HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-01 Preliminary Subdivision Approval DEF SUB 31P
F
AI-
Notice to
W/TOWN CLEH -�--�Subdi of ' .arm
CIO B rrington Estates Bad ,
By len ma
Associates, Inc
dated October 301, 1997
The Nosh
any � ved said pl
tentatively pro
Alor � with
2# The MOrth kndOver Planning Board has
f011OwIng reasons: � � .d a-i
er Pi Boar
subject to the anning d has tent
Modica PPr0v&d said plan, - --
--.
V.13
i
g
i
r
f
• truly ours
N �� FLA
BOARD
�e
Dot e
r+ +
Decker ,fig, 1997
k
FOe
I own of North Andover -** r . .._ :.
{
OFFICE F
COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICEs
30 School Street •�
a 411 24:`y.+t. v
North Adger, Massachusetts o 1845
Director
for
November 5 1997 .
W. Ken-Grandstaffi. . -
N2G Rea
�-- I Ofd dad -" TZ
...
_ .... R :- .� rr gtorr si s r �a� � d o + �
.."#.
+ '- -. .—...t._ T" . -• . .. . -' ----•--`—'—+•++�l--yam.r-
+-. .: Jar 1ft-: Gradst4
' + ". �. ,.-........-.,...,.,,rF•re,f*may:,.-
*•�+f: T have r view d t xc r teary subdivision plan fded for Benington Estates and have the
• -•--
_.,.. owm " ter -under Section 3(B)(3) o the North Andover Subdivision Rules mad-"
t
ns
.� - ..� _.a •ii1W..ft Are
--- ...... 1. 'The subdivision name rust match one of the subdivision roadways. This is to faciLitate
i tracidng of the subdivision documents in the fa=e both with the Town and at the Registry-
of Deeds.---- _
2d�.- Cats I an -d -not appear to meet t.he requirements of 7 1.3 and do not therefore contain. .T.,... =--�
• --
sufficient frontage. T�ds deficiency was noted dig the review of your previous submittal +.
t and maybe the basis of a denial by the Board.
3.
Th . . =sheets should contain a legend to faoi tare review of the plan.
�.. . The Conservation, No 7 i t r a. o and Non-Dis.chargeZone must added to plan. .. .
Any waivers to the subdivision rules and regulations Faust be submitted in meting.
* have the following general comments:
.. The entrance to the s d* 'sion and the waterline ioo fg the syst x out to Dade street are
both with the Conservation Zone, An work with this zone requires a variance from the
A.prior to subrnittal off'a special Permit to the Plug B o rd.
of VATIO w 97 688 9530 .HEALTH-( 78)688-9540 PLANNING- 7 - 53
*BUILDING IOFFICE- 9786884545 *ZONING Bo RD of A-PP ALS (97 69&9541 *1 6 t i I TRL, `r
' . S #ion 7 I.I , The applicant should demonstrate how lots • - - _
� and � � �t
zoning requirements.
Tnsufficie t t data o revi ro osed uriRtim.The udlity review
would fail under the Definitive Plan review. We have also reviewed this p� t for the
Conservation Commission.
_ . .... We appreciateOPP dunitY to assert the Ping i3oard on this Project and hope that
_.,. this-infomation is suffi cn -your ueeds. We wouldpleased to rn t- ith-tote
o r&or the o gn cn&ccr to dis cuss this project-at your convenience. If you have anv
qu�sfiom�please do not hesitat e* to'c*ontact us.
ANON O, INC.
4
TohxL C}Chessiav P.E.
- All=&,Kajor Associates,Tue,
r
+ 4 1
F -
+
Colwell, Town Planner Page 2
Rand, Dir, of Eng, 1 12197
12. On road cross section show ruin. drain depth as ' and t p. sewer depth s' 7
feet.
3. Section 7H.3 On any side slope greater than 2 to 1, we would re wire
guard rail.-DPW would determine.location.
Th lr ease men. ... o fences, waIis, trees la ti
t p g x iascaping
an ,-any-affier--abstrUction shallbe-placed-t a will hinder the access and for
maintenance to they ut!ifty located wfthin said ease men '.
15. Add riot 19a]I frames and cov&s to be set on backs, 2.dou rsesLLm n1mum . T
course: ;axjr
�. r*,.Will la Hmu rda k —�- � ,•
—Mr.- imQt y Willett
S
-Mr.,Mlc Howard
k
r
JO o r.
FORM
UboNov 9 "2
APPLICATION Fo APPROVAL ' A PRELIMINARY PLAN AN "Jil
iqwL..�
i
i
o the Planning Board of the Town of North Adorer.
The undersigned, being the applicant as defined under Chapter 41, Section * j
for approval, of a proposed subdivision shown on a plan entitled
Pr li ina r plan of land Berrington Place, Map 37B, Parcel #1
By Allen & Major Associates, Inc. dated October 30,
being land bounded as follows.
Dale St, to the south, Map 7 Pa c l #9 to the west, Map 7A-Parcels #34,45,46,47,50
& 37 to t .e north and Map 4-Parcel. #32 to the east,
hereby subs said plan as a PRELIMINARY subdivision plan in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the North Andover Planning Board and rakes app ica on' o
the Board for approval of said plan.
188
Title refer cet North ssex deeds Book 2 Pa e 7 &
Certificate of Title No. Ragistration Book Page ; or
others
Appl ant#s signature:
Received by Town Clerk.
ate. Appli Tess MPG Realty Corp.
1 01 dos t on Road
Time:
.......Tewksbum 01876
Signature: �
owners signature and address if -not the
applicant:
R.Ashton & Gwendolyn -C. Smith
/o Geoffrey Smith, Trustee
15 Driftwood Dro
No. Bradford, CT 0 471
S
{
Notice to APPLICANT/TOWN OAK of Action Of tannin Board
Subdivision � on re� �
entitled.
y' dated
.. The North Andover P air g Board has tentatively
u any r coed d �� �
modifications thereof.
2. The North Andover Plain Board and has disapproved said plant for the
011ow .n reasons
The North Andover PlanningBoard has
tentatively approved said plang
subject to the f0110wing modifications thereof:
Very truly yours,
NORTH ANON PLANNIM BOARD
B
Date:
S111 P RITE
IVW07 16:46 V481 3�
TOq, Planning Board of North Andover
MOM* Geoffrey R Smiffi
• Guardian fdr Gwandolan Cale Smith
r)�-nd 158 Dale StrutRE Smith Property located
DATE: November 1, 1997
This i no*you that I auffio0ze Ken oranstaf of MPO Realty to sign the applicator
fqr preliminary approval for ft land referred to as the BaMngton tes, as the
owner's authorized representativO.
n,t,, I a,
P eoffray P. Smfth
15 OrMood Lane
N.-BraWard, CT 06471
JUDfTH L ROBINS N
Notary Public
ommon weal th of Massachusetts
Commission Evires juiv 19,,2002
i.
Of PARnU (W �}} • � i
i
aj CT PROKM i
A NWE AUUHM
ATEM*
s
.*.
L. la:le 2, <5 6), A!,-
.t<tp
%-06— a2 r' 4h'+•.! l.�m.l!!n!lm.m.!!l�mrry.iYrr�Yr�Y�l�!! r
kl/
z
a ja..�x- r a v
Z9. L 9/P
or
y
�l.1.
n7
t
'Adw m!l::::u
r7
1e
i
v 146 IZIA Q ArU "' ,
!
37
P-0-
.............
...........
p p
.............
DATE: Y
C
x
F '
i
I
I
s
M CT PIROPfJM
ow PAR �II�IMliwwr
ADURESS i
a
"f fy pq
3
Vi
x '
........... ..........
A z
40
1p
Q2
f
i
R
r-re
A6 17 a, za \
4 '
v hp
ob ' .� �.
,
Lnla
ry J"2t'd q
00-01? �`�
CERT. BY i
1
a
T Of PAJPMIES Of gym: .
LICCT PEM {
LAP PAR
?IAM
fU4 ea ,/ �# a
F
f)r e
i
........ /2a
14 4 C o
* 4 . .,
..,.
'?
122.
:id -zrct tii '
CA-
A OR 5 k1
Y
Allb +
(2Jni
f
i
# a
-�
=5(ZS,,P. ram_
.�
C:?Nte
i
4
r # �*
CERT. BY: aA�p
i
I
I
r of PA"Es os YOf
}
LIE
CT PROPERTY
I
tAAP PAR 0 Mmf ADDRESS
rum;
INM ill
17
IIPP
do
eIrl IW47&
. ��
--
f
f
•
i.r..tixw.Mw T f} i
# ' � � L92,X A
7ayi
Zo. 0 f,At
f
� ' - �" 0,
■
m(4m
0 p omm�l moo Rp 4p,
RP
.�.
ok
ftm
CERT. BY
DATE
r
•
�www�+xr
t
r
-kno�,q
i
oRM L
3
DFp
ARTMENAL REFER FORM
ti
f
}
i
TO: Building Ilispector .,
Conservation Administrator
Director of community Development
Director, ubl C Works
Fire Chief
Health Agent
Police chief
FROM: Town Plannerand/or clerk, Planning Office
RE* �Preliminary Plan
Definitive Subdivision
Special Permit
Site Plan Review
Date.
lic Hearing has e scheduled for .x . o
{� to' disc .ss the plans checked ed above*
(Preliminarylames o not require public hearings . )
e Technical Review w Committed Meeting is scheduled for
Thank You. .
i
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS RE,PORT
o f bey{27, 1997 t
f
Location: I Dale Street, North Andover, MA.
i
PurposeAccess for a proposed 7 lot Subdivision-Bertington Place
f
I have been asked by the applicant, MPG Realtor Corp., of I I Old Boston Road,
"ewl sbui , NIA o 1876 to prepare a report on the Feasibility of an alternative access to the
subject property proposed as a 7 lot subdivision known as Berrington 'lace. This request
is pursuant to a review comment made several months ago by Ms, Kathleen Colwell, the
Planning Director of the Town of North Andover to Mr. Kenneth Gra dstaff..
Prior to this report, I have previously submitted a brief to the Town of North Andover
reflecting my view that an alternative access is not necessary pursuant to state statute and
Town of North Andover regulations. Further, my brief was supported by the applicant's
attorneys from the law ogees of Philips, Gerstein, Holber& Channen of 25 Kenoza
Avenue, Haverhill MA o 183 0. These briefs are currently in the Towns possession.
