Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 50 SUTTON HILL ROAD 1/16/1996 Town of North oV w crRvw OFFICE OF �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 146 Main Street ptlpAYEtl .a'` North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 �SSAcwu��` (508) 688-9533 TO: Kathleen Colwell, Town Planner FROM: Michael D. Howard, Natural Resource/Land Use Planner DATE: January 16, 1996 RE: WETLAND DELINEATION- Sandra Lane/Sutton Hill Road The above referenced Watershed Special Permit filing is also before the North Andover Conservation Commission(NACC) as two separate Notice of Intent (NOI) filings for proposed re-grading and house construction within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) This Department is responsible for review and subsequent approval of all wetland delineation's within 100' of proposed"work". Delineating or verifying BVW boundaries in the winter months, especially with deep snow cover or frozen soil conditions, is difficult and under some extreme circumstances virtually impossible. Vegetation and other indicators of hydrology are not readily observable or may be misleading during these times. The Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) recommends that BVW delineation's be avoided if possible when deep snow cover or"deep freeze" conditions exist. This Department has no formal policy but rather reviews each filing on a case-by-case basis. I attempted to review the delineation for Sandra Lane/Sutton Hill.Road on Tuesday, January 16, 1996 but conditions did not allow for an approval. It was physically impossible to review a wetland resource area covered by three feet of snow and ice. The applicant, Mr. Benjamin Osgood has agreed to a continuation with the NACC to allow for approval of the delineation when conditions allow. A firm date has yet to be established but will likely be Wednesday, February 7, 1996. I will keep you updated as to the status of this filing, i Thank you. BOARD of APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEAL"rH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 Julie Pareino D.Robert Nic--Ua Michael Howard Sandra Starr Kathleen Bradley Colwell 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 Hit 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 make 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. S�`_`>� `�t��t Therefore I repeat my request in the interest of constancy that in the area of Lod the ponds of the Hatch tributary that your discretionary power opt on the side of maintaining the 100' buffer that was enforced before 1994. 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. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 Tel . 508-685-2255 North. Andover Planning Board Planning, Department 146 Main Street North. Andover, MA 01845 Dear Members :I think that the following observations aught 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. 1 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 Glean 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 alight have to be over small bridges, but no precideat 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 Hallowed by a private way, and the addresses used are Sutton Hill Raad addressee; 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. prec;:ident 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 preci.dent setting proposals have come before the planning board at the same time - one seeming to legitimize the other. Ten years ago we were warned 2. 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 the have to accommodate aberrant access , odd placement of houses , and change in the character of their neighborhood® Why is it that the 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, ell Mary Armitage cc for your members �. t rt Mrs. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover,MA 01845 Tel. 503-685-2255 January 19,1997 Forth Andover Planning Board 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear North Andover Planning Board Chairman and Members, I would like to bring to your attention the following: My home at 12 Sutton Hill Road is situated in the watershed on a slope that descends from the crest of Sutton Hill to a tributary to Lake Cochichewick, a distance of roughly 700 feet. There is considerable run-off of water in the spring. After heavy rains there is pooling and prolonged wetness from time to time. But it could not be said that there is a serious drainage problem. This is largely because there has been reasonably unrestricted run-off from Sutton Hill Road to the tributary. Most homes there were built into the slope and accommodate the configuration of the land, and trees were removed with great restraint. Lot 30B of a new development on the slope presents a problem. The developer has described to me how he brought in fill to elevate the basement of the proposed house on Lot 30B to ensure a dry cellar and feels he has acomplished his purpose. However, the newly elevated land has created a depression between two opposing slopes; the natural slope that leads to the tributary, (my property) and the unnatural elevation of land at lot 30B that results in a slope that leads away from the tributary. The depression that these opposing slopes creates is ideal for collecting water. The developer seems to be aware of this. He has appoached me with the suggestion that we swap easements; he getting land of mine that includes the depression and I getting a like piece of land in exchange. Of course I declined; he has created the problem and I'm not going to help solve it by giving up a strip of land that is of great importance to me as a buffer. At the public hearings that were held in regard to the development of this property I don't recall any permission being granted to change the topography of the land leading to the tributary by bringing in fill to elevate a basement. We all know that this seriously affects the natural run-off of water and we know that since the development started that some homes in the area are feeling the affects of what seems to be a change in the water table. Can a determination be made about this situation before two property owners are left to solve a problem that should not have been allowed to happen to begin with. I request your consideration of this matter and the courtesy of a reply. Mrs. Mary Armitage cc to: Conservation Commission wilding Inspector Watershed SubCommittee Town of North Andover NORT#q OFFICE OF o�°y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p * - 146 Main Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 �, ��, 0."