The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDecision - 1077 OSGOOD STREET 5/4/1988 DENIED MUM HUI TOWN OF rF O T 311 ANDOVER 4 RErMYED M A S A C H U S E T T S DANIEL LONGTOWN CL�.iK . NORTH ANOOVER .. - - .• - }$` .•{rig '�' ' RAY 4 4 2 pmy appml shall be filed �� #'3�1tJi4}Sli within(2 )days .. date of filing of this Notice in#1�boutoofthe Town NOTICE of DE ISION C119r1L rryy May 4, 1988 Ta • + + t y . . . . . . . . . . . . + • i . . . . . . f April 21, 1988 DaLo of [Tearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . us r Corp- Petition Peti#ion of # Ang ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . affected Rt+ 125 and Great Pond road Zoned GB and B-�2 Premises ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . Referring to the above petition for a special permit from the requirements of the +Section 8.3 of the North Aiadover Zonjug Bylaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r i , • . . # . . + • . • . . • so as to permit foot, commercial structure . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i + Tr li'k ' $ E � ID}rOY C TE i • • • • . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . a + . . i . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . After a public hearing given on the above date, the Planning Board voted to . k!'Y. . . . . + + . . + +the * * #s,ltie* plan. review.application + . . . . . . . , . . . . }. . . . . . . . . , . . based upon the foiiowin[r conditions.- Signed Paul liedstrow, Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Simons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erich Nitzsche i • + . • , . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . Mike Leary . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 • . , TOWN k'Lti�K SITE PLAN REViE -- BY SPECIALP1;RL�li' - 1Ei42AL Tl€'it'1iRSOALACE MAY 4 4 F '50 !Upon review of the plans and information subtaitted ,ender this site plat application by special permit, the Planning Board rakes the following findings as required by Section 10.31 and Section 8.3 of the Zoning ByLaw; a. Finding that the specific site is an appropriate location for nuc€i a use, structure , or condition; cannot be made due to procedural and substantive requirements of the Zoning ByLaw which were not :addressed by the applicant in this proposal before the board. b. The board cannot determine from the inforUCBtion supplied teat the use as developed will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoo-d. C. The beard does not kiave adequate information ILpOsi whirr to find that: the proposed use will not present a nuisance or serious public safety problems to vehicles or pedestrians of the surounding area, ur to Hke commuluity at large. d. The board finds that the proper operation of the proposed facility i:, riot assured by the information before us . e. The board as the special permit granting authority under M.G.L. Ch. 40A, Section 9, finds that the proposed project is Ttut in harmony or compliance with Che general purpose and intent of the Zaning Bylaw. Upon reaching the findings cited above the beard votes to deny the special permit for the following reasons : 1. The requisite zoning pe-irmits to enable the board to process this application far site plan revi,aw under a special permit arc lacking. The site plan which Cht Zoning Hoard of Appeals approver! on Smpt . 24, 1985 and extended on Feb. 10, 1987 under a special permi.t to allow evnstruction within the watershed special permit di,.trict was lor. a 31 ,402 square foot one story structure (plan dated March 28, 19€35 which contained a retaining wall outside of the no cut buffer zone of 500 linear feet. The plans before the bu�rd are for a 65,861 square foot, two strrry structure (plan dated April 14, 1988) which contains a retaining wall within the ao cut buffer zone of 565 linear feet and placed in a new location. There 1.5 no evide�iCe in the file, nor has the applicant pro;esttEd evidence at the public hearings that there exints a special permit for cou�.truction activity within the watershed district as contemplated by the applicant in the application before us . The Ella ring Roard has no authority to approvo a Nice plan uTLdr-r. a special peruiit application which oil its face does rent comply with the pregent regulations contained in tb42 Zouittg Rylaw. BUTCHER BOY MARKETPLACE ��k`��# '.'.�E;!K NORT7 l 4CC-s,9 ER 28 #$$ The board further finds that the latest plans he sire us as c_i,tnd below is not the same plan currently in Fite in the Registry of Deeds Office (plan 910 99) which is related to the special. permit granted by the Board of Appeals. 2. A complete set of sewer pl.an� were net .submitted to DPW for review. The Board cannot determine if the proposed sewer design meets DPW standards due to lack of information. 3. Detail plans regarding the natural spring on-site have not been submitted to the DPW for review. The board finds that the potential adverse impact to the Lake due to inadequat.e desigTi for the spring requires a mute detail and complete review. 4. coziflict with the proposed drainage pipes from Lhe sites and a ma-in r water line which currently exists along Osgood Street has not been resolved to the satisfaction of Me Board ur DPW. 5. The applicant has -ziltered a resource area along the rear property lime in violatioii of the Wetland8 Protectiuli Act . The applicant shall he required to replace the wetland di�3ttjrbed by 3 times 'LS required by Lhe act. The replacement area shall require the movement of the proposed structure and rear to;jd:ing dock,%. A new nite Plan showing these changes should be submitted, whzah is in compliance with an Order of Conditions from the NA.CC. G. Are Environmental Impact Report as regmired by the state w.i.-: not submitted concurrently with the application before its. The board requests that the M PA process rim conctIrrelltly With the Flainiing Beard review in order to coordinate with state ageRcies whictti 11ave jurisdiction w7ith this project. 7. A detail Traffic impact Report has not been siihluittcrl to the RQrJrd studying the current design of the acce.;s to the site. A 'traffic Impact Report submi.ttad waq for the original access drive, and the board requires a new Traffic impact Report based upon the nEw acceti,s design, 'File following plans shall be deened to be contained within this decision: Plan8 prepared by McCaren Associates entitiled: Butchr-r Bay Mar€cct Place, dated Oct. 15, 1986 with the last revision dorms on April 14, 1988. Drawing No. L-1, A-3 (elevations) dated 2/13/87. M. Artthouy Laily Associates, Sheet 2 entitled Details & FTOfileS , revised Jan. 1987 .