Having said that, this report will only serve to address the special requirements ents of the
zoning regulations Section 4.136 Watershed Protection District, Subsection 4.6v. "proof
that there is no reasonable alternative location outside the non-disturbance and/or non
discharged buffer zones, whichever is applicable, for any discharge, structure, or activity,
associated with the purposed proposed use to occur"
The following three properties to the northwesterly boundary of the subject parcel owned
by ohalne Realty'Trust, Barbara Grasso and James Rice, are exclusive executive homes
with outside amenities such as pools and tennis courts. Along the northern boundary are
two other parcels owned by Connecticut Financial, Inc. and the Town ofNorth Andover
(town farm) in which the common boundaries are located in standing water. The Morley
property to the east of the subject site is bounded by a common wetland area as well.
The following homes along the southerly boundary to the Dale Street, Appleton
intersection, all abut the subject property, however, have wetlands that prevent access to
the subject property. These parcels are owned by Harold Morley, Richard O'Toole,
Frederick wl to Michael and Virginia Bubar, Christine Melvin, Edward and Jacqueline
Morgan, Jan and Stephanie Bajan, Agnes es . McCallister, Daniel and Joan Ta esian,
Gregory E. and Kathleen Garbick and R. Ashton Smith. All of these properties are
bounded by wetlands and the accompanying watershed setbacks.
Along Dale Street to the northwest, which is a one-way street going east, is the R. A. hton
Srnith and the Donald and Maria Hillner properties. These properties have single family
residential homes and have wetlands or wetland setback restrictions,
I
The sole property to the west of the subject site is owned by Joseph and Carol O'Connell.
Their hone is located to the southeasterly portion of their property along the
southwesterly boundary of the subject parcel. Their hose is in such a location as to
prevent reasonable access between the O'Connell and Hifiner homes.
In addressing the Reasonable Alternative Access issue, I spore with Mr. O'Connell and
f
determined that though the property was not on the market, lie would be willing to sell the {
parcel for an asking price o 2 o, 00.00 dollars. This is even after he commented that
his home is only worth $125,000.00 to $1 o,000.00 dollars. He would not entertain a
roadway going in between his lone and the Hillner hone. In a discussion with Curt
}
Young of Wetlands 'reservation, Inc. VVPI), lie determined that there are wetlands along
the O'Connell left front boundary as well as in the central and northwesterly sections o
the property. This would prevent any access from further west.
In addition to the price ofthe ro ert being trer el unreasonable, there are two other
more important issues that deal with any access from this location. The first issue is
access at a common point that becomes a safety hazard. The roadway location to Tale
Street would be at the end of a curve that has neither the site stopping distance (SST ) or
reasonable intersection site distance (TSD) for trade having to enter Tale Street and turn
left* As I had mentioned before, all traffic entering on this portion of Tale Street must
turn left because of its one-way direction. The second issue is the more likely impact of a
roadway being wedged between and close to, the O'Connell and Hillner homes. This
would result in a likely decrease in their property values.
For these reasons, this property s well as any of the others abutting parcels are not
reasonable accesses to the subject parcel.
n bj closing J, the subject site has two existing means of egress. Both were created when the
property was previously subdivided. Both access' are remaining just that, access' to the
main portion of the property. 'whether it be a driveway, private or public roadway, access
to the uplands to the northwest and central portion of the property can be gained from the
westerly access currently shown vn on plans submitted to theTo n. Therefore, it is my
opinion that no reasonable alternative access can be gained to the property and should not
be considered in dealing with the briefs prepared by me or the applicant's attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
Ebner A. 'ease, Tf C M, EA.
cc: Mke Gerstein, Esc).
Attachments
Asp
moand.do
NEIGHBORHO OD MAP
OF
DALE STREET
1;0 kp
--k IT
'(4-
-4�—0
�jj c P
0
2�p r Ps ep 'Q
LC hoo I SO L/ 1P
0
Ln %16
rr
ql�
k
BRIOL E—PATH R
cj
let—
Ci-ARK-3 Vol?
Twc
ST
%
0
CL C IF? Cs F-4
00
U3
41
h-jL
C,
k
q6j z
t
too
CAS
4 p H h school 0 z
jfF I eq F4?
V 4f4, jo I
44 4.7 A '4Fr
0--
WALKI
:Ff RAY
wmrw. APPL
e't ,.,v 11 %p w 1;9 80- T. 4!�To
II)c
�O JL
"ZZ n
4L
6
�co r,
AL
04 V*5,14- I
> OBERR
ST
mAptf ,,rj�1 )A -Z r p
k
1�*p
P Ity k
CZ>
CV T 4
dr V-ID�% - <�
ST
4 7 C -•
%- 1))"N
tr k,k 4 zv
rip f'I 4t;0104
W*klX %0? rt e � +1jJk
L
040(
-V 4y
om �Yjry -4
Ir. mc RAN
rl CNN
v
1�4�C6 — V" fr y 1hp VIA
c y
4k�q
n WOOD qQ 0)
5v -151 �. rov
wk 7 'D
1R%t4G .1 t.
sp, LA rut
0 WQ(>
G"
0
<144 �j
CAR
PAW
.A AV z 0 C.
A
44
Af WILC
0
sho w E IV
ti
CD
Ilk �p In 16,
CA
49 r
04,T( C w I
ly
4(
Y
T K. 70pol
%L erfin)oc
I WiL
LA
WREIVCE colle
41 %
L016SON C1.
L D STO KE C X eo� 14
00,)
14E SO
ER N 1CT..
,tit
4.0EVON CT,
S A RDIA ORE C T Tk
6.0MAR
WOOD cl. 1-4
k
I
'� r5r } . { '`yf
Ci� r{ �.i •i1 f"J S }1f:•�f+F
r f
JRL
1 .f# € 'Fit�#JR+�► r { 1 ,5 t f �4 �` 'i `"F°�,
4' a�ra J4�+�dR�f i`{I { ]}r� ti4 �'.•"r,Xf y . •*• fr
'`}
kN
•+ +5ff 5 � �i i .s�+ ,r�. �.•r j]
� '.�.tpr• } �y y*
�9i
r_ f rrri ,
+ r I
1{ 1 k
�iS �`�Yr.�•� � a
11. y , fr
i 03,
Jel
�'iN� rr
`'VA. JL
t
'fi 1. , +. SrefS r�,r }i +e '.f. x •.
14
Wa
do
�� _ � �i Y� '_Y,Y,Y'.'. 'r" f� •Yf4� Ft � � I '
11'� ri �+ 4 y Yf" �}y` ' i f
4
-Q Ft
��I r. ' a
"r is � [i 'r': ��yy{•S���TlF��'!it' tii � � � � +i'
4 terra+dip i1 ��ji } +"r{1y47•[�l.
r ' Y r �y �-i�'�'t+ Y'S.#f+4,F f €• '
+.♦: !r ' J.Y. {
�qq� F� � � i 5 T f}q � � r _ r f •4 +
=i
s
' y� YYYTTFrr x l• rOk
J'�
r
IP
'+ (
!
r + # i
pi
.r , '
aL
{ f Y
r.
fault T Harpers Len rile 0 feet Campbell Forest- 4 ° #1 . "{ 1, 71 ' Bdr � Jr■ '�. '� 710
Copyright( )1996, a viskm,lncr
1
f.-
IL
A IL
• r}Y. J•r F�-}� y ' Y - f- + {�'t 14•y`yam �! +' •l* !
MA
r+ � } r,.,, F�;k rt,x f'�•� f�
llltik."# r ' F i,� i • C # f �f �-r; _
lit w
lk
4
4 r de .4 Y F
i I 1 rid 1 '•ti + I �i i +�*JY�i h t'
rL 0
- R+� T� ti. •{' J #mot ' +
i
-
a� Doti J ���� "' � +� r� i JL +}Y •�' r �F
} �{
t k
ki
eF
dr
k
(
h
•k � ' � ' J� ft +.�
x
( 111
4 F
_ �..
1 y !
r�• 1 y R
�—„
Rkr
di
�
�#� x
AN (69
!'
' 1� Y r � � •�� � ] 1 1 ii
.• „ 'ram 1
a I
r
Herbert P Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein U\W OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holber
Russell S, Channen Hv#)er&Clwmwn
Jane M. Owens Triano (Phill#n,
Ronald N, Beauregard
25
evi K
Rauseo enoza Avenue 0 Haverhill, MA 01830
Kn P.
Tel: (9 7 8) 374-1131 /(800) 457-6912 0 Fax- (978) 372-3086
of Counsel:
John T. Pollano
Gerald M. Lewis
October 20 1997
William J. Scott
Director of Comm.unity Developmewnt. and Services
146 Main Street
North Andoyer MA 01845
or
DaleBerrington Estates Su M i vis on
Dale and Appleton Streets
North Andover Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Scott:
I had previously written to you on July 23, 1997 stating the position of my client, WG Realty
Corp., and its desire to proceed with the above referenced subdivision.
of such correspondence and am requesting again that Town Counsel
m y
P
I a enclosing a further copyfurther access points to the
issue an opinion consistent with the position I have taken, that no
above property would be necessary.
I would be more than happy to contact Town Counsel directly, although I am requesting that you
proceed as quickly as possible to obtain such opinion so that my client call proceed in its
endeavors.
Ve Y yours)
Jf
Afichael A. Gerstein
MAG/If
V
cc: NTG Realty Corp.
Elmer Pease
Kathleen Bradley Colwell
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber, Beauregard and Rauseo admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine,
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
LAW OFFICES OF
HerbedP. Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein
Stuart M. Holber s, n
&
Russell S. Channen
Jane M. Owens Triano
25 Kenoza Avenue 0 Haverhill, MA 01830 U Tel. (508) 374-1131 M Fax (508) 372-3086
Ronald N. Beau regard
Kevin P. Rauseo
Of Counsel:
John T. Pollano
JU y 23, 1997
William J. Scott
Director of Community Development and Services
Town of North Andover
146 Main Street
North Andover NIA 01845
Re: "Sntithe Property"
Dale and Appleton Streets
North Andover Massachusetts
Dear N4r. Scott-,
Please be informed this office represents NWG Realty Corp. relative to its desire to subdivide the
above property, I have received a copy of the letter of Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner,
dated April 24, 1997 relative to her position that my client would need another access point to the
property and if not would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have had
occasion to review my client's file, the Town of North Andover Zoni*ng Bylaws, the Wetlands
Protection Bylaw, and the Wetlands Regulations for the Town of North Andover. I have also
examined the title to the property, and I am of the belief that town counsel will concur that a
variance will not be required. I am listing herewith my reasons and would request you submit this
letter to Town counsel for his/her review and comments. It is my client's further hope and desire
to proceed with the subdivision in an expeditious manner, and I believe town counsel should be
involved to address these concerns currently.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning By-Laws, and, in particular Section 4.136 dealing with
"Watershed Protection District" it is stated under 4.136.2.f, "the provisions-relating to the
establishment of the Conservation Zone and the er�argement of the.hors-disturbancezone and the
non-disturbance zones shall onl ll to lots recorded and registered after the date of the
enactment of this amendment."' (October 24. 1994). Please be aware that the Smith Property in
question was purchased March 25 1960 as recorded at Book 912 Page 187 of the Essex North
District Registry of Deeds, a copy of which deed I are enclosing herewith.