�y WILLIAM J.SCOTT 3 SACHU5�t Director February 6, 1997 Mrs. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Lot 30B Sandra Lane-Watershed Special Permit Dear Mrs. Armitage, In response to your letter received on January 22, 1997, Mike Howard and I met with Ben Osgood and Henry Bendekian this morning to review the construction at Lot 30B Sandra Lane. The approved plan for the project does show an area of fill between the proposed home and your lot line therefore the applicant did receive approval for this work. The grading on the site is not final and the applicant understands that he will need to grade the site correctly as shown on the plan to ensure that there is not a permanent build up of water in this area. This work must be completed prior to receipt of an Occupancy Permit for the home. The Planning Department is holing $2,000 to ensure that the site is constructed accurately. This money will not be released until an as-built plan demonstrating compliance with the plan has been submitted to the Planning Board. As the edge of the wetland resource area is greater than one hundred (100) feet away from this low point there is a sufficient amount of land available to filter any storm water runoff from this area. Therefore the quality and quantity of water entering Lake Cochichewick will not be affected. I spoke with Mr. Osgood and Mr. Benedekian about the proposed easement and or deed of property. Mr. Benedekain explained that you and your family had expressed concerns regarding the preservation of the large tree on the site. Although he will not disturb the tree, the new land owners may remove it in the future. The tree lies outside of the jurisdiction of both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission therefore the new land owners would be free to remove it. He suggested that he would be willing to either deed or grant you an easement for the land around the tree in exchange for a strip of land along your property boundary. You would then have control and/or ownership of the tree and Mr. Benedkian could eliminate the low point by re- BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 grading the area. This type of agreement would not affect the construction of the site or the special permit however it would give you permanent control over the tree which you have been concerned about throughout the permit process. Regarding your concern with wet basements, the recent 100 year storm event in the fall coupled with a record volume wet summer and fall is the likely source. The Untied States Geological Survey data indicates that the local groundwater elevations are above normal and within 25% of record saturation for the month of October and November. The heavy precipitation event of October 20-21, 1996, in conjunction with the saturated ground water from an unusually wet summer caused flooding in many streams and wetlands throughout northeastern Massachusetts. This is the likely cause of the change in the water table noticed in your area. I have enclosed a copy of the decision for your records as previously requested . If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 688-935. fVery truly yours, Kathleen Bradley Colwell Town Planner cc. Mike Howard, Conservation Administrator B. Nicetta, Building Inspector S. Ford, Watershed Council B. Osgood, Jr. C - � e;e s F r February 15, 1997 Kathleen Bradley Colwell,'Town Planner Office of Community Development and Services 146 MainStreet North Andover, MA 01845 1 Dear Kathleen, I have received your response to my letter to the Planning Board Chairman and Members. My reply is enclosed. Sincerely, Mary Armitage (Mrs. H.G.,Jr.) Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 Tel. 508-685-2255 February 8,1997 Chairman and Members, North Andover Planning Board North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Chairman and Members of the North Andover Planning Board, I have received a letter dated 2/6/97 that is a reply to my letter of 1//19/97 to the Planning Board Chairman and Members that expresses my concern regarding drainage at Lot 30B of the Sandra Lane/Glen Road/Sutton Hill Road Development. Copies were sent to the Conservation Commission, the Building Inspector and to the Watershed SubCommittee. The letter is causing me some puzzlement because it does not address my inquiry regarding Lot 30B. On the other hand it addresses issues about which I made no inquiry. The letter requires clarification because it misrepresents me. Unfortunately this cannot be done briefly. In my letter I ask about the change in the topography of Lot 30B caused by fill brought in to elevate the land where a foundation has been built thereby creating a depression between two opposing slopes; the natural slope that leads to the tributary, and the recently man-made elevation of land at lot 30B that results in a slope that directs water away from the tributary. Run off cannot continue on its natural course to the tributary to the lake because the elevated land prohibits this. Water collects in the depression. The letter that I received addresses the depression and grading but not the land that is elevated and is the cause of the depression. Though not referred to in my letter I would like to note here that the area of the depression is also the site of a fence (see Planning Board Decision 3/26/96) that is to be erected one foot from my boundary line. Therefore my concern is two fold; #1. drainage in general and #2. proper footing for the fence. In para. #1 of her letter the Town Planner says, "The approved plan for the project does show an area of fill between the proposed home and your (my) lot line therefore the applicant did receive approval of this work." This is apparent to me,is understood by me,but it does not address my concern which is clearly stated in my letter to wit, the newly elevated land. No matter how much fill is put there it will still slope toward my property unless the foundation is lowered or the slope is contained by some construct such as a retaining wall. Refering again to Ms. Colwell's letter,in para #2, she cites "sufficient amount of land available to filter any storm water run off from this area. Therefore the quality and quantity of water entering Lake Cochichewick will not be affected." The quantity and quality of water in Lake Cochichewick at this point in time is the farthest