HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-15 Decision SPR SP - DENIED _ 1 .r J r.-•4 r
NOTICE OF DECISION
Any appeal shall be filed
within(20) days after the
date of filing this notice
in the office of the Town
Clerk.
Date: March 17, 2005
Date of Hearing: 11/16/04, 3/15/05
Date of Decision: March 15, 2005
Petition of: Key Lime, Inc., 60 Beechwood Drive, North Andover,
MA 01845
Premises affected: off Salem Turnpike Street, Route 114, Map 107B, lots 16
and 73.
Referring to the above petition for a Site Plan Special Permit. The application was
noticed and reviewed in accordance with Section 8.3 and 10.3 of the North Andover
Zoning Bylaw and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 9.
So as to allow: the construction of 56 residential units within the Village Residential
Zoning District.
After public hearings given on the above date, and upon a motion made by John Simons
to close the hearing on the Site Plan Review Special Permit, 2nd by Richard Nardella,the
vote was unanamous, 5-0: Board members voting: Angles, White,Nardella, Simons,
Phinney the meeting was closed.
Upon a motion made by John Simons and 2nd by Richard Nardella, to DENY the Site
Plan Review Special Permit based on the following findings, and upon unanamous vote
of 5-0, by Board members: Angles, White,Nardella,WAIAnglesphairman
' ey the p tition was
denied.
Signed:
cc: Applicant George White, Vice Chairman
Engineer John Simons
Abutters Richard Nardella
Town Departments James Phinney
Key Line,Inc,
Salem Turnpike,a/k/a Old Salem Village
Denial of Site Plan Special Permit
Page 1
Old Salem Village
Site Plan Special Permit Denial
The Planning Board herein denies the Site Plan Special Permit for the construction and
use of 56 multi-family dwelling units on 17.9 acres located off Turnpike St. (Route 114)
located in the Village Residential (V-R) Zoning District. The application was submitted
by Key Lime, Inc. 60 Beechwood Drive,North Andover, MA 01845 on October 12,
2004. Public hearings were opened on November 16, 2004 and continued through March
15, 2005.
Findings of Fact
The Planning Board denies this Site Plan Special Permit because the plan as presented is
not in compliance with the Town Bylaws. This denial is based on the following specific
findings:
1) Section 7.7 of the Zoning Bylaw states that the"maximum dwelling unit density
(dwelling units per acre) shall be as set forth in Table 2."
2) Table 2 then explicitly states that the maximum dwelling unit density for the Village
residential (V-R) Zoning District is one dwelling unit per acre.
3) Since the definition of a"dwelling unit"per Section 2.35 of the Zoning Bylaw is "one
or more rooms, including cooking facilities, and sanitary facilities in a dwelling
structure, designed as a unit for occupancy by not more than one family for living and
sleeping purposes," then each multi-family dwelling unit within a structure counts as
a separate dwelling unit.
4) Consequently, since the applicant has proposed 56 multi-family dwelling units on a
17.9-acre parcel, then the proposed density far exceeds the limit of one dwelling unit
per acre and thus does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw.
5) Footnote 12 to Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw provides further clarification that multi-
family dwellings are subject to the maximum dwelling unit restriction of one unit per
acre per Table 2. It reads that"if multi family structures are selected to attar: the
maximum density allowed, the proposed project shall be subject to the minimum
open space requirements found in Section 8.5 (Planned Residential Development),
and to the Site Plan Review requirements of Section 8.3." And this footnote further
mentions that"the allowed density in the Village Residential Zone shall be one
dwelling unit per acre."
6) Thus Footnote 12 is very clear that multi-family dwelling are subject to the maximum
density cap and that this limit is one unit per acre. The references to Sections 8.5 and
Key Line,Inc.
Salem Turnpike,a/k/a Old Salem Village
Denial of Site Plan Special Permit
Page 2
8.3 stipulate as additional requirements that the applicant for multi-family projects
must comply with the open space requirements of Section 8.5 and all of the
requirements of Site Plan Review per Section 8.3.
7) Footnote 14 of the Zoning Bylaw provides additional guidance regarding the V-R
district. It states that.`the dimensional criteria described in the table below applies
only to detached single-family development. Multi-family structures developed in
this district shall be subject to all criteria applicable to multi-family development as
stated in Section 8.5. However, in no instance shall the bonus density subsections of
8.5 apply in the Village Residential District."
8) This Footnote 14 needs to be interpreted both in the context of Footnote 12 and Table
2 as well as the characteristics of multi-family dwellings. Specifically,
a) The applicable dimensional requirements for V-R in Table 2 (Lot area, height,
frontage and setbacks) all pertain to single-family residences on dedicated lots.
b) But, if an applicant were to propose multi-family dwellings in this district, the
appropriate standards would be different since each unit is not on a separate lot.