It is certain y acknowledged that the North Xnddver Conservation Commission is empowered by
the Wetlands Protection Bylaw to preserve and protect the wetland resource areas, and to adopt
All attorneys admitted. in Massachusens.
Holber and Beauregard admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also' in Maine.
Other office, 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, M E 04064 Reply to la ve rh 111 off Ice on ly
I
Orders ofConditions which are necessary to regulate its responsibility. The Conservation
Commission does have he authorityto waive strict compliance with its regulations, whenin its
action rul d be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Bylaw, I certainly
judgment, such a
acknowledge that my client as an applicant, has the burden of proving that the grant of a waiver
is consistent with the intent arnd purposes of the Bylaw. I wish to further acl.norledge that the 3
proposed subdivision and its current access points are in the non-disturbance buffer zone,
although the following uses shall be allowed within such zone only by Special Permit, issued
pursuant to Section 4 of the Watershed Protection District Bylaw.
Any activities which cause a change in topography or grade;
2. Vegetation removal or cutting, other than in connection with agriculture uses or
maintenance of a landscape area. i
. Any surface or subsurface discharge, including but not limited to storm water runoff',
drainage of any roadway that is maintained by the Division of Public, Forks or any private
association; outlets of all drainage svales; outlets of ail detention ponds.
e that he current roadway h is used and would e {proposed to be used to
You should b aware t that p
e property has a width of between thin (30) and fort (40) feet, Corres onding r, the
access th p '
shoulders of the roadway are thirty eight to fifty feet. The slopes therein are currently
and partially treated and the d radation of the adjoining or abuttingwetlands are
eroding 9 g
e rains the sediment from the soil in the slopes. Based upon such
affected during heavy r p �
situation the improvement to the roadway could greatly reduce the erosion and would serve to
better direct and treat any storm water runoff'. The addition of a paved roadway, which is further
f such subdivision with a closed drama system directed to a treatment svale,
proposed as pad o � '
would further reduce TS S counts to DEP acceptable levels.
er review of all documentation I believe it is fairl clear that the Conservation
From a futh , �
Commission is allowed to permit the construction and maintenance of a new roadway or
driveway, of minimun le al and practicable width, acceptable to the Planning Board dimensional
standards "where no alternate means of access from are existing public or private moray to are upland
area of the sane ovnerh is available."' As has been previously mentioned herein, the property
has been held in the sane owner since 190, and thus was in existence prior to the effective date
of October 299 when reviewing such matters in its entirety, and reviewing the burden f
� g
e uirements here area applicant must rove b apreponderance of the evidence that the
roofr � ply p
work ropo a In the application shall not have an unacceptable si ni cant and/oar
Cumulative affect on the wetland values protectedby this Bylaw, I would contend that
p
variance would not be required. Furthermore since the access road In existence would be -.
e e table as single lot it should not lose its applicability and av it availability for subdivision
asp � �
purposes.
It is important to note in reviewing the Zoning lags that `the Special Permit Granting
p g ' .
Authority SPGA) under tl s Bylaw shall be the Planning Board," Such Bylaw was clearly
intended to allow the Plan in Board and not-the Zoning Board f,app eals to make a
determination with regards to proposed subdivisions, and I would suggest that Town Counsel
�
review that in detail.
3
• F subdivision formerly roved ,�
thin it useful to note, from my review oftl e title, that a subdi risio was i
the Planrflng
Board in March 1957 for the site with the plan recorded at the Essex North District
Registry of Deeds on Apffl 2, 1957, listed as Flan ## 3442. The access points remain the same as
proposed in the current plan, which clearly evidences the intent to use such access points as a
means of entering
the property for subdivision purposes. Wiffle I must clearly acknowledge that
required to accept new subdivision based on one that existed a
the �ar�nin� card � got t a
ears ago l think it is important in making a determination o the use of the site that
number � � � �
the clear intone and
Purposes of such subdivision was to use the e-,%dsting access points. The owner
who ort finally intended to rocee with the subdivision eras Lantern Corporation hi ch I
involves the �� b it v are the current owners the property, with the
understandy
previous subdivision formerly known as "Appleton leto Estates" }
It is my sole intent and desire to expedite the subdivision process and alloy for uses that are
rl spelled out and allowed under the rules and regulations o t e Town of N rtl� Andover.
clearly
N4PG Reatty Corp. is desirous f completing the plans for submittal o its Notice o merit, and as
are a definitive set of plans for submittal to the Planning Board, and f would appreciate
well, �'
your having town counsel formulate an opinion, in light of the within submittal*
Very truly yours, 10
rt} �
ichael A. Gerstein
MAG l
co: NUG Fealty Corp.
Elmer Pease
t�
i
i
x
1
DALE ST RE ET - COMPLIANCE BRIEF & FINDING
1 have carefully reviewed the Town of NorthAndover's Zoning Bylaws-Reprinted
n
I
1996 and their wetlands Protection Bylaw and Wetlands Regulations. 1 researched those i
sections of the Bylaws that pertain to the Buffer Zone distances and requirements and
their interaction with our proposed development.
1 reviewed several key sections that have, or could have some hearing on the {
roadway that is proposed for the 7 lot residential subdivision. The following lowing excerpts
were taken rot the Bylaws and are the ones that are t the heart of this brief.
I
f
1 have also included a copy of the deed to the property furnished y the attorney
who completed the title abstract. This deed shows that the property was a lot of record as
of March 25 1960. This date, is of course, critical in the determination of whether or not
certain provisions of the Regulations and Bylaws affect this property.
After careffil review of the Bylaws and Regulations,, excerpted below and
highlighted, it is my opinion that the roadway we propose in its current location does not
require the submittal or finding of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Further, it is my
opinion, that the Conservation Commission has the authority and right to grant a waiver
to allow the roadway pursuant to Section I.E. Waivers From Regulations-Wetlands
Regulations, g aid the Tannin Board to rant a Special Permit pursuant o the finding that
the property is a lot created prior to October 24, 1994 and pursuant to Section .1 6. .e.i
and .f 6.c,ii of the Zoning Bylaws-Watershed Protection District, Town ofNorth
Andover Zoning Bylaw-Reprinted 1996.
P ursu ant to Section 4.13 6.��d o the Watershed Protection District, the Special
pert it Granting Authority shall be the Planning Board. The Conservation
Commission has the jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Section 178.2 and 178.6 of the
Wetlands Bylaw and Section LE of the Wetlands Regulations.
This finding supportsg the fact that the l t i Board and Conservation
Commission have the right and the authority to review and grant approval on this
subdivision without having to acquire a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW
Section 178.1 r use. The purpose of this Bylaw is to preserve and protect
I Y151511i 14 I
the wetland resource areas s specified in Section 2) and buffer zones of the Town o
North Andover regulations of, and control of, activities (more particularly described '
Section 2 below) deemed by the Conservation Commission(the "Commission") to have
191
i;fi ar r cumulatively i-letrimental effect upon the following interests and values,
including but not limited to; or c public private water supply; groundwater- the prevention
p
and control of flooding, erosion, sedimentation, storm damage, and/or pollution;
p
iotectior of fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and recreation.
1
I
I
f
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
Section 178.9 Rules and Regulations. The Commission shall be em of erect to
adopt Rules and Regulations to govern its affairs, including, but not limited to, fees, 3
definitions use of consultants, and such other information which it deems necessary to
discharge its responsibility. After due notice and public hearing, the Commission may
promulgate such rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of this Bylaw, by a
majority of the duly appointed inembers.
WETLANDS REGULATIONS
Section LB Purpose.The purpose of the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw
(hereafter referred to as the "Bylaw") is clearly stated in the bylaw. These Regulations
f
are promulgated to ensure fairness, to create a uniformity of process and to clarify and
define the provisions to the Bylaw, a(Iministered b h Northnd et# Conservation
Commission, hereafter call the "Commission".
Wetlands contribute to a number of public interests and are therefore protected by the
Bylaw. The Bylaw identifies three additional public interests not recognized by the Act.
These are: "prevention of erosion and sedimentation, "wildlife" and "recreation". Any
permit issued under the Bylaw and Regulations must therefore contribute to these public
interests.
Section LE Waiver from RejZulafions. Sitid compliance with ese Regulations
may a ival*ved when, in the judgment of the Commission such action is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Bylaws and these Regulations. the applicant shall have the
burden of proof that the granting of the waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Bylaws and these Regulations. The Commission shall act on the request and shall
provide to the applicant, either by certified rail or hand dcliver*y, its written.decision.
Sec Appendix 2 for a Waiver Request Form.
Section 11 Definitions,
2. The term "alter" shall include without limitation, the following actions when
undertaken in areas subject to the Bylaw:
a) changing of pre-existing drainage characteristics, sedimentation patter; s, flow
patterns or flood retention characteristics-,
) placement of fill, excavation or regrading;
C) destruction of plant life, including cutting and removing of tees or shrubs;
d changing waters temperature, biochemical oxygen demand or other physical or
chemical characteristics of water;
e any activities, changes or work which pollute or cause displacement of any body
of water or groundwater;
�
a activities, charyg e or workwhich cause alteration of wildlife habitat.
I
i
. The term "burden of proof' means the applicant shall have the burden of proving
by a prepo derance of credible evid ence that tyre i ork prop s ed in tote application sh al
not have an unacceptable significant an or cumulative a effect rtpott the )Vefiand vallies
protected by this. y ) . Failure to provide adequate evidence that the work proposed ill
the application shall not have an unacceptable significant and/or cun-mlative effect upon
the wetland values protected by this Bylaw shall be sufficient ea-use for the Com issioll
to deny a permit or grant a permit with conditions,
Section VI. Performance Standards and Supplement Documentation
A. Flood Standards.
B. Wildlife Habitat
C. Stogyn-swat r Manageinent
, Erosion Control
E. Wetland Replacement or Restoration
.3. The Commission ay permit the construction and maintenance of a new roadway or
driveway of minimum legal and practical width acceptable to Planning Board
Dimensional standards where no alternative ire ns of accessfront an exisfingpitblic ot
private ivay to an upland rea of the wine m rter is available. Replication of altered
wetlands resources may be required by the Commission to minimize adverse impacts and
to protect the interests identified in the Bylaw.
WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT
Section 4.136 2.f The provisions relating to the establislune at of the Conservation
Zone and the enlargement of the Non-Disturbance Zones shall only apply to lots of
recorded or registered after the date of the enactment of this amendment October 24,
1994). 1991 SMt
Fable 1 W Lots created after; October 24, 1994
Conservation Nora- Non-
Disturbance Discharge
From Annual High
'water Mark of
Lake Cochichewick
out to 1 o' 2 5 0' 400'
From Edge of All
Wetland Resource .
Areas Within the
Watershed District
out to 75' 150, 400,
Table 2 Aots created on orPrim- to octo ei- 24 199
Non- Non-
Disturbance Discharge
From Annual l igli
Water Mark of
Lake Cochiehewic
out to 250' 325'
From Edge of A l l
Wetland Resource
Areas Within the
Watershed District
out to 1001 325'
e. Non- is ui~ arace Buffer-Zone
There shall exist a Nora-Disturbance Buffer;Zone within the Watershed Protection District
which sill consist of all lance areas located between one hundred f�ft .. ..,.,.t. .
i. Allowed Uses: All of the Allowed Uses listed in Section 3 i of this Watershed
Protection District Bylaw are allowed in the Non-Disturbance Zone except t s noted
below,
ll. Uses Allowed Special Permits, The following uses shall be allowed within the
Non-Disturbance Buffer Zone only by Special Permit.issued pursuant to Section 4 of this
Watershed Protection District.Bylaw.
(1) Any activities jvhich cause a ch(inge in topogt4aphy or, i#a( .
(2) Vegetation removal or cutting, other than in connection with agriculture
uses or maintenance nce of landscape area.
(5) Any surface or sub-surface discharge, includi g b-Lit not limited to
storm water runoff; drainage of any roadway that is maintained by the Division of Public
Works o•any private association; outlets of all drainage sty le ; outlets of all detention
ponds.
The current roadway that is used to access the propeily has a width of between 3 -
o feet. The shoulders of the roadway are 8-5 + Feet. The slopes are currently eroding
and pailially treated. The degradation of the adjoining o•abutting wetlands are affected
during heavy rains by the sediment froin the soil on the slopes,
The improvement to the roadway wo ld greatly reduce the erosion, and better
channel and treat stormwater runoff. The addition of a paved roadway, with a closed
drainage system directed to a treatment s a e would reduce TSS counts to DES'
acceptable levels.
0 1 0 :00 ��� - HO.400 { �.
a
COL R
iw
0
COLAN ONIO
z
FNGINGE-RO A 10 SCIVTrI T
P1011t-11""bread fox Frans
To att lmamo 7671 oaf peg �
Michael Howard Dept, �.
Conservation Commission rJa
146 Main Street ax e
North Andover, MA 0 1845
RE: Supplemental Review
Notice qfIntent
eLv . la c e
Dear Mr. Howard:
In response to your request, Coler&Colant nio, Inc. has reviewed supplemcntal
information provided for the above referenced submittal. This correspondence fifflows
the numbering sequence and Format of our previous letter, The following information,
ation,
r celved on September 2, 1997, was reviewed:
A sot ofplans entitled"Definitive Flag of Land" sheets 3A,:B, 4A, 5� , Dl,
D2, and D ,prepared by Alien&Major Associates, Inc.,dated June 2, 1997
and last revised August 26, 1997.
Drainage calculations arrd support data dated August 25, 1997.
Nate that none of the above 1 ted information has been stamped by a professional
cn in cr.
Our comments are as hollows:
l. Section V. C. 2. A note indicating that the site is within the watershed District has
been added to the plans*
2. Section V. C. 3. The datum used to develop the plans has been indicatied on the plans.
s.
3. Section V. C,4. Most of the information required under this s tioxi appears to be
indicated on the plans, inverts for the 12 inch pipe located along the proposed water
lain loop should be indicated,
. Section V, C. 5. Reportedly no wells or septic systems are within 10 o feat of th
proposed work.
5. Section V. C. 6. 'i'he elevation of one of the existing culverts has been indicated on
the drawings,inverts for the other culvert notcd above have not been identified.
101 Accord Puk Drive 61 49 - 4 0
Norwell, MA 02061-1685Fax: 1 -9 - 40
I
6. Scodon v, C. 7. The following should be addressed in the hydrologic analysis.
The inconsistency in tots area has been co ected.
0 We recommend modeling the x' t Ijigculverundor tlac yoad for both pre and
post development conditions to demos str t�no advexsc Impacts, The analysis
performed is not adequate and only addresses one of t ii-site oulverts, The
analysis should include rotting through the culverts to demonstrate ino 3
inereme in flood e1ovations on flic abutting properties. ,
The drainage divides are not coosistent with (opographic,features. This has
1
not been corrected,
Additional information on cover types has been provided,however,the data
used to develop runoff curve numbers is not consistent with our.held
observations and ptevious r oorr mendations.
Flow paths used to calculate the:time of concentration T bave been
indicated.
Design point 2 has been identified.
0 Reportedly there ire no existing catch basins in Dale Street.
Reach I and rca h 2 are no longer used in the model.
0 Tbo 1cul tions should include the effects of downstream restrictions which
could reduce flow capacity due to backwater effects, if any.
7. Section V. C. 8. Hydrologic calculations should be performed.for the existing 2"
RCP culvert. The calculations performed are not adequate to demonstrate to that there
will be no impact on abutting proertiesx
8. Section V. C 8. Soil type limits have been identified. Ty ,i all r, wetland areas are
classified as"D"soils and the runoff curve number modified consistent with Natural
Resource Conservation Service(NRCS) guidelines. We disagiree with the r io `f
curve nun b rs used as noted above.
t Section V. C. 9. The latest existing conditions plan is at tbe,rcquired scale of V= 0'.
10. Section V, D. 3. The proposed grading is still inconsistent in a number of locations.
11. Section v} D, 4, Proposed dr *n ge stru to c inverts have been indiwtod on the
plans. A cross section of the grass swale has been provided. No information to
substantiate the capacity and velocity of the$wale has been provided. The latest
plans indicatc a differ differcm swale design and location than thltb.previous filing.
The cerement regarding wn dole between DMH 4 and the outlet to the grass
swle is no longer applicable.
o The velocity in all pipes have been reduced to acceptable values.
a Rip-Rap has been added at the inlet to detention btisin 2.
The subcatclunent plwi has been clarified.
I
a
s
i
Wipes do not have adequate.cover in many locations. This could be
problematic since the road grade acid retention basin design do not provide the
depth to liver the system. This could result in the need to raise the grade o
the roadway ith associated design 'impacts. Detention Basin 1 has an 18 in0h
outlet w .ih extends above the grade of the dike. The design should be
revised to coxes this condition and provide adequate cover over the pipe.
{
The plans indicate the pipe slope from CB I A I s in the wrong dlr c4on, DM
is net includ d In the spreadsheet calculations,
1 . - 1 . Section vl. C. 3. The total drainage area is equal in sip pre and post
development,howev ra subareas are not consistent with topography in some
cases,
18. Section VI, C. S.b. The detention basins should haven ' vide,drive,around the top
of the basins for access and maintenance purposes, Reportedly the six Foot wide
accesg strip proposed for the retention basin is acceptable to the DPW. A detail of the
detention/retention basins should be provided. Tbls detail should include info i tion
regarding the construction of the foreby#
19. Section V1. C. 5. e. The emetgencY spillway should be included in the model. The
ponds should also be modeled with tb outlet plugged during the 100 year storm to
assure the emergoncy spillways are sized adequately and the bashis ue not over
toped. This lnfom _ion was not included in our package. 1"he rip rap for the
spillway should extend beyond the toe of the detention basin slope.
20, Section V1. C. 5. c i Back-up data should be included to sub5twitiate the ex F,ltrtio
rate,
2 1. Section VIr C. S. Reportedly test pits have been excavated and logged, We were not
provided with test pit lags. Information regarding the basis for the,a filtr tion.rate
used in the model has not been provided.
. Section v1. E. It is unclear if wetlands will be modified at the existing 12"RCP
culvert road crossing. A detail of the proposed retaining wall should be provided to
demonstrate no impact. Reportedly a doss section detail has been prepared, however,
it was net included in our packager
owtr Management
Our comments have not been changed regarding stormwater management since e
have not received a revised f M1 ox CUl tlons -SpeCifiC to this iM: , Reportedly this
information i being addressed y WP1. We note that it is proposed to utilize
leaching pits to infiltrate roof r iof . These leaching pits should be designed
consistent with DEP guidance on the subject. Data to justify the design should be
moluded with the submittal.
0 '11 08:02 NO.400 1?0
F
4
Y
. Standard#1 -Velocity ea ouiations used to size the erosion protection measures at the
pond outlets should be b1oluded in the report and should demonstrat wetlands will
not be r ded or eonta mated with sediment due(o overland flow.
24. Standard #2 -Reportedly meets standard, see commonts above.
25. Standard #3 -It is uncleur if the total impervious area inoludcs roofs. The mead of
conveying roof runoff should be discussed in the report and det i d on the playas.
Ora-site so 11 testing should be conducted to determine the infiltration rate, see
comments above.
26. Standard #4-Best management practices should be designed in accordance with the
Storniwater Management Policy, It is uncle , if the extended detention basin mid
f r b y are d sl iced in accordance with design standards published in the
handbook.
27. Standard 45 -Does not apply to this project,
28. Stn and 46- See above comments.
29. Standa d#7 w Does not apply to this prof ;t.
30, It is our understanding Town staff typically review Standard and 9.
Other Issues:
3 J. Drainage easements shoed extent to the wetlaaad limits or property line.. The drainage
easement to the detention basin should include the access way to the detention basin
dike.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Conservation Commission on this project and
hope that this information 'is sufficient for your needs. if you have any questions please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
5
J lm C. Ch s ia, F.E.
Co: Allen &Major Associates,h .
1 1 15:55 NO.
• + 41 777 i
.:....:.......v.....- .... T
COL R &
COLAN CDN10
4 x l!y {
-=W4 -w
November 13, 1997
: .„ .:... .