thing from my my mind though I have addressed it in the past. Nor do I inquire about it in m letter.etter. I am concerned with the natural run off of water toLvard the tributdry,to the lake that has been interupted by i change in the topography and causes water to collect in an artificially created depression on my lzrgl2e�rty. In reference to Para #3 - there is an unusual over-emphasis regarding an ash tree. I will lay this issue to rest once and for all because it is not relevant to my concerns to-day, as follows: When we moved to North Andover in the 50's people stopped at our driveway and inquired about "the old ash tree."We realized that next to our property was a very old white ash tree (15 feet in circumference) that was and still is of considerable interest to some people in town. It also has given my family much visual pleasure. Through the years I tried to achieve protection for the tree as a civic as much as a personal effort. The Conservation Commission,in its conditions of Feb. 26,1996 states regarding Lot 30B that, '127. At the public hearing it was noted that a large diameter white ash Maximus americans) with unique qualities exists within the limits of proposed work. Prior to construction the applicant shall be responsible for locating said tree and marking it accordingly (i.e. flagging or stakes). Its protection is at the discretion of the Natural Resources/Land Use Planner." On July 8, 1996 I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Michael Howard to clarify what "at the discretion of the Natural Resource/Land Use Planner" means. I took notes as he explained to me that "he had talked to the builder; the tree is in no danger- there is no building near it. In the event it is ever in line of a building he (Mr. Howard) would have to make a decision- that does not seem to be necessary now or in the future." And that was the end of my efforts to protect the old tree. Again, this is something I made no reference to in my letter. Ms. Colwell continues in her letter to me that "Mr. Bendikian (the developer) explained that you and your family had expressed concerns regarding the preservation of the large tree on the site. Although he will not disturb the tree, the new land owners may remove it in the future. The tree lies outside of the jurisdiction of both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission therefore the new land owners would be free to remove it." This quote demands immediate clarification in light of the Conservation Commission Conditions of Feb. 26, 1996 and my conversation with Mr. Howard on July 8,1996 Again, this is something I made no reference to in my letter. This paragraph continues and suggests that the developer is willing to either deed or grant to me an easement for the land around the tree in exchange for a strip of land along my property boundary..........even though in my letter I make it quite clear that last summer this offer was made to me and I quote, "Of course I declined;he has created the problem and I'm not going to help solve it by giving up a strip of land that is of great importance to me as a buffer." I would like to add that I would lose also the land that will accommodate one of the fences that was granted by the Planning Board in their Decision of March 8,1996. A usual condition for protecting our watershed is prohibition of work within 100 ft.of an existing wetland resource. At Lot 30B, 25 ft. of the 100 ft. is allowed to be used as a lawn (by legal discretionary power of the ConCom) because the developer said, "you can't build a house without a lawn." Now I am being asked to release abutting land of mine to assist the developer solve another problem. He is trying to fit something that is too big into a lot that is reduced by watershed restrictions. No matter what the local boards do I don't intend to make concessions to ease the way of the developer. I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem that over-development has created in North Andover. And finally,the last paragraph of the letter from Ms. Colwell suggests that the recent heavy rain fall may have contributed to wet basements and of course I agree. But the new development could be also a contributing factor in a change in the water table. The unusually heavy rains have come and gone but one neighbor still has two pumps running in the basement and has a fan going 24 hours a day;somethng that was not necessary before. I reserve judgement on cause and effect until more time has elapsed. May I suggest that if the abutter were privy to the meetings of developers and boards and commissions as they discuss the abutter's property that these misinterpretations would be minimized if not eliminated altogether and letters such as this would not be necessary. Now that I have clarified the puzzling misinterpretation of my letter, I respectfully resubmit it for your consideration. I will try to state my question more succinctly as follows: Is it legal and in conformity with North Andover's regulations to bring in fill and elevate land in Lot 30B, at the site of the foundation of the house on Lot 30B, changing the topography in the watershed and thereby causing water to collect on my property and abutting property? Thank you for taking the time to read the enclosed correspondence. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, 4 Mary Armitage (Mrs. H.G.,Jr.) enc. copy of letter of Mary Armitage 1/19/97 copy of reply from Town Planner 2/6/97 cc to: Conservation Commission Building Inspector Watershed SubCommittee Watershed Council Planning Department Town Hall Annex 146 Main Street North Andover,MA 01845 .............. ..... fi W cs To: Ben Osgood Jr. Fax: From: Kathleen Bradley Colwell,Town PlannerDate: March 17, 1997 Re: Lot 30 B Sandra Lane Pages: 2 CC: Henry Bendekian 1 orym- \D�J Vyla'` ❑Urgent ❑For Review ❑Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ........ ............ .. ...... ...... ..........% -.... ....... ............ ....... A�ched please find a copy of a letter I received from Hancock Engineering discussing ............ .............. ...... .................. ... ............... .. .. ... ................. ..... ............. ...... ..... ....... 4ssues on Lots 30 B Sandra Lane, Please review their comments. I request that you ............... ...... ..................... .................... . .......... ........*...... ................... ........... ............ . ... ....... dd*"".""'M"""'."th""''t..comments by Monday,March 3 1. 