The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-04-06 Correspondence Withdrawn liown of North Andover NORT}r 1 O 0MCE OF F y�, 6'a�° COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES ° . ' p 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 c2 �gssncxus�� WUILLAM I SCOTT Director (978)688-9531 Fax (978)688-9542 March 12, 1999 Faxed 978-372-3960 Philip G. Christensen Christensen & Sergi Inc. 160 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830-6318 RE: Northeast Storage Facility Dear Mr Christensen; The following is a review of the above project. This letter has been amended from a prior letter of the some date to add the reference regarding the lack of building elevations. 1 . The plans lack the following items from site plan review section 8.3.5. Ix Building Elevations • Xv Landscaping plan • Xvi Refuse Areas Xvii Lighting Facilities Xix Traffic Impact Study 2. The plans submitted to the Conservation Commission differ from those that are submitted to the Planning Board. The building to the northeast corner of the proposals has a jog on the Conservation plan that is not apparent on the Planning Board plan. Further the setback from the buildings to the west are 67 feet on the Conservation plan and 101 feet on the Planning Board plan. While we cannot cross jurisdictions, Conservation to Planning Board, the difference between the plans indicates that the plans are either not accurate or will be amended and are incomplete. 3. Conformance with Site Plan Criteria: Due to the incomplete submittal the following items cannot be determined: • Adequacy of proposed methods for refuse disposal a Provision of adequate landscaping.... Protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting. Screening shall be provided.... Page 1 of 2 BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BLYILDINO 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 i Page 2 of 2 Christensen letter Northeast Storage 4. The applicant submitted an incomplete abutters list. Because the proposal is on the Lawrence Airport and not a separate property, all abutters to the airport property require notification. submittal the Planning Office is recommending 5. Due to the incompleteg g denial to the Planning Board pursuant to section 8.3.7Jii.a,b,c. of the Zoning By-Law. Regardless of additional future submittals the recommendation for denial will remain. At the time of application the submittal did not substantially meet the site plan review requirements, as such it is not entitled to approval. You may choose to proceed to the Planning Board hearing with this recommendation or withdraw the application prior to the notice appearing in the newspaper. If you do not notify us in writing of a withdrawal prior to the notice appearing in the newspaper then the hearing will proceed. /ceey, J., ott f Cc: Conservation Commission, Planning-,Board Sent byre Mar-I5-99 11 : 13 4'rQm 9763723960r508 688 9542 page 1/ 1 E CHRISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC. PROFESSIONAL eNGINMAS AND LAND SURVEYORS 160 SUMMER STREET HAYERHIL1.,MAWIA H ►SETTS 01830-6318 (978)373 0370 FAX; (976)372-3960 March 15 1999g Mr.William Scott Office of Community Development and Services 27 Charles St. ' C E I V E North Azidover, N1A 01845 RECEIVED RE: Site flan Review Application MAR 1 1999 Special Permit Application MAR 1 5 1999 RTH ANDav> R .filed by Northeast Storage Corp P 9�NNING DEPAR�ENT NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Board Members: Ong behalf of my client Northeast Storage, I wish to withdraw ,Mthout prejudice, the above referenced applications for review. I am in receipt of your letter of March 12, 1999 and each of the items will be addressed. it is anticipated that the application will be resubmitted on March 19, 1999 to accommodate a hearing on April 20, 1999. Th y or your tion to this matter. I� fPhil Ghvitiansen M.U.L. - Chapter 41, Section 81 IL Page t of t i i GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS Chapter 41: Section 81R. Waiver of strict compliance with rules and regulations. Section 8 iR. A planning board may in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations, and with the frontage or access requirements specified in said law, and may, where the ways are not otherwise deemed adequate, approve a plan on conditions limiting the lots upon which buildings may be erected and the number of buildings that may be erected on particular lots and the length of time for which particular buildings may be maintained without further consent by the planning board to the access provided. The planning board shall endorse such conditions on the plan to which they relate, or set them forth in a separate instrument attached thereto to which reference is made on such plan and which shall for the purpose of the subdivision control law be deemed to be a part of the plan. ------------ Return to: ** Next Section **Previous Section ** Chapter 41 T;11}le of Contents** Let isl<11. c Rollie_Page http://www.magnet.state.ma,usliegis/laws/mgV41%2D81 r.htm 3/16/99 r 1 Town of North Andover NORTH OFFICE OF Of is is ,a 1 y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES . z 30 School Street WTLLIAM J. SCOTT North Andover, Kissadiusetts 01345 �9ssacrus i�5 Direclor Memorandum ' TO: Richard Rowen, Chair North Andover Planning Board c From: William J. Scott, Community Development Director RE: Northeast Storage Self Storage facility Date: March 12, 1999 The following is a review of the above project. i. The plans lack the following items from site plan review section 8.3.5. • Xv Landscaping plan • Xvi Refuse Areas • Xvii Lighting Facilities • Xix Traffic impact Study 2. The plans submitted to the Conservation Commission differ from those that are submitted to the Planning Board. The building to the northeast corner of the proposals has a jog on the Conservation plan that is not apparent on the Planning Board plan. 3. Conformance with Site Pion Criteria: Due to the incomplete submittal the following items cannot be determined: • Adequacy of proposed methods for refuse disposal • Provision of adequate landscaping.... • Protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting. • Screening shall be provided.... 4. The applicant submitted an incomplete abutters list. Because the proposal is on the Lawrence Airport and not separate, all abutters to that property require notification. 5. Due to the incomplete submittal the Planning Office recommends denial of the project because the submittal does not show compliance with the criteria as sited in section 8.3.7. 6. The use is not an accessory to the Airport. As such the use shall be required to prove the following to show that it is part of the Airport overall Master Plan. • That the use is approved by the Airport Commission • That the use is approved by the consulting engineers to the Airport Commission • That the use is approved by any and all State and Federal regulatory agencies responsible for oversight of airports. 7. Because the use is accessory the lot area from the airport shall only be used if the applicant can prove that there is sufficient lot area available. This shall be done by creating a site plan for the entire airport and indicating the respective lot areas for all uses thereon. The site plan must be approved by the Airport Commission and confirmed as accurate by the Airport consulting engineers. 8. This review does not limit the rights of the Building Commissioner to provide further evidence in regard to zoning compliance. BOARD OFAPPEALS 6M9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSEIZVATION 688'9530 HEALTH 683-9540 PLANNING 61M-9535 i 4 19 INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS N6O SEJM MER STREET i-IAVERI II{_L, NlASSACNIJSETI S ()1830-53I3 (978)373-03I0 FAX: (978) 372-3960 March 24, 1999 jn r, YI `% Mr. William. Scott � f Town of North Andover I 27 Charles St � s .................. North Andover Mass 01845 Re: Northeast Storage Corp. Special Permit Coler and Colantonio Review Dear Bill: On March 23, 1999 I received a partially unreadable fax from your office concerning a review by Coler and Colantonio of the application for the above project that we had withdrawn at your suggestion. By a copy of this letter I am requesting that Coler and Colantonio review the revised application that we recently submitted. The site is not in an R-4 district as stated by your consultant,but rather in an I-2 district that allows warehousing;which is in fact the use we propose. #touren cc : Colar and Colantonio