Ms. Kathleon Cotwctl
Planning Director
120 Maki Street
North Andover, MA of 4
y k i
RE: EnginceflogReview
eit Etas {,
L l xvisi n
Dear Ids, Colwell: t
In response to your request, Coley& Colatxtonio, Im. has reviewed the revised stibmittal
package and response letter for t •e above referenced site. 'Me submittal package inoluded
the following i m ti :
Plans Entitled:
`l err to Place'Preffininaty Pia.of Land,f irteen sheets dated 1 3 7,
Prepared by Allen&Major Asooi ,Inc.
We offer the fiAlowing coninients:
. Only sheets 3A &3B havebeen endorsed by aP,E.
2. Section 7 A 1.)d). No prqiection ofthe streets to abutting properties has been
provided.
3. Section 7 L)i). Radii at the,intersextion of Dale Street does not Comply ith t1lis
section.
4. Section 7 A24 . The entrance ftom station 0+00 to 3 is wider than the required
50 ,
. icy 7 . . The sag curve at station 1+00 should have a K to comply Avith
stopping sight distance for a 30 inh design speed.
6. Scotian 7 A4. . The total lent of-dead end from Date Street to Glermor Circle
os 800 fcct-
P
r.
101 Accord Park Drive617-992-5400
Norwell,MA 0 0 1-1 Fax 1 - - 9 '
f
13 15:55 NO,997 IP05
. Section 7 L 1). The applicant should demonstrate how leas 2 and 6 comply with
hisufficio.nt data has been provided to review.proposed utilities. The utility review
would fall wider the Definitive Planr vi'm We have,also reviewed this project for t1
Conservation Commission.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficiont for your ueeds. We would be pleased to meet with the
Board or the design engincer to discuss this project at your convenience. if you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact ust
Very truly yours,
Jolm C. Ch ssi # P.E.
cc; All=&Major Associates, Jno,
i
}
Allen & Major
'
Associates, Inc
November 24, 1997
00 West Cummings.Park
ufte 5050
Woburn,MA 01801
781,935-6889
ix 78 t-93 -2896
Kathleen Bradley Colwell ; A&M Project#20 1-1
Town Plum r Prelitn4mry Plan -Berrington Place }
Town of North Andover North Andover,M
office of Community Development
and Services
30 School Street
Iortb Andover,MA 0 1845
Dear Ms. Colwell:
In response to your request,Allen&Major,associates,Inc.has the following comments in response to
your letter dated November 5, 7:
1. "The Subdivision name rust match one of the subdivision roadways, This is to facilitate tracking of
the subdivision documents in the future both within the town and at the Registry of Deeds."
Yhe street names will be revised thy* wing; the entrance a will : Berrington Larne, and
the culde-sac road will be Glenore Circle. We haviv prepared and submirred a letter requesting
approval xl f st i t namesftom the Fire Department
2. "Lots 2 and 6 do not appear to meet the requinments of 7.13 and do not therefore o tam" sufficient
Frontage, This deficiency was noted during the,r view of your previous submittal ill and may be the
basis of a denial by theBoard."'
See the attacked sketch that denionstrates comphance with this regulation.
"'The plan sheets should contain a legend to fa llltate preview of the plan."
legend iv not specifically requiredfor a Prefindnaryfiling. ,, o ve r, it will be added to the
definitive plan_
. "The Conservation,Non-Disturbance and Non-Discharge Zone must be added to the plan."
All of these zone Imes ive indicated on the Prelimbimy Plans.
5. "Any waivers to the subdivision rules and regulations must be submitted in writing,,"
there are no waivers being requested a,f` the Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Civil ngince - o band u vey rs
# - 5-1 7 01-LEFT MAJOR CI T 7 935 2896 P,03
f
n response to a letter dated November 13, 1997,from John Chessia ofC l r&Colontonio i e
I. "OnlY sheets 3A& 3B have been endorsed y a P.E.��
}
Preliminary plait f frog does nol require endorsement by a PE under the Rules and Regulations.
The Defln Itive Plans will b a endors ed by a P.E.
}
2.
"Section 7 A 1.)d). projection to the streets to abutting properties has been provided,"'
Mere are no other access,points to abutting properties because the site is generally surrounded by
wetlands and potential development ofthese properties is will e .
. "Section 7A 1.)j). Radii at the intersection of Dale Street does not comply with this ecti ,"
The infersuction geometry will be revised to accommodate a•30foot.street line and the radii will be
adj us to b e 3 0 feet at the int rs cc tion of the proposed road and Dale Stre e r.
4. "Section 7 A2. . The entrance from station o 3+00is wider thmi the required 0'#"'
The proposed street right o # ay ftom station + will be adjusted to accommodate a 5
foot wide street width andthe land thativ adjacent will be conveyed to the abutting r es,
. `Section . e . The sag cue at station 1+00 should hnvc a l v3 5 to comply with stopping;sight
distance for a 30 mph design speed,"
The K v a ue far a 30 mile an hourdes'Ign speed paved on AASRTO s# datd ranges between 30.8
and 35.3. 1ha reported value is 33.33 which Is whirr the Mange, however, we willprovide a K value
of 35 tfrequested by the Planning Board.
. "Section ' , a . The total length of dead end from Dale Street to GlenoreCircle excel 800 feet,'
"
The total length of. errington Lane and Gen re Circle, independendy, is less the the 800foot
r ' maximum length required, After discunion with the TRC at aprefiminaty meeling, i f the wat rm in
were looped hack to Dale Street, then the total length of the road cord exceed feet~
7� "Section 711). The applicnt should demonstrate how lots 2 and 6 comply with zoning
requirements."
Comment tt r,�fr rn Elmer a Pease.
Wry ply your s,
ALLEN&MAJOR ASSOCIATES,WC.
Erik Heyland,P.E.
n.-ids, h trs.W 3 3
NOS/- - • 1 l LEN MAJOR ASSOCIATES1 F 935 2096 P.0
}
f
.9 * t
fI
1
NOV-25-1997 : 1 Ol..LEN MAJOR ASSOCIATESP,05
IF
x
I
i
i
i
I
3
r
� 4
i
PROP
* *� NGLE
coo"
FAMILY HOUSE
-1 ,
0
SILL ELEV
A
n
NIP
0
Ay
(TO
Wis
cot4c lip
X
.0y � � �
i
e }
Allen Major
Associates, Inc4,
400 t---;r Cummings Pairk
suite 5050
f1abum,MA 0 1 01
November 2 , 1997 * .
Fa x 7 81- 5,-2896
1
r
u
Mr. Richard Boettcher RE A&M Project 0 1--12
Flo l?olive Dcpwtuemt 'r li i y Plan-Berrington Place
566 1
Main Street North Andover,M
N. Andover, Ma o 1845
Dear M . Boettcher,
i
Per our conversation on the phone today,the applicant,MPG Realty Corp,,would like to request
PP
r val of the following street names to be used in the subdivigion in North Andover,
Massachusetts to be known as Benington Piave,
. Berrin8ton Lane
2. Glenore,Ciri
We would appreciate a response from youx dcpuftnent as soon as possib1c.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me. Thy you for your time and
oorin in this matter,
Very ply yours,
ALLEN& MAJOR ASSOCIATESp INC.
Efi)(Heyland, P.E.
4"Ie4
" it Engineers 0 LandSarveyors
TOTAL P.06
Town of North Andover ,o r
OFF ICE OF,
COS► MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES A
30 School Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 0 1845
US
MLLIAM J. SCOTT
Director
Memorandum
To: Kevin Mahoney, Finance Director
From: Kathleen Bradley ColweH, Town Plannner
Date: November 18, 1997
Re: Koppeltnan&Paige November Bill- BmTington Estates
The November bill from Koppelman&Paige will contain charges for work completed for the
Barrington Estates Subdivision. The Plaming Department has a 593 Account for this subdivision
so the legal fees should be charged to this account. Please let me know what the arnount charged
is so that the Planning Department can keep accurate records of the account.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 688-9535.
CONSERVATION-(978)688 9530 HEALTH-(978)688-9540 PLANNING-(978)688-9535
B UILDING 0 r,FICE-(978)688-9545 • ZONI NG BOARD OF APPEALS-(978)688-9541 146 rviAIN STRFr,,T
1 3
1 s
I
LEONARD KOPELMAN KOPELMAN AND PAID , P. +. KATHLEEN M.O'DONNELL r
DONALD G, PAIOE DA ID J. DONESKI
x
ELIZABETH A. LANE ATTORNEYS AT LAW SANDRA O1-IARTOI #
JOYOE FRANK ILANA M. QUIRKa
JOFiN W. GIORGIO 31 ST. JAMES AVENUE JOI'N RICHARD HU KSAM, JR. {
I3ARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE SUSAN M. CAL.L AHAN
JOEL B. BARD BRIAN Wi RILEY
f+3oSTOi�I, �+lASS �II.IETTB 021 1 6- 1[�
EVERETT J. MARDER JOHN J. rt ENNEY, JR.
PATRICK J. COSTELLO ROBERT PAT TEN
JOSEPH L. TEHAN.JR. BOSTON OFFICE HARD L. GIORGIO
ANNE-M R€E M. HYLAND (617)5515• Q07 i ATHLEEN E. CON OLL`f
THERESA M. DOWDY FAX (617)65 -1735 MICHELE E. RANDAZZO j
PETER J. FEUERBACH
W1LL1AM H 1hlI I1 NORTHAMPTON [OFFICE MARY JO HARRIS
DEBORAH A. EE.ISO[►! (41 )585-893 ''HOMAS W. MC;ENANEY
JONATHAN M. SIL1fERSTEII
JEA I E S. McKNIGHT TIMOTHYJ. EI VII
JUDITH O. CUTLER WORCES'T'ER OFFICE I ATI-IAkRl I. OOREE
I~tIOI-IAF D BOW EN (5 8 E CHRISTOPHER J. POLL ART
November 21, 1997
BY FACSIMILE- (978)688-9542
Ms. Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Town Planner NOV �
North Andover Town Hail
120 Man Street �'_.-f :., ING
.-*.-..... A
J
y.-
R 1),
North Andover, I AA 18 4 5
Re: Berri gton Estates Subdivision - Interpretation of Watershed
Protection District Bylaw and related Questions
Dear Ms. Col ell':
You have requested an opinion regarding several issues raised by the applicant's attorney
in regard to the proposed Berri .gto .Estates subdivision.
t is iny understanding that, in paticular,you seek clarification as to: whether the
Watershed Protection District Bylaw the "Bylaw") affects this proposed subdivision; 2 whether
the applicant, if required to obtain a variance, should obtain that variance from the Planning and
or froni the Zoning Board ofAppeals; and what roe the Conservation Commission will play
with respect to this proposed subdivision process.