1 would like to set up a site walk during the first ..................... .................... ..................... ................ ......... ..... April to review these issues in the field. Mrs. Armitage and her engineer will also ............. ........... -ftfid. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 688-9535. .................. ...... . ....... ........................ .... ... .......... ........................ .................: ................................ ............ .......................... ...................... .................. ...... .. ... ......... .......... ... .............. .... .................... ...I............ .. ...................................................... ................. .. ....... .......................................................... ...... .. ...... ... ........ .......... ..... ................................... .......................... . . ... .............. .. . . ....... . ... .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .... ....... ............................ ......................... . ......... . .................... .........................................................-.... ................................ ............ ...................................................... HANCOCK Engineering Associates ❑235 Newbury Street Route 1 North Danvers,MA 01923 March 12, 1997 (508)777-3050 (508)352-7590 (508)283-2200 (617)662-9659 FAX(508)774-7816 Mrs. Mary Armitage ❑12 Farnsworth Street 12 Sutton Hell Road Boston,MA 02210 North Andover, Ma. 01845 (617)350-7906 Dear Mrs. Armitage: It was a pleasure meeting with you on March 7, 1997 to discuss issues relative to the development adjacent to your property. I received from you, and have reviewed, the following: Site Plan for Lots 28B, 30B, 31A and 32A on Sandra Lane, prepared by New England Engineering Services, Inc. dated December 15, 1995; your letters to the North Andover Planning Board dated January 19 and February 8, 1997; and a letter from the Town Planner to you dated February 6, 1997. Based on our site walk, and my review of the above-mentioned material, it appears that the construction and associated grading on Lot 30B has interrupted the flow of runoff from your property, and, in fact, created a low spot which sheds water onto your property. The Site Plan for the project showed some rudimentary grading between your southerly property line and the proposed dwelling on Lot 30B, however it was inadequate to show how the existing flow of runoff from your property would be maintained. In addition to interrupting the flow of runoff from your property, it appears that most of the driveway for Lot 30B (approximately 400 feet) sheds runoff to this low spot created between your property and the proposed dwelling. This appears to be in violation of the grading scheme for the driveway and would exacerbate the problem in this area. Based on our conversation, I would recommend the following information be requested from the Planning Board/developer in order to adequately protect your interests. First and foremost, a detailed grading/drainage plan should be prepared for the area between your southerly property line and the proposed dwelling on Lot 30B which accurately shows how the flow of runoff from your property will be maintained, without alteration of your property. Second, the Planning Board or its agents should take a closer look at the grading of the driveway for Lot 30B, which appears to be shedding runoff into the created low spot. It appears from the Site Plan that runoff was meant to flow across the front of the garage, and onto the landscaped area. Third, a site walk should be scheduled between all concerned parties once a detailed grading plan has been created for the area. We would be happy to assist you in the review of any plans which are provided to you by the Town/developer,-and attend any scheduled site walks. Division of Hancock Survey Associates,Inc. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, HANCOCK ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Jos ph J. Serwatka, P.ER. cc: Conservation Commission Building Inspector Watershed Council Planning Board Y-.yea l_ Henry Bendikian 187 Sanborn Lane Reading, MA 01867 March 18, 1997 Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner Planning Department North Andover Town Hail North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Lot 30B Sutton Hill Road, North Andover Dear Ms. Colwell: This letter is to respond to the March 12, 1997 letter from Joseph J. Serwatka of Hancock Engineering Associates addressed to Mary Armitage and concerning property known as 12 Sutton Hill Road, North Andover. It is our opinion that the activities on our property conform to good design and development practices and are consistent with the conditions of municipal approval. We would like to point out that a good deal of the drainage to which the Hancock letter refers is a direct consequence of the large impervious area (tennis court) on the Armitage property. We would contemplate the following refinements: 1. Installation of a slight berm along the easterly side of the Glen Road driveway to encourage the flow of water away from the Armitage property. 2. We would engage in positive grading activities between the new dwelling on lot 30B and the Armitage property such that the surface water flowing from the Armitage property onto our property would not pocket but would continue to flow southeasterly along the new dwelling. Of course we will install a fence consistent with the conditions of approval. That will be done as soon as the final grading is established. Sincerely yours, -. Henry 8endikian obl34:pp:bend W C 71�0 Z)CA-Y �.-CA- Mrs. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 March 22, 1997 Kathleen Colwell Bradley,Town Planner Office of Community Development 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Kathleen, Last week we had a phone conversation about a letter of March 12, 1997 from Hancock Engineering Associates to me; copies to Conservation Commission, Building Inspector, Watershed Council and Planning Board. As suggested in the letter I requested that the Planning Board ask the developer for a detailed grading/drainage plan for the area between my southerly property line and the proposed dwelling on Lot 30B which would accurately show how the flow of run off from my property will be maintained without alteration of my property. Also that the Planning Board should take a closer look at the grading of the driveway for Lot 30B,which appears to be shedding runoff into the created low spot (as described in the letter). And that there should be a site walk scheduled between all concerned parties once a detailed grading plan has been created for the area. You suggested that my requests,except for a site walk, cannot be granted. I also understand, according to your letter of 2/6/97, that we must wait for the following,to be fulfilled,"The grading on the site is not final and the applicant understands that he will need to grade the site correctly as shown on IbLVIan to ensure that there is not a permanent build up of water in this area.)IJ, This presumes that the grading as shown on the plan is adequate. I am not as confident in this as you are,particularly when the Hancock Engineering Associates letter states that, "The Site Plan for the project showed some rudimentary grading between your southerly property line and the proposed dwelling on Lot 30B,however it was inadequate to show how the existing flow of runoff from your property would be maintained." I think it is possible that "an as-built plan demonstrating compliance with the plan, submitted to the Planning Board,"might not be adequate. Therefore, I repeat my request in paragraph #2 above. It was agreed that we would set a date for a site walk at a later date perhaps early in April. Very truly yours, Mary Armitage (Mrs. Henry G.,Jr.) cc to: Hancock Engineering Associates Building Inspector Watershed Council Conservation Commission APR April 22 1996 fill 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 honed 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, 4d4x/w� Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover,MA 01845 cc:Mr.George Perna,DPW Town of North Andover AORTh ° . .o OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p 146 Main Street Z o North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �9SSncHUS����v V n.LLW J.SCOTT Director April 23, 1997 Mr. Ben Osgood Jr. New England Engineering Services, Inc. 33 Walker Road, Suite 22 North Andover, N A 01845 Re: Lot 30B Sandra Lane (50 Sutton Hill Road) -Wat2rshed Special Permit Dear Mr. Osgood, Thank you for meeting with Mrs. Armitage and me this morning on site to discuss the drainage issues on Lot 30B. As discussed, the fill placed on the lot has created a low spot at the edge of Mrs. Armitage's property which is now collecting water. The water must be directed out of this low spot and around the house via a grass swale on the lot. The swale must be placed so as not to interfere with the wooden stockade fence which will be erected along the property boundary. I have tentatively scheduled a follow up site visit on Monday June 16`h at 10:00 am. At that time the swale should be complete and the fence erected. If you cannot meet at this time please call to reschedule. I am also expecting a detailed schedule from you of how, where and when the swale will be constructed. I30ARD OF APPFAT S 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PI TANNING 688-9535 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 688-9535. Very truly yours, C Kathleen Bradley Colwell U Town Planner cc. M. Howard, Conservation Administrator M. Armitage J. Serwatka, Hancock Engineering H. Bendekian V' HANCOCK Engineering Associates ❑235 Newbury Street Route 1 North Danvers,MA 01923 (508)777-3050 (508)352-7590 April 28, 1997 (508)283-2200 (617)662-9659 FAX(508)774-7816 .... . . . .. . .. . . ... . ❑12 Farnsworth Street Mary Armitage Boston,lvlA 02210 12 Sutton Hill Drive (617)350-7906 North Andover, Ma. 01845 Dear Ms. Armitage: Based on our site meeting with the developer and town personnel on April 23, 1997 it appears that the following will take place by June 15, 1997. The developer has agreed to conduct final grading, seeding and install a fence along the property line. A swale will be graded on the developer's property to direct runoff to the wetlands. It was agreed that all grading would take place on the developer's property. Additionally, the slight grading which has taken place on your property will be repaired and seeded. A berm would also be installed along the edge of the driveway to direct runoff away from the front of the new house. By the June 15, 1997 meeting the above work is supposed to be complete. Our meeting on that day is intended to verify the adequacy of the proposed modifications and grading. I will look forward to seeing you then. Sincerely, HANCOCK ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES J seph J. Serwatka, P.E. Division of Hancock Survcy Associates,Inc. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 Tel. 685-2255 June 24, 1997 Re: Lot 30B Sandra Lane, Glen Road/ Sutton Hill Road Development William J. Scott Community Development and Services 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Scott, This letter is to confirm my phone call to your office of June 19, 1997 to tell you that there was observable standing water in one portion of the area between Lot 30B and my property the morning after a heavy rain on the night of the 18th. Everything else seemed to drain quite well. It appeared to me that in that one area either the swale that has been installed by the developer is not doing its job or the grading needs some modification. By the next day, June 20th, the standing water had disappeared. Nevertheless, the fence that is to be installed will be directly in line with the area of slower drainage and it is of some importance to be sure that the fence does not have "wet feet." I was told that you would get back to me and I have not heard from you. Also, in a letter of April 23,1997 from Town Planner, Kathleen Colwell, it says that a site visit is tentatively scheduled for Monday June 16th at 10:00 am at which time the swale should be completed and the fence erected. Interestingly there is no mention of the berm that it was agreed is supposed to be installed along the edge of the driveway to direct runoff away from the front of the new house (lot 30B) where the problem drainage is. Mr. Bendikian explained the extent of the berm during the site meeting on April 23,1997. Obviously I had no confirmation of the tentative site visit, nor of a new date being set. In that the fence and the berm have yet to be installed I will wait for notification by you regarding a site visit when these things have been accomplished. Please confirm receipt of this letter, and