Loading...
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