Briefly, in response to these questions, it is my opinion.that: 1 the Watershed Protection
District Bylaw will affect any lot(s)the applicant records after October 24, 1994,the effective
date of the Bylaw; 2) 'f the applicant is required to obtain a variance from any part of the Zoning
Bylaw, including the Watershed Protection District Bylaw, the Zoning Board of Appeals will be
the proper authority to issue such avariance; and the Conservation Commission will be
responsible for enforcing the Town's general i.e., non- oning)Wet.ian s Bylaw and the State
Wetlands Protection Act, but not the Watershed Protection District Bylaw which will be enforced
by the Plaming Board.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPF-
I
}
F
i
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
's
Ms. Kathleen Bradley Colwell
}
Town Planner
r
t
November 21, 1997 {
Page 2 f
f
}
AP12lication of the October 1994 Watershed Protection District Byla v
r
The facts as I understand them are as follows. The applicant seeks to subdivide a parcel
of property which he has owned since prior to the effective date of the Watershed Protection }
}
District Bylaw. However, before he actually obtains subdivision pprov l for this property, lie is
proposing to build a road into the center of it; he intends to later use this road as the access into
the subdivision. This proposed road will undisputedly cross a non-disturbance buffer zone as
defined in the Watershed Protection District Bylaw. He hopes that by building the road prior t
completing the subdivision process, he will avoid the Watershed Protection District Bylaw
requirements because the road will have been built on a lot which was in existence before October
245 1994.
In my opinion, the applicant's property will not be subject to the restrictions of the
Watershed Protection District -law until the applicant records or regis ers the property .s
consisting of new lots. That is, in my opinion the Bylaw requirements only apply to those lots
recorded or realstered. after October 24, 1994. Since the applicant's lot was in existence before
that date, it is my opinion that it is not subject to the Bylaw. Furthermore, 'in my opinion, merely
proposing to subdivide the lot does not tn*gger the restrictions under the Bylaw, Its my opinion,
the language of the Bylaw clearly states that it is applicable only to those lots recorded and
registered after October 24, 1997. Therefore, in my opinion, until the applicant records or
e lster new lots of the subdivision, the Bylaw does not apply. As a result,whether the Bylaw
will apply or not in this particular case depends largely can how the applicant chooses to proceed.
It is possible that the applicant could complete the subdivision process, including construction of
the road, without recording any of the lots, i.e., by covenanting to seeure the construction of the
subdivision road, thereby avoiding the necessity of recording the lots until after construction i
complete. On the other hand, it is possible he will record the lots prior to the completion of
construction, (after posting a bond or due to another circumstance), thereby triggering the Bylaw
requirements, 'in my opinion. In summary, it is my opinion that one the new lots are recorded,
I
he Bylaw will become applicable, but work performed on the existing, "unsubdivided" lot will not
I e subject to the Bylaw.
Variance Pro e u�•es
With respect to the second question, it is my opinion that if the applicant should require a
variance from the provisions of the Watershed Protection District Bylaw, he must t obtain such a
variance from the Zoning Board of.appeals. In a letter dated.July 23, 1997, the applicant's
attorney seems to indicate he believes the Platming Board would be the proper authority from
which to obtain a variance, In my opinion, this position is mistaken.en. While it is true that pursuant
to the Watershed Protection District Bylaw, the Plaiming Board is empowered to hear and act on
special permit requests, noticing alters the exclusive authority gives to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to year and decide variance requests.
i
t
}j{js
i
a
KoPEL A ! AND P I ,, P.C. i
i3
Ms, Kathleen Bradley Colwell
Town Planner �
November 215 1997
'age
Conservation Commission-Role
The third question appears to ask what role and authority the Conservation Commission
has with respect to processing this subdivision request. In my opinion, the Conservation
Commission will conduct a review which is separate from that of the Planning Board and Zoning
Board of Appeals. The Conservation Commission will review the applicant's plan to ensure
compliance with the Town's Wetlands Bylaw and State wetlands Protection Act. The Planning
Board (arid Zoning Board of Appeals, if necessary) will review the plan with respect to the i
Watershed Protection District Bylaw and all other applicable zoning and subdivision provisions,
rules and regulations.
Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
e.
Very truly yours,
r
Joel B. Bard
JBB/KAH/atg
cc: Town Manager
Board of Selectmen
1 /nand19 99
a
„� 4
i
own of North Andover OORTH
COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
30 School Street ' .*
North Andover,Massachusetts 0 1845 04 A r Ey
WMLLkM I S OTS` c HU
Director
F
. I
November 5, 1997
Mr. Ken Grandstaff
MPG Realty Corporation
11 Old Boston Road
Tewksbury, NLk 01876
e; Berringt n Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan
Dear Mr. Gra.ndstaf ,,
I have reviewed the preliminary subdivision plan filed for Berrington Estates and have the
following comments under Section (B ( ) of the North Andover Subdivision Rules and
Regulations:
F
1. The subdivision name must match one of the subdivision roadways. This is to facilitate
tracking of the subdivision documents in the future both within the Town and at the Registry
of Deeds.
2. Lots 2 and 6 do not appear to meet the requirements of 7.1.3and do not therefore contain
sufficient ftontage. This deficiency was noted during the preview of your previous submittal
and may be the basis of a denial by the Board.
3. The'plan sheets should contain a legend to facilitate review of the plan.
4, The Conservation, Non-Disturbance and Non-Discharge Zone must be added to the plan.
. Any waivers er to the subdivision rules and regulations must be submitted in writing.
I have the following general comments: i
1. The entrance to the subdivision and the waterline looping the system out to Dale Street are
both within the Conservation Zone. Any work within this zone requires a variance from the
ZBA.prior to subrxuittl of a special permit to the Planning Beard.
CONSERVATION- 9 9530 HEALTH- 97 688-9 40 • PLANNING- 97 )68 -95 5
`_3UILP INC,OFFICr - 97 -954 *ZONING BOARD of APPEALS- 97 -9 41 * *146rVIAINSTREET
i
CCV1 �Coklq
;•:.r r x,Y `#fi: 'rt_•: f`=tr,r ;•'{.;{ *} :,:, „7 5f ??;;} arti ��� r
' {,r� *rr �• YjAf, ������r`'��'fik�Y•.4'f.�i^#.3•'r."�--�"} .}.•'i,'',�-{.'� � �ry�
' t• .v.i•��:}�4y :h.'t'}.#,•, } } ,., ''-'.•'•:'_"}':'-'.',•.'._•_ k.k'..•l•.'.<r}f•.r
:'�r� �t<4r. r# ,,..,}'vc, V.55 },i. .•ri .-,•r,.,}}X•{LA}..,,.,.�v: {5�,vr,ti= '{'. ;{ .•}.`���;r4y,._.}�t,-�,4-.;:':;:}.f'-;'i:.}?;;;;:�{.;..,.F:-,:-.:.'.;�yr..,�,••.� 1
'.f: ��af"., at{i.•}�t�r t k� •: \: x f.� S, �4.•.•i `�.4'.'.•_•1 � _'r`_'^. �A�' �'x
'���';�'�l��'�:+.' } .+�}1,:} r{ j }.`�!!.` .,1, �, `_�"y �'� ���-* � x ��;~ _ tip` *,.:1._•{'.:,•.'.•.�
�
'S };`.�{','Sr��l A ;�� .{�. ;c r;.y .:�'^,2�L y"4.:�f .�, * �K t�'1} �i�r.Sx �ti•�,1-`, {a 2r „-,r. ' !f,-.',w x,.4•�f.xi.+}�f_R.�,'.4'.41'
r,•n is•�' ,. �� { v'}, "._' { yv 4v w. ry Y.S} 4..\,. F},_'_1'_.' }V,,\r�*h'l..l
Lti� 7 .�{�'h '4 �]titi 4 �5:•..,n`����,�:-,..,5•: �,�.k�� tip•' �'y. �, ti'"', y�'r,��,', �'r�;�. �-_•.{.•.-,�.'.
f}ktirr } 4C r w ? {:'. r }.` ^?'. P. {!._•:{;{{;.}ti,, '•'+' x. �r.;_w'.}};$, .',;,;n,•,t7.'f. >. ,.
�.�.�..t;wtiti�{��J%f 5:y•-,.',;•• r -�,t} 5. ,t,, x k�.. ,�•.'.h •w�k -'''���: '3', �. ''r'=:•+'''-r '�,,.-�_, y�:r! •".'.`�:v.f�S"*:�}'rT.tir �'• .' .' '.•�ti<.�i. •'r .r f.,•,. Otis•}: ..v. .v.•.,.�5 ;fil,.•.s�:"•,.,�•:':':',-,,.,,., ,ti.ti-�.� _'r:,';}', Y+}•:•;•.�.�'.t-,•„ ./_;,-�.'.;-,<" �, _ ,'e - •
''i-''tf';.,-.i;,�,±.,',a ,v,.}'-Y���=���•f:.'{,'?,.�t ��.•�wr�."rv�."{'t..'.'.,}1,f`�sr. x,�,x�i.�� ���4'r.�ti'=}�;i{'kl"�_,`i,-',`"-'kw`�.���"k�:1k���-','�a'S1`,`_,��'.�,'..'.,fL;.ti_.` �„�'- ',x*_rk" -,�,', �'t`}.; ,�'
:�;�',��' .'�-5�.�-x:l:t5�`xY"ax'i�k'.„`2i:�a3�5T.�tr���� �-.va�fiti{'.h'.'pie"r:':•r:st�:,��.'':: •.��i',�k,4r��,:':�..h�.•:,x.,.�wns��,..•:�r.•;.?::;. .��r.xk � .s,s ,r, .i*+�'._ '''�,.x-..�.•.�.xA ��.„ rt
TO: GIs. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner EC 3 1991f } x ,
FROM: dames hand, Jr., Director of�ng� : ;�.• �
IIlI �
4
DATE. December 2, 1997 + x
�.
SUBJECT: Walnut Ridge & Berrinton Place
s
L
v AL.I T_-RIDG
. Section 7B.4, The D PW would prefer the 2 'of pavement, The a ist'ing
pavement is.261 wide and it.sho u Id.not be reduced;
... Section 7D The DPW would-recommend no sidewalks and a donation to
the sidewalk fund or placement of sidewalk along the entire length of Cricket
Laney
3. Section 7H.3 On any side slope greater than 2 to Ir we would require
g 'ard rails. DPW would determine location.