kindly address my concerns. Sincerely, Mary Armitage cc M. Howard, Conservation Administrator J. Serwatka, Hancock Engineering Building Commissioner Watershed Council RECENED 1.A 199 Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 July 6,1997 Re: Lot 30B Sandra Lane/Glen Road/ Sutton Hill Road Development William J. Scott Community Development and Services 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Scott, This letter is to confirm my call to your office on July 3, 1997 to tell you that again, as on June 19th,there was observable standing water in a portion of the area between lot 30B and my property after a night of showers and thunder storms. Also of concern is a pattern in the dirt of rivulets running off the driveway of Lot 30B and onto my property. I was told that a berm to prevent this would be placed along the driveway and extend the length of my rear lot line. The berm that has been installed extends only thirty feet along my 200 ft. rear lot line. I think you understand that I am in an awkward situation. If I keep bringing these matters to your attention I run the risk of being labeled a crank. If I don't, I'm sure someone at a later date will say, "How can we know unless you tell us, Mrs. Armitage"? Also, it is my opinion that these concerns have to be addressed before a fence is intalled,not after. I respectfully ask you to consider my observations. Sincerely, "`�//M7 Mary Armitage (Mrs. H.G.,JR.) cc to: M. Howard, Conservation Administrator J. 5erwatka, Hancock Engineering R. Nicetta, Building Commissioner 'own of Forth Andover 'NORTH p�ttao .6A1.0 OFFICE OF 3� y° a O� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A 30 School Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 1,9SSgcFr+us���y WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director July 7, 1997 Mrs. Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 RE: LOT 30B Sutton Hill Road/Sandra Lane Development. Dear Mrs. Armitage: Per your request, personnel from the North Andover Conservation and Planning Departments inspected the above referenced parcel on Monday,July 7, 1997. Present were myself, Mr. William Scott and Mr. Henry Bendikian (the current property owner). In addition, I am also in receipt of a phone log indicating that you called this office on July 3rd, 1997 complaining that"after substantial rains on July 2nd and 3rd a sizeable volume of water had collected in the swale." The swale appears top be constructed in accordance with the Watershed Special Permit and evidence of acceptable flow patterns (e.g. drift lines and scouring) was observed. However, it was also noted that a "low spot" exists tangent to the new driveway; this particular area warrants additional contouring. It is my understanding that the North Andover Planning Board will require"as-built" plans to verify that the entire site (including the swale) was developed in accordance with the issued permit. It is the opinion of Mr. Scott and myself that the standing water which you speak of may be attributed to the unstable nature of the swale, exposed topsoil and existing contours. It was evident that the swale had recently been"hydroseeded" but at the time of inspection vegetation had yet to take hold. Absent any vegetation, the water will simply run with the landscape rather than percolate into the root layer. Furthermore, the area of standing water will need to be re-contoured by hand. It was suggested to Mr. Bendikian that he place sod throughout the limit of the swale which would, in essence, provide instant stabilization and mitigate scouring. It is our belief that a layer of vegetation in the swale will solve the problem. CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 I trust that this correspondence satisfactorily responds to your concerns, however, if I or Mr. Scott can be of further assistance please do not hesitant to contact us. We will continue to inspect the project and verify that work is being carried out in accordance with the issued permits. Sincerely, Michael D. Howard Conservation Administrator Encl. Cc: NAPB NACC Mr.William Scott,Director CD&S file A NEW ENGLAND ENGINEERING V ( INC June 27, 1997 W113m Scott,North Andover Community Development Director Town Hall Annex School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re:Lot 30B Sutton HM Rd. (50 Sutton Hill Rd.) , Dear Mr. Score Th�s letter's being written as an update to the progress of work at the above referenced single family home construction project. At a meeting with the abutter, Mrs. Armitage,in April, it was agreed between Mrs_ Armitage and Henry Bendekian that the stockade fence that was to be constructed between the new home and the Armitage Property would be constructed by June 16. Mr. Bendekian contacted Al McGregor fence and Al McGreggor has looked at the job with Mrs.Armitage. It was agreed by Mr. McGreggor and Mrs.Armitage that it was too wet to install the fence,and.do some other work for Mrs. _ Armitage, so the installation date was postponed by mutual agreement The other work that was agreed to be done has been progressing. The swale along the two Proper was graded a flew weckz ago and loamed.The swale was inspected iminedWeiy after a rain storm last week by this office, and it is worldng as planned with no standing water present on the property of Mrs.Armitage. There is a small pocket of water on Lot 30B that will be rmnoved by band contouring during the final landscaping of the lot. The swale has not been seeded as of ties date,however the landscaping operations have been started. It is the opinion of this office that Mr.Bendikian has fulfilled his agreement to have the swale installed by June 16. Mr. Bendilaan has also tried to cooperate in regards to the fence instaIlation and the other work that Mrs. Armitage is having done. If there are any problems with what has been donee or the time frame of the work completion,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours truly, Benj C_Osgood, IT 33 WALKER RD. — SUITE 22 — NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 — (508) 686-1768 DAT TIME 5S PM 1J AREA CODE FROM I , n U- NO. \\ �� . OF EXT. Z'tl-i er, E t'Z� 7C '�/ G{/ �� J SIGNE 17 CALL BACK CALL RETURN D `NANTSTO WILLCALL WAS IN ❑ URGENT❑ PHONED SEEYOU AGAIN �"`(•�r- � Development William J. Scott Community Development and Services 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Hear Mr. Scott, This letter is to confirm my phone call to your office of June 19, 1997 to