HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 110 SUTTON HILL ROAD 2/19/1996 February 19, 1996 Mary Armitage
12 Sutton Hill Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Tel. 685-2255
Ref: Numbering of Sandra Lane/
Sutton Hill Road lots
I am aware of the ease with which the Fire Department and emergency
equipement can find a house now that North Andover uses 911. Continuity
of numbers does not have the importance that it once did. My remarks do
not apply to that aspect of assigning street numbers.
Nevertheless, if the side by side driveways in the development that we are
discussing were known as Glen Drive or Glen Way or Sutton Hill Court and
the numbers were #2 and #4 there would not be the perception, regardless of
the presence or absence of rules and regulations, that "in-the-rear" building is
affirmed. These lots, numbered in this way, would be easy to find compared
to those on Sutton Hill Road. Consider that there has been never any
reasonable continuity to house numbers on this street. They have
confounded UPS, Federal Express, florists, repair and delivery people, and
visiting relatives for years.
For example, the first house on your left, the even numbered side of Sutton
Hil Road coming off Johnson St., is clearly numbered #173. It faces Sutton
Hill Road but is actually on Johnson St. The next house on your left
(Armitage) is the real first house on the even numbered side of Sutton Hill
Road. It is #12. Next to it is Caimi, #44; then Bradley, #62; and Pernokas is
#80. Then we have Lampros, #100; and Segal, #118. Even if one allows for
dividing lots the increments are without logic.
On the odd numbered side the first house on the right coming off Johnson St.
is Mallen, #47; then Kellan, #49 (a bit of logic there); then Burke, #71; then
O'Neil, #85; Watson, #101; and Pepe. #115, etc., etc.
So, to put #50 and #52 behind #12 and #62 might be good marketing but
doesn't snake much sense otherwise. Perhaps the DPW should reconsider.
Thanks for your attention.
February 19, 1996
Mary Armitage
Sutton Hill Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Tel. 508-685-2255
Ref. Watershed - Sandra
Lane and Sutton Hill
Road lots
I have suggested that in the interest of public health and the common good
that neither developer nor abutter should bargain for allowed exceptions
within the Watershed except for most grave and serious reasons.
I have heard a representative of the developer say in defense of requesting an
exception within a buffer zone that, "If you're going to build a house,
practically speaking, you have to build a lawn." Is that really reason enough
for an exception? I was also told in regard to the 25' allowance for a lawn
within the 100 ft' buffer zone that "we have allowed it all over town" and that
"they (the developers) will do it anyhow." That is not a good enough reason.
It is a terrible reason.
Therefore I repeat my request in the interest of constancy that in the area of
the ponds of the Hatch tributary that your
s-`ice of maim in ng he 100' buffer that was discretionary
nforced before opt on the
e 994
Whatever disadvantage accrues to abutter or developer is as nothing
compared to the long term good accrued to the water supply of North
Andover and the knowledge that it is being protected admirably and ably
by our officials.
Thank you for your consideration of my remarks.
4
Mary Armitage
12 Sutton Hill Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Tel . 508-685-2255
�9r,
North Andover Planning Board ;
Planning Department r
Mai
146 re
Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Members,
I think that the following observations ought to be made
at this time.
It won 't be long before developers in North Andover start
looking for private way access to "rear" lots and another
building spurt will begin. That which defines North. Andover 's
character will suffer its final indignity.
I am aware of the Johnson Street "rear" building proposal
because I received legal notice as an abutter.
I also received legal notice of the development of Sandra
Lane lots because I am an abutter. Within that proposal the
Sutton Hill Road "rear" lot concept took me by surprise.
Practically speaking, houses are going to' be in the rear of
other houses on Sutton Hill Road no matter what - it has been
always merely a question of when. If they had been built on Glen
Road they would have been Glen Road houses whose back yards met
Sutton Hill Road back yards. Nothing wrong with that.
If houses were built on Sandra Lane, they would be Sandra Lane
houses, built near rear lot lines with. back yards meeting
Sutton Hill Road back yards. Access from the front lot line
might have to be over small bridges, but no precident setting
here, just back yards meeting other back yards.
But when you have these same lots with frontage on Sandra Lane,
lots that have no lot line on Sutton Hill Road, and access is
allowed by a private way, and the addresses used are Sutton Hill
Road addresses; then there is a problem and the intent of our
regulations is thwarted. The visual aspect of back yards meeting
other back yards is the same, but the legalities involved are
exceedingly different. A precident is set for "rear" lot construction
on any street where a developer can find footage for a private way
and acceptable "rear" lot measurements to qualify for a special
permit. Is it coincidence that two precident setting proposals
have come before the planning board at the same time - one
seeming to legitimize the other. Ten years ago we were warned
C.
of this by a planning board member - he was absolutely correct.
It concerns me also to see the puzzlement and frustration of
good citizens as they have to accommodate aberrant access , odd
placement of houses , and change in the character of their
neighborhood. Why is it that they have to negotiate for that
which they thought was theirs; privacy, vista, security and
value. I think it is time to reverse this procedure.
I urge you to study this problem, to consult with the fire
department, police department, and highway surveyor and to
submit an article to town meeting in order to stop this
disastrous concept. Private ways to "rear" lot construction
is a bad idea that should be prohibited in North Andover.
With kind regards and appreciation for your attention,
Mary Armitage
cc - for your members
ly
A11rf , + April 22,1996 :R
nr'1[ 6 �g
Dear Planning Board Members,
Thank you for your consideration during the public hearings for development of the Sandra
Lane property. I regret only that the 100'buffer zone that the abutters worked so long and so hard to
achieve for the tributary to the Hatch was not strictly upheld regardless of inconvenience to the
developer.
Sometimes there is a feeling of inadequacy when a citizen"off the street,"so to speak,tries
to be a"quick study"regarding things municipal and addresses them at a public hearing. Usually it
is after the public hearing is closed that(s)he reflects on the content and procedure. In that context I
would like to make the following observation.
When I asked the Planning Board for guidance regarding paper streets(Glen Road),
Attorney Mahoney told me in effect,"We don't touch that,talk to the developer,it might be a legal
matter." The developer might be someone with whom the citizen is in opposition for one reason or
another;it is not a comfortable exchange for either party. My inquiries regarding paper streets
resulted in two opposing opinions from past and present owners of the land.
In former times one called the Highway Surveyer who answered questions about paper
streets with authority and without hesitation-as Mr.Perna of the DPW did when I phoned him
after the fact. Therefore,my question is: Has the Planning Board turned over decision making
regarding paper streets to the developer? If they have, in my opinion,it is an abrogation of
responsibility and bypasses the DPW.
If the Planning Board could have articulated an opinion,or had referred me to Mr.Perna I
would have been satisfied. I would very much prefer their judgement to that of the developer-of-
the-day.
Attorney Mahoney's demurral on the last page of the Planning Board Notice of Decision is
puzzling. It is excerpted from notes of the meeting as follows: Mr.Mahoney asked who owned Glen
Road? Mr.Burke replied that he does,and Mr.Mahoney stated that"you don't really have to do
anything for the neighbors do you?" Mr.Burke replied,"that's right." Previous court action by the
developers indicates awareness of rights of the abutters to Glen Road. Otherwise why would there
have been court proceedings and ultimately private negotiation? A developer may not have to be
generous with easements for sewerage tie-up,etc.,nor have to respond willingly to the Planning
Board's Conditions; but right of access is another matter.
I intrude upon your valuable time with these observations.Thank you for reading them.
Very truly yours,
Mary Armitage
12 Sutton Hill Road
North Andover,MA 01845
cc:Mr.George Perna,DPW