General Notes
Sheet-1—i.- Add note 7 "in all easements no fences, walls, trees, plantings,
landscaping.and/or any other obstruction shall be placed that will hinder the
access and or maintenan a to the utility located within said easement".
Sheet 2. Utility easement needed on trot 11 for future expansion of both
sewer and water lines. Enact location to be determined in the near future.
Sheet 7. Detaining wall detail, provide specifications and details on CLF and
pipe rail for review.
Skeet 8. Add note 1 'gall frames and covers to be set on bricks, 2 courses
minimum, courses maximum.
BERRINGTON PLACE
1. Change road geometry at entrance both sides parallel.
2. Provide profiles on drainage in easements. Page 35 1 st full paragraph
. check grade at Glenore Circle, surface waters appear to flow past cBs.
4. Need access to Retention area on Lots
t Water easement between lets 6 & 7 needs re-grading to allow access and
provide correct depth to water main.
. Hydrants to located behind sidewalk.
7. Add 2nd water gate to water main beyond Glenrnore Circle.
8. Add water gates to both end of the water easement.
. Show water, sewer and drainage on profile;
of Remove tree location from grass strip to behind property line,
11. DPW would prefer no granite curbing and side asks, if sidewaI ks were
deemed necessary they should be Installed on one side only.
f - i
f
i
Colwell, Town Planner Page 2
Rand, lair. of Ern . 1f17
1
i
2, On road cross section slow resin. drain depth as 3' and typ. sewer depth as'
feet
3. Section 7H.3 On any side slope greater than 2 to 1 f we would require
guard rails. DPW would determine location;
14. Add note----I all easements no fences, walls, trees, plantings, landscaping
and/or any other obstruction shall be placed that will hinder the access and for
maintenance to the utility located within said easement".
15. Add note "all frames and covers to be set on bricks, 2 courses minimum, 4
courses maximum.
CC: Mr.j. William Hmurcial
Mr. Timothy Willett
Mr. Michael toward
RICHARD Mr STANLEY 566 kiln Street
ChiefPolice No,Andover,MA 01845
Tel one: 508 83-31 8
'Tofim of q"
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ORTIj
a D
13
r
04 Y r
CO
December 8, 1997
Mr. Erik fleyland
A[Icn Nx.- Major Associates, U.C.
400 West Cuminings Park,.
Suite 5050
6'ob ti r , MA. 01801
Dear Mr. Heyland,110
This letter will confirm your request to use Berrington Lane and Gle ore
U'vele as street names for n �streets in your proposed e inton Plaec
subdivision. 11 use of these too street names is acceptable.
A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the North Andover Planning
Department office*
ICHA -C BOETTCHER
C i.x is tions Supervisor
E-9-1-1 Coordinator
\,.y: N.A. PlanninD artment:
1
• 0 School street
i or(h Andover,MA 0184
•
.............. ....."................. ..
.......................................... .............. ......
To: Mr.Join Chessia x:
e
From; Kathleen Bradley Colwell,Town lannerD t : November 6, 1997
Benin ton tstates Pages: 2
0 Urgent ❑For Review ❑Please Comment Please Reply El Please Recycle
of : John,can you please check these two lots for conformance with section 7,1.3 of the ZBL.
This section states that when a fifty foot straight line is drawn to divide the lot In two,and the
perimeter of the smaller piece is greater than two hundred feet,then such smaller piece shall not
he included in the calculations when determining lot area,ch ,or street fi ontage. Thanks!11
Please let one know by the end of the day tomorrow.
also need the submittal comments on Forest View by the end of the day so that I can send them
along with any comments.
.irk
; ..e ..
1
if l
45 ...
' 4
t�t
.7
4
I 5 .
,
SSSS !3
..........:
- - - • • • • •
, :....I ` ': M1' ... .. .... ...
1
I
LOT #5
5t95 SF
I
i
SBA 93s672 SF
r
tK
OT ;
s
I
--
52s l
(CBA 9
L 1 { 3 ,>
,5
83*27 5
IRCLE
ORE C
GLF,N
30
i , `57
t .
} ' 3 �Y2
. Iti,_ i
S
1
N
i
��YRR
3 . "
-.� 2 .
40
14.49
C �
. _
r, }.00
1
Y
PO ft 4% N 46
LO T
.�
# }
s
r
9
6 7F
}� (CBA 81, 9 SCD
Town of North Andover
oMCE or, ,
COMMUNITY DEVE LOPMENT AND SERVICES
• T i
I
30 School Street �� • �� •� �
North Andover, Massachusetts 1 ,� °�A►�� � ,
WMLIAM J. sTr
WU
Director
Memorandum
To: Joel Bard Esq., Kopelman &Paige
From: Kathleen Bradley Correll, Town Planner
Date: October 22, 1997
Re: Berrington Estates Subdivision
I have attached a copy of a letter I received from Attorney Gerstein regarding the reed for a
variance from the 'watershed Protection District Bylaw for access to the proposed subdivision
property. It is my understanding that his original letter was seat to you in,duly.
s his client is anxious to file a subdivision plan, please render are opim'on in writing to the
Planning Board regarding the issues raised in letter by November 7, 1997. This will allow the
applicant to file a subdivision application this year.
If you have any questions or creed additional information, please call me at 9 8 688-95 5.
i
cc. W, Scott, Din. CD&S `
R. Halpin,Town Manager
CONSERVATION- )688 9530 HEALTH- 978)688-9540 PLANNING{(978)688- 535
*BUILDINGOr,FI - 78)688-9545 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS- 78)698-9541 14 6 MAIN ` REET
Herbert P. Phillips, PC.
Michael A, Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holber
Russell S, Channen-
(Ph*s, eswniwn&&,Jane M. Owens Triano Heffia&Cl
Ronald N. Beauregard
evin R Rauseo 25 Kenoza Avenue 0 Haverhill, MA 01830
K
Tel: (978) 374-1131 (800) 457-6912 9 Fax: (978) 372-3086
Of Counsel',
John T Pollano
Gerald M, Lewis
October 20 1997
William I Scott
Director of Community Development and ScrVices
146 Main Street
North Andover NLk 0 1845
Re: Berrington Estates Subdivision
Date and Appleton Streets
North Andover, Massachusetts
Dear Mr, Scott:
I had previously Wfitten to you on July 23, 1997 stating the position of my client, WG Realty
Corp., and its desire to proceed with the above referenced subdivision.
I atn enclosing a further copy of such correspondence and ani requesting again that Town Counsel
issue an opinion, consistent with the position I have taken, that no further access points to the
above property would be necessary.
I would be more tha' n happy to contact Town Counsel directly, although I am requesting that you
proceed as quickly as possible to obtain such opi on so that my client can proceed in its
endeavors.
Ve "Y yours,
.Michael A. Gerstein
MACT11f
cc: MPG Realty Corp.
Elmer Pease
Kathleen Bradtey Colwell
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber, Beauregard and Rauseo admitted also in New Hampshire,
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box'W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
Herbert R Phillipsr PC* LAW OFFICES tar
Michael A. Gerstein
0 0
Stuart M, Holber (Ph*s
6efskk,llvffia&Clwwli
Russell S. Charmer
Jane M. Owens Triano
25 Kenoza Avenue s Haverhill, MA 01830 a Tel. (508) 374-1131 N Fax (508) 372-3086
Ronald N. Beauregand
Kevin P. Rauseo
Of Counsel:
John T. Pollano
POO N
JU Y 23, 1997
William J. Scott
Director of Community Development and Services
Town of North Andover
146 Main Street
North Andover NLA 01845
Re: "Smith Property"
Dale and Appleton Streets
North Andover Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Scott-,
Please be informed this office represents NTG Realty Corp. relative to its desire to subdivide the
above property. I have received a copy of the letter of KatWeen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner,
dated April 24, 1997 relative to her position that my client would need another access point to the
property and, if not, would require a variance from the Zo g Board of Appeals. I have had
occasion to review my client's file, the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, the Wetlands
Protection Bylaw, and the Wetlands Regulations for the Town of North Andover. I have also
examined the title to the property, and I am of the belief that town counsel will concur that a
variance will not be required. I am listing herewith my reasons and would request you submit this
letter to Town counsel for his/her review and comments. It is my client's further hope and desire
to proceed with the subdivision in an eXpeditious manner, and I believe town counsel should be
involved to address these concerns currently.
0
Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning By-Laws, and, in particular, Section .13 dealing with
"Watershed Protection Distn*ct", it is stated under 4,136.2.f, "the provisions relating to the
establishment of the Conservation Zone and the enlargement of the non-disturbance zone and the
nor-disturbance zones shall o ffly a p t y to lots recorded and registered after the date of the
enactment of this amendment." (October 24, 1994). Please be aware that the Smith Property in
question was purchased March 25, 1960 as recorded at Book 912, Page 1 7 of the Essex North
District Registry of Deeds, a copy of which deed I am enclosing herewith.
It is certainly acknowledged that the North And6ver Conservation Cotes ion is empowered by
the Wetlands Protection Bylaw to preserve and protect the wetland resource areas, and to adopt
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Seau(egard admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
i
Orders of Conditions which are necessary to regulate its responsibility. The Conservation
Commission does have the authority to waive strict compliance with its regulations, when in its
judgment, such action would be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Bylaw. f certainly
acknowledge that my client as an applicant, has the burden of proving that the grant of a waiver
is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Bylaw, I wish to further acknowledge that the
proposed subdivision and its current access points are in the non-disturbance buffer zone,
although g h the following uses shall be allowed within such zone only by Speciai err-lit, issued
pursuant to Section 4 of the-Watershed Protection District Bylaw,
f
r
I. Any activities which cause a change in topography or grade;
2. Vegetation removal or cutting, other than in connection with agriculture uses or
maintenance of a landscape area.
5. Any surface or subsurface discharge, including but not limited to stop n grater runoff,
drainage of any roadway that is n intamned by the Division of Public Works or any private
association-, outlets of all drainage ales; outlets ofall detention ponds.
You should be aware that the current roadway that is used and would be pproposed to be used to
access the property has a width of between thirty 3 o and forty (40) Feet. Correspondingly, the
shoulders of the roadway are thirty eight to Feet. ' lie slo a therein are currently
eroding and partially treated, and the degradation of the adjoining or abutting wetlands are
affected during heavy rains by the sediment from the soil in the slopes. Based upon such
situation, the improvement to the roadway would-greatly reduce the erosion and would serve to
better direct and great any storm water runoff', The addition of paved roadway, which is further
proposed as art of such subdivision, with a closed drainage system directed to a treatment swale,
would fhrthdr reduce TSS counts to DEP acceptable levels. :.