tell you that there was observable standing water in one portion of the area between Lot 30B and my property the morning after a heavy rain on the night of the 18th. Everything else seemed to drain quite well. It appeared to me that in that one area either the swale that has been installed by the developer is not doing its job or the grading needs some modification. By the next day, June 20th, the standing water had disappeared. Nevertheless, the fence that is to be installed will be directly in line with the area of slower drainage and it is of some importance to be sure that_ the fence does not have "wet feet." I was told that you would get back to me and I have not heard from you. Also, in a letter of April 23, 1997 from Town Planner, Kathleen Colwell, it says that a site visit is tentatively scheduled for Monday June 16th at 10:00 am at which time the swale should be completed and the fence erected. Interestingly there is no mention of the berm that it was agreed is supposed to be installed along the edge of the driveway to direct runoff away from the front of the new house (lot 30B) where the problem drainage is. Mr. Bendikian explained the extent of the berm during the site meeting on April 23,1997. R E C[ � ` Jul. ) 1991 Mary Armitage .. - 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 July 9,1997 Re: Lot 30B Glen. Road/Sandra Lane/Sutton Hill Rd. Develop- ment Mr. Michael Howard Conservation Administrator 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Howard, Thank you to you and Mr. Scott and Mr. Bendikian for your prompt attention to my concerns. I agree that a "low spot exists tangent to the driveway" and that water pools there rather than flowing toward the ponds. As you suggest re-contouring and sodding most likely will help to solve the problem. I say "help"because you haven't addressed the problem of the length of the berm. It is quite clear that water flowing off the driveway toward the observable low spot also is a contributing factor. I would like to see the berm extend along my rear lot line (as I understood was going to be the case) to control the flow of water so that it follows the driveway and doesn't spill over the edge toward my property. If I recall there has been a catch basin installed near the end of the driveway for this purpose. I will appreciate your addressing this matter. We seem to be making progress and I appreciate your consideration. Sincerply, Axe,e. Mary Armitage Mrs. H.G.,Jr.) cc)Wm. Scott Community Development Director R. Nicetta,Building Commissioner J. Serwatka,Hancock Engineering Mary Armitage 1997 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 July 9, 1997 Re: Ltr. of 27 June 1997 to Wm. Scott from Benjamin Osgood cc to M. Armitage from M. Howard Mr. Michael Howard Conservation Administrator 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Howard, Thank you for enclosing a copy of Mr. Benjamin Osgood's letter to Mr. Wm. Scott regarding Lot 30B. Its content is astonishing. I am incredulous! First,in the interest of brevity I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by Mr. Joseph J. Serwatka, P.E. to me on April 28, 1997 that summarizes what was to be expected as a result of a site meeting on April 23, 1997. It is accurate. To back track a bit,in the fall of 1995 1 was told by the developers that the next spring (1996) Al McGregor would be at my door for instructions regarding fencing. At that time I told them that I would work only with the Planning Board regarding any concerns that I had. You know that that is exactly what I did. After the Planning Board included the fences in their conditions for reasons of safety and security I was given one date after another by the developer as the deadline for the erection of the fences. When the frost came in 1996 that became the reason for putting it off again until spring of 1997. Eventually, after the site meeting of April 23,1997 the date set for the erection of the fences was June 16,1997. The 16th came and went. I talked to my sons. We decided that anyone could be delayed a week or so; and we waited. On July 9th we are still waiting. In the meantime Mr. Bendikian had asked me to meet with him and Mr. Al McGregor. He asked me to tell Mr. McGregor what the length of the fence should be at Lot 30B. I did. There was some conversation about the ground not being quite dry enough to start so there would be a delay. I said. "o.k." and then laughed and said to Henry Bendikian, "You know I'm lying,Henry, I want those fences to go in as soon as possible." That was the end of the conversation regarding the fence at Lot 30B. Then Al McGregor engaged me in a conversation about a private unrelated business agreement that he and I have had since our first discussion on May 5, 1997. He has agreed to shore up a chain link fence on one side of a play area that my husband and I had built for our children 30 odd years ago. Sweeney Fences built the enclosure and the McGregors worked for Sweeney at the time therefore it seemed logical to hire someone who was familiar with the structure. I did. No one's business but my own. While Mr. McGregor and I were waiting for the ground to dry so he could work, the leaves on the bittersweet that grows on the chain link fence came out. He knows that they are an invaluable screen and rather than risk damaging the vines he suggested that we wait until the fall when the leaves are thinner. It would make his work easier. I agreed. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO ERECT FENCES BY TUNE 16TH AND MY PRIVATE TRANSACTION WITH MR. MCGREGOR ABOUT A STRUCTURE IN MY YARD. I find it to be an unbelievable intrusion upon my private transactions with Mr. McGregor to have Mr. Osgood presume that there is some connection between my separate and distinct business affairs and his. The following further demonstrates my desire that the developer's fences go in as soon as possible. Within this time frame Henry Bendikian told me that Al McGregor would be installing a fence at another house in the development early in the week and that he most likely would be installing the fence around my property by the next Thursday. I phoned Mr. McGregor to pinpoint the day so I could stay home from work and be sure the gate went where I wanted it. Mr. McGregor said that the fence would not be going in that soon because he had only that day faxed his proposal to Henry Bendikian. But he suggested that I put stakes where I wanted the gate and he would look for