad' s proposal to construct a building for storage warehousing
and associated parking ' . The Site is located on the West side
of Tur�ipik�_- Street (Route 114) , possessing 2 . 73 ages , 340 feet
of f32Qntag(2_� and located in an Industrial 2 (1-2) Zoning District.
At the hearing, the applicant' s representative, Mr . 'JQhri
Callahan from Callahan Associates , gave the following prezentation
- Two story building typical series of warehousing i
enclosed with peripheral areas being a �ocated for:
�.
storage.
r
John 13. Todd
special Permit
Page 2
- Pass through is a drive through the middle of the
building with elevators for merchandise and equipment,
not for personnel (operational from outside as well as
inside) .
Parcel of land consists of 2 . 73 acres, building covers
ground space of 33 , 000 square feet of 27 . 8 percent
of the building area, the pavement with 16 parking spaces
is 31. , 750 square feet (26 . 7 percent) .
- 50 percent of the land is open, common drive is included,
which reduces it by 7 percent.
- The building is metal steel frame structure .
- Lighting is proposed for illuminating the area.
- Operational hours is based on a 6 day a week time framer
7 am to 7 pm.
- Managex'' s office on the second floor and will maintain
the facility . The entire building will be secured with
safety device .
ABC Bus and Mr . Todd will extend water lute ftom across
the street in the future .
- A residential apax'tment is located on the second floor.
Mr. Campbell, an associate of Mr . Todd' s , supplied the
Board with a letter from the Building Inspector indicating
that mini-warehousing is allowed in 1- .
The Planning Board had the following questions and
conments
- Mr. Simons : The drive through is not included in the
floor coverage ratio . The Planning Board cannot gacant
waivers on parking requirements , the Appeal ' s Beard
is the granting authority. Extensive on site wetland
and filling is proposed.
Mr. Hedstrom: History of site is such that any use not
consistent with character of usen along Rte. 114 would
require greater attention to Site Plan 13ylaw requirements .
Where - is landscape screening detail forthe site?
Warehousing concept along 114 corridor is riot the optimum
use for the site and not consistent with the land uses
surrounding the parcel.. Wherefore recommends an
extreme landscape treatment such that it will be
screened to blend in with the light indtstrial uses on
114 .
- Ms . Nelson Flown Planner) : How does ' personal storage '
fit .under the definition of warehousing in the bylaw of
detailed description.
- Mr. Nitzsche : No drainage plans or calculations have
been submitted poxc site plan requirements . Mr. Callahan
informed the Board that these are not finalized plats,
wanted to bring plans fox' discussion of feasibility.
.5
John B. Todd
Special Permit
Page
Resident Gomrients
Mr. Henry Fink spoke in opposition of the project due to
the request in the reduction in number of parking spaces . The
' impervious area creates a drainage concern - the retention
area is upstream not downstx�eam. The septic systems have net
been approved. Mr. Briekus commented that the Planning Board
should not be put in the position of designing the site plan
but reviewing it.
Motion was made by M. Roberts and seconded by P. Hedstrom
to continuc the hearing to August 18 , 1886 and to provide the
board with additional information. VOTE was unanimous .
At the continued hearing of August 18 , 1986 Mahn Callahan,
the engineer for the project and John Toad, applicant were
present. Mr. Todd explained that he has addressed the questions
that the PlaruUng Board raised at the last Public Hearing. They
are as follows :
C - Copied from a building in Houston, Texas .
- Constructed with Durastgne building material.
- Traffic impact will be 15-18 vehicles per day.
-- He has purchased additional land which will allow him
to (--onfo�rm to zoning regulations .
The plan also cgniorms to the 75% CBA as stated in the
new zoning bylaw.
I
Mr . Frank Todd, a landscape architect, discussed the
landscaping plan for the project. Chairman Nitzs he asked that
drainage calculations be given to the Planning Board,. The
apartment which is part of the project will remain according
to the applicant. Mr. Toad stated that he obtained a written
opinion from the Building Inspector that this use would be
allowed in an Industrial 2 District. However , the Planning
Beard differed with this opinion according to their interpretation
of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr . Callahan also requested that the
Planning Board waive the Spacial Permit for a Common Driveway.
A motion was made by Michael Roberts to take the matter
under .ad ispment and close the public hearing, seconded by
Patti, a . Hedstr'om. The VOTE was unanimous.
The following members were present and voting at the
September 8 , 1986 Planning Board meeting when the Board rendered
their decision: Michael P . Roberts, Paul Hedstrom, John Simons,
John Bui:ke .
Upon a motion made by John Simons and seconded by Paul
H dstrom, the Board voted three in favor and one against (John
Burke) TO DENY THE PETITION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE
SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS FOR JOHN TODD, PLAN DATED JULY 1986
REVISED AUGUST 13 , 1986 ENTITLED ' NEW STORAGE FACILITY ' BY
JOHN C;ALLAHAN ASSOCIATES for the following reasons
John B. Todd
Special Permit
Page 4
i
i .
1 . Lack of a revised detailed landscaping plan for the
proposed ' storage facility' site as was requested
at the hear inn of July 21 , 19 B 6 . No attempt was made
by the applicant at th continuation of the hearing
to address adequately the screening and landscape
iFsue.
2 . The application and accompanying plain violate Section
. 30 . 1 of the Zoning Bylaw in that it shows a single
commercial driveway being used by more than one
building.
3 . The Board of Health is unable to determine the feasi-
bility of placing a septic system on site based on
the design of the lot and proposed uses of the warehouse .
See Exhibit A.
4 . The proposed residential use identified in the
application (second floor apartineiit) is NOT pGrinitted
in an Industrial-2 Zoning District.
5 . No d)'ainage information was submitted based on the
numbexc of proposed parking spaces , impervious material
and building size ih accordance with the Site Plan
Review plan xegQirements Section 8 . 3, 3 .d. The Board
raised specific issues on drainage because of the
topography of the site and the existence of a Located
stream. The failure to address drainage issues and
the result of the construction process to adjoining
wetland prevented the Board from addressing specific guide-
lines required to be addressed by the Zoning Bylaw.
6 . The North Andover' Conservation Commission has informed
the P1"5=ing Board in writing that the project does not-
in t the performance standards of the commission and
that the wetland alterations will more than likely not
receive approval .
7 . The Eire Department requires 360 degree aer-ess from
all points of the building . This ia not provided.
8 . The proposal has not been reviewed by the Mate Depart-
ment of Public Works . The traffic impact has not
been addressed in the farm of a study for review by
the Board.
In denying this Special Permit , the Planting Boarrd, finds
pursuant to Section 10 . 31 - Conditions for Approval of Special
Permits of the Zoning Bylaw:
- The specific site , as noted in the plans dated July, 1986 ,
revised August 13 , 1986 is not an appropriate location
for such a structure.
W The use, ' cold storage/mini-warehousing' with a residential
apartment will adversely affect the neighborhood.
- Seriou5 safety issues and hazards to vehicles or
pedestrians exists cinder the preset application.
a
\ \ John B. Toad
special permit
» Page 5
THE SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY (PLANNING BOARD) SHALL
NOT Cam$ ANY SPECIAL 2tRMIT UNLESS THEY MAKE A SPECIFIC FINDING
\ THAT THE USE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS
/\ BYLAW,
Sincerely,
PLANNING BOARD
Erich W. Nit2a e, ,.w
Chairman _
EWN;2ts
cc : Highway Su-rveyor
Board of Public Works
Tree Department
Conservation commission
Building Inspector
Board of Health
Assessor
file Chief
Police chief .
Applicant '
Engineer .
File