From a further review of all documentation, f believe it is fairly clear that the Conservation
Commission is allowed to permit the construction and maintenance of a new roadway or
driveway, of n rdrnum legal and practicable width, acceptable to the Planning B oard dimensional
standards "where no altercate means of access from an em*sting public or private way to an upland
e ownership is available." s has been previously mentioned herein, the property
area of the saw � �
has bee n held in the same owner since 1950 and thus was in existence prior to the effective date
f October 24 4. when recAe vin such natters in its entirety, and reviewing the burden o
o g
roof requirements, whereby area applicant must rove � a preponderance of the evidence that the
p � y ply p y
work proposed In the application shall not have an unacceptable significant am
affect upon the wetland values protected h this Bylaw, f could contend that a
cumulative � �
variance could not be required. Furthermore since the access road in existence W6uld be ..
cce table s a single lot it should not lose its applicability and availability for subdivision
a p
purposes,
It is important to note in reviewing the Zowffig Bylaws that` the Special Permit Granting
Authorityunder this Bylaw la shall be the PlanningBoard." Such Bylaw was clearly
intended to allow the Planning Board and not the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a
determination with proposed
re ards to subdivisions, and I would suggest that 'own Counsel
g
review that in detail.
a 1
1
ion eras formerlyroared y
I think it useful to note from nay review of the title, that s div-sbistrict
oard in Marc l for the site with the lay. recorded at the Essex North
the Planning � � �
Registry ## 3442. The access hints remain the same as
of deeds, April �� , fisted as � �
proposed in the current plan, wEdch clearly evidences the intent to use such access points as a
means of entering the property for subdivision purposes. While �r must clearly acknowledge e that
' � required to accept a never subdivision.based upon one that existed a
the anrrtr� Board �s not t
number of dears ado, I the pant n
think it is important,,i making a determination of the use of the site that
' and purposes of such subdivision was to use the wd tin access points. The owner
the clear �nter�t. � �
' intended to proceed with the subdivision was a .tern Co oration which� I }
who originally T
understand involves the Smith aiy vho are the current owners of the ro ert with the
previous subdivision formerly known as `Appleton states"
t is y sole intent and desire to e dlte the subdivision process and allow for uses that are
clearly spelled out and allowed under the rules and regulations of the Town of North Andover.
G Realty Corp. is desirous of completing the plans for submittal of its Notice of Intent, and, as
re are definitive set of laps for submittal to the lar�n hoard, and would appreciate
well, �
rou
r having town counsel for mate an o it on in l ht of the within submittal.
Very t ru yours, 140011,
1 r
I
r'
ichae A. Gerstein
M.ui if '
cc: N'G Realty Corp. w*
Ebner Pease
Herbert P. Phillips, PC. r
Michael A. Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
f
Stuart M. Holber f
Russell S. Channen 'Phiff4p ,,
C/WIMU
)ane M.Owens TrIan
Ronald N. Baureard
Kevin P Rauseo S Kenoza Avenue 0 Haverhill, 1#A 01830
Tel: 97 -11 1 ) 457-6912 E Fax: 97372-3086
ofCounsels ........:....... ,.......v.......:,-..:,n.,.:,...:. ............, .....
}on T. Pollano
Gerald M. Lew*s -
r
�:.
October 20, 199
1
s
William.J. Scott
Director of. Community Development and Services
146 Main Street
North Andover, MA.0 1
Re: Berrington Estates Subdivision
Dale and Appleton Streets
North Andover, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Scott:
f had previously written to you on July 23, 1997 stating the position of my client, MPG Realty
y
Corp., and its desire to proceed with the above referenced subdivision.
am enclosing a further copyof such correspondence and am requesting again that Town Counsel
issue an opinion, consistent with the position f have taken, that no further access points to the
above property would he necessary.
r would be more than happy to contact Town Counsel directly, although I am requesting that You
proceed as quickly as possible to obtain such opinion so that my client can proceed in its
endeavors.
Vr yours,
r '
� - #i �
rihael A. Gerstein
MAG If
NWG Realty Corp.
Elmer Pease
Kathleen Bradley Colwell
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts,
Holber, Reaure and and Bauseo admitted also in New Hampshire,
Holb r admitted also in Maine,
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, old orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
Herbert R Phillips, PC. LAW OFFIL� bF
Michael A. Gerstein 0
Stuart M. Holber
6&s(PW4 "I, &
Russell S. Channen f
bane M. Owens nano
25 Kenoza Avenue n Haverhill, MA 01830 0 Tel. (508) 374-1131 0 Fax (508) 372-3086
Ronald N. Beauregard
Kevin R Rauseo
Of Counsel:
John T Pollano
Jut , 1997
William J. Scott
Director of Community Development and Services
Town of North Andover
146 Main Street
North Andover NIA 0 1845
Re: "Smith Property"
Dale and Appleton Streets
North Andover Massachusetts
Dear Mr, Scott:
Please be informed this office represents NIPG Realty Corp. relative to its desire to subdivide the
above property. I have received a copy of the letter of Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner,
dated April 24, 1997 relative to her position that my client would need another access point to the
property and, if not, would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have had
occasion to review my client's file, the Town of North Andover Zorn g Bylaws, the Wetlands
Protection Bylaw, and the Wetlands Regulations for the Town of North Andover. I have also
examined the title to the property, and I any of the belief that town counsel will concur that a
n
variance will not be required. I am listing herewith my reasons and wou d re quest you submit this s
letter to Town counsel for Ws/her review and comments. It is my client's further hope and desire
to proceed with the subdivision in an expeditious manner, and I believe town counsel should be
involved to address these concerns currently.
Pursuant- to the provisions of the Zorn ng By-Laws, and, in particular, Section 4.136 dealing with
"Watershed Protection District" it is stated under 4.136,21, "the provisions relating to the
establishment of the Conservation Zone and the enlargement of the non-disturbance zone and the
non-disturbance zones shall only apply to lots recorded and registered after the date of the
enactment of this amendment." (October 24. 1994). Please be aware that the Smith Property in
question was purchased March 25, 1 960 as recorded at Book 912, Page 187 of the Essex North
District Registry of Deeds a copy of which deed I am enclosing herewith.
It is certainly acknowledged that the North And6ver Conservation Conum*ssion is empowered by
the Wetlands Protection Bylaw to preserve and protect the wetland resource areas, and to adopt
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Sea regard admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Of chard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
i
6
Orders of Conditions which are necessary to regulate its responsibility. The Conservation
Commission does have the authority to waive strict compliance with its regulations, when in its
ld be consistent purposes of law. I certainly
judgment, such action wou t t with the intent are y
acknowledge that my client, as are applicant, has the burden of proving that the grant of a waiver
is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Bylaw. I wish to further acknowledge that the
proposed subdivision and its current access points are in the non-disturbance buffer zone, 3
although the following uses shall be allowed within such zone only by Special Permit, issued
pursuant to Section 4 of the.watershed Protection District Bylaw.
}
I Any activities which cause a change in topography or grade;
2. Vegetation removal or cutting, other than in connection with agriculture uses or
maintenance of a landscape area. i
5. Any surface or subsurface discharge, including but not limited to storm water runoff,
drainage of any roadway that is maintained by the Division of Public Works or any private
association; outlets of all drainage swales; outlets of all detention ponds.
should be aware that the current roadway that is used and would be {proposed to used to
You a
access the property has a width of between thin o and fob 40 feet. Correspondingly, the
shoulders of the roadway are thirty eight to fife o feet. The slopes therein are currently
eroding and partially treated and the degradation of the adjoining r abutting wetlands are
� y � J
affected during heavy rains i b the sediment from the soil in the slopes. used upon such
y
situation the improvement to the roadway would greatly reduce the erosion and would serve to
better direct and treat any storm water runoff. The addition of a paved roadway, which is further
proposedas part of such subdivision, with a closed drainage system directed to a treatment swai ,
would further reduce TSS counts to DEP acceptable levels.
r review of all documentation f believe it is fairl clear that the Conservation
From a furthc � �
Commission is allowed to permit the construction and maintenance of a new roadway or
drivewa of mi i nur�n legal and practicable width, acceptable to the Planning Board dimensional
y ,
standards "where n ltemate means of access from an existing public or private way to an upland
of the same wn r hi i mailable." A�. has been reviousi me ntioned h erein, the property
area y
has
been held in the sane owner since Io and thus was in existence prior to the effective date
of October 24 1994. when reviewing such matters in its entirety, and reviewing the burden of
proof requirements whereby air applicant must rove by a preponderance f the evidence that the
,
�• proposed i tyre a application shall not have are unacceptablesignificant and/or•
wo }
cumulative affect upon the wetland values protected by this Bylaw, f would contend that a
variance would not be required. Furthermore since the access road in existence would be
40 p
ece table as a single lot it should not lose its applicability and availability for subdivision
purposes.
it is important to note in reviewing the Zoning laws that `the Special Permit Granting
Authority S GA under this Bylaw shall be the Planning Board." Such Bylaw was clearly
intended to allow the Planning Board and not-the,honing Board of Appeals to make a
determination with regards to subdivisions and I would suggest that 'own Counsel
proposed
review that in detail,
i
i
' itreview subdivision wasformerlYroved by
� �� �� to note � of the � � t a
the Planning Board In March 1957 for the site with the plan recorded at the Essex North District
' o ril 1957, listed as Plan . The access pints remain the same as
Registry off
proposed In the current �lay which clearly evidences the 'Intent to use such access points as a
means of entering the property for subdivision purposes. chile I must clearly acknowledge that
f
the Planning Board is not required to accept a new subdivision based upon one that existed a {
number of years ago, I tick it is important.in making a determination of the use of the site that
the clear Intent and purposes of such subdivision was to use the existing access points. The owner
who originally intended to proceed with the subdivision was Lantern Co_ oration.which, I
understand, involves the Sn th Family � are the current owners of the property, with the
previous subdivision formerly known a `Appleton Estates'
t is my sole intent and desire to expedite the subdivision process and allow for uses that acre
p p
clearly spelled out and allowed under the rules and regulations of the Town of North Andover.
� G RealtyCorp.0 is desirous of completing the I n for submittal of its Notice of latent, and, s }
p
ell prepare a definitive s t of fans for submittalnirr to the l n Board and I would appreciate
p
your having torn counsel formulate an opinion, in light of the within su mittal.
Very truly ours
f.
Op
f
i hael A. Gerstein
MAGI f
c ; WG Fealty Corp,
Elmer cease
48