So the footnote refers us to Section 8.5 that includes a section on dimensional
requirements for site planned (i.e. multi-family) projects (Section 8.5, 6 (Q.
c) However, nowhere does the footnote state that the allowed density limit of one
unit per acre is eliminated; it merely points to Section 8.5 which provides
additional dimensional information that would pertain to multi-family projects.
d) Footnotes 12 and 14 are complementary. Footnote 12 is very explicit that there is
a density limit for multi-family dwellings within V-R; Footnote 14 provides
additional guidance for setbacks and other dimensional criteria applicable to
multi-family dwellings.
9) The Planning Board has also assessed its interpretation of this section of the Zoning
Bylaw based on the original passage of this section of the Bylaw in 1987 and a
subsequent amendment in 1997. Based on the history of the original Town Meeting
presentation in 1987, it was clear that the intent of the V-R Bylaw was to provide a
cap on the number of dwelling units in both single family and multi-family projects.
In addition, the amendment approved in 1997 was made explicitly to reduce the
allowed maximum density from 4 units per acre to one unit per acre.
10)Section 10.31 of the Zoning Bylaw provides that"the Special Permitting Granting
Authority (the Planning Board in this case) shall not approve any such application for
a Special Permit unless it finds that in its judgment all the following conditions are
met:
a) The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure or condition;
b) The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
c) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians;
Key Line,Inc.
Salem Turnpike,a/k/a Old Salem Village
Denial of Site Plan Special Permit
Page 3
d) Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of
the proposed use;
e) The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not grant any Special Permit unless
they make a specific finding that the use is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this Bylaw."
11)The Planning Board finds that this Special Permit application does not comply with
the above conditions because the density far exceeds what is permitted in the Village
Residential Zoning District. Given this excessive density, the specific site would not
be an appropriate location for the use proposed; the use would adversely impact the
neighborhood; there would be a potential nuisance to vehicles; and the use would not
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Bylaw.
12)This proposal must also comply with the Special Permit provisions of PRD Section
8.5(C)which stipulate that the project be "in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of this section and Section 10.3 and that the PRD contains residential
development and open space in a variety to be sufficiently advantageous to the
Town." The Planning Board finds that this Special Permit application does not
comply with these standards because of the excessive density.of the project in excess
of the Bylaw. This density also results in required minimum open space that is not
advantageous to the Town because it includes areas directly abutting buildings that
are not practical for common use.
13)In addition this proposal must comply with the provisions of Section 8.3(7)(a)(iii)(b)
which states that the Planning Board may deny approval of a Site Plan for several
reasons including"the plan as presented is not in compliance with Town Bylaws."
The Planning Board finds that due to the excessive density of the project compared to
the Zoning Bylaw,the plan as presented is not in compliance with Town Bylaws.
The following plans are included as part of this decision:
Plan: Old Salem Village
Owned by: L.A.M. Realty Trust, 89 Main Street,North Andover, MA 01845
Harold& Beverly Whipple, 123 Winchester Drive, Monroe,NH 03771
Applicant: Key-Lime, Inc. 60 Beechwood Drive,North Andover, MA 01845
Prepared by: Hayes Engineering, Inc., 603 Salem Street, Wakefield, MA 01880
Dated: October 4, 2004
Sheets: 1-14
More plan information is continued to page 5
Key Line,Inc.
Salem Turnpike,a/k/a Old Salem Village
Denial of Site Plan Special Permit
Page 4
Plan information continued for Key Lime, Inc., denial.
Plan: Preliminary Landscape Plan
Prepared by: Huntress Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture & Land Planning
17 Tewksbury Street
Andover, MA 01810
Dated: September 2004
Sheet: 1
Plan: Route 114, North Andover, MA
Prepared by: O'Sullivan Architects
40 Salem Street, Building Two, Suite Two
Lynnfield, MA 01940
Dated: 9/17/04
Sheets: 1-2
Document: Traffic Impact&Access Study
Proposed Residential Development Project
Turnpike Street
North Andover, MA
Prepared for: Key-Lime, Inc.
Prepared by: DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc.
Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
280 Main Street, Suite 204
North Reading, MA 10864
Dated: July 30, 2004
Document: Drainage Study
Old Salem Village, Route 114
No. Andover, MA
(Four lot subdivision)
Applicant: KEY-LIME, INC.
60 Beechwood Drive
North Andover, MA 10845
Prepared by: Hayes Engineering, Inc.
Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors
603 Salem Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
Dated: August 27, 2004
desktop/final Den ia101dSalemVilIage
Key Line,Inc.
Salem Turnpike,a/k/a Old Salem Village
Denial of Site Plan Special Permit
Page 5