them if I were at work when he came. I put the stakes in. I have written enough. I want to make it abundantly clear that I took no part in a mutual agreement to a lengthy postponment of the installation of the developer's fences. I sincerely hope they will be installed as soon as possible. The delays have prohibited for more than a year planting I had hoped to do. But more important, as you know there are no town regulations allowing a buffer between driveways and abutting property. Workmen are driving up and down the driveway at speeds that should be prohibited and that I consider a danger to my grandchildren when they are in my yard. The original intent of the fences that the planning board so kindly granted was exactly for those reasons,safety and security. It certainly is time to install them. The sooner, the better. Sincerely, Mary Armitage cc. JW. Scott, CDD R. Nicetta, Building Commissioner J. Serwatka, Hancock Engineering R E CC EF\\!'TC J U L 17 1997 Mary Armitage ------ . 12 Sutton Hill Road . North Andover, MA 01845 July 15,1997 Office of Community Development and Services Mr. William J. Scott, Director 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Scott, Recent events have made me realize that it is best that I get answers to questions regarding development only from you. Therefore I request from you an answer to the following question and the opinion of town counsel if you think that is necessary. After attending Planning Board public hearings I was granted by the board according to Para. #4,item c. "A wooden stockade fence must be placed along the northern and western (Glen Road) boundary with property owned n/f by Armitage." (see Notice of Decision March 11,1996). Because the request was mine I expected that the fencing to be placed on the boundary would be mine,and I would be responsible for its maintenance, repair and upkeep. I am quite agreeable to assume that responsibility. Mr. Bendikian,the developer has explained to me that the fencing will be erected on his property one foot, plus or minus, from my boundary and will be owned and maintained by the future owners of lot 30B. I He said that a Planning Board cannot order a developer to put something on property other than the developer's property. This means that as soon as the property is sold and does not belong to the developer, the fencing that was ordered by the Planning Board at my request will be controlled and maintained by a third party. If this turns out to be the case, I request that I be privy to whatever intelligence is imparted to the owners of Lot 30B in regard to their responsibilities regarding the maintenance of the fencing. Atty. Mahoney has told me that the length of time for the application of such orders is usually for as long as anyone remembers them. It is apt to be a long time. My property is known as the Armitage Realty Trust to be passed on to my 12 children and their children. A prompt reply, explaining to me your definitive opinion in this matter is requested and if it differs from Mr. Bendikian's he also should be apprised before the fencing is erected. Sincerely, y- r v u Mary Armitage (Mrs. H.G.,JL) cc: M. Howard, Conservation Administrator B. Nicetta, Building Commissioner J. Serwatka,Hancock Engineeering Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill R64d ' North Andover, M" O"Im, , August 19, 1997 Office of Community Development and Services Kathleen Colwell, Town Planner " 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01345 Dear Kathleen, On July 9,1997 I sent a letter to Mr. Michael Howard that clarified what appeared to have been a gross misunderstanding by Mr. Ben Osgood regarding a delay in erecting by June 16,1997 the fences that were ordered by the planning Board to be on the "northern and western (Glen Road) boundary of property owned n/f by Armitage" (see Osgood letter of June 27, 1997). Mr. Al McGregor confirmed by phone on July 16, 1997 that there is absolutely no connection between work he has agreed to do for me in my yard and any work he does for the developer. Therefore I presume that the June 16th date is still valid and my question is, "Why, more than two months later, haven't the fences been erected?' On July 15, 1997 I wrote to Mr. Scott regarding the placement of the fences. I asked whether they will be on my boundary as directed by the Planning Board, or one foot over my boundary as is suggested by Mr. Bendikian. I have not yet received an answer. In that by definition (N.A. Zoning Bylaws 2.45) "'Lot Lines are the property lines bounding the lot,"I believe I am correct in thinking that "boundary" as used by the Planning Board means lot line. I have indicated that I am agreeable to being responsible for the maintenance of the fences. Though I requested a "prompt reply" I have heard nothing to date. I would like also to bring to your attention that for a length of about 30 feet along the "Glen Road" boundary there is as much as a two foot difference between the driveway bed and the natural topography of my property at exactly the boundary where the fence will be erected. I expect the fence to be erected on the natural lay of my land and not in the two foot depression artificially created by the driveway bed even if it means some additional grading by the developer. I was raised in a home at the corner of Sunset Avenue and Mayflower Street in Lawrence. Mayflower Street was roughly as long as the driveway to Lot 30B. If automobiles frequently went along Mayflower Street backwards my parents would have reported it to the police. Automobiles and small trucks frequently go backwards along the full length of the driveway to Lot 30B. Because it is Glen Road disguised as a private driveway and the amenities of a bone fide road have been lost there is nothing I can do about it but hope that the neighbor children or my grandchildren are not crossing at the wrong time. The fence along that boundary will provide a degree of safety to a situation that is an accident waiting to happen. Therefore I look forward to a prompt execution of the directives in the Planning Board Notice of Decision of March 26, 1996. I also request that if permits and directives related to this project have an expiration date that they will not be allowed to expire until the fences have been erected. Copies of the letters referenced above are on file at the town offices. If you should need copies please have your office phone me. Sincerely. r � Mary Armitage (Mrs. H.G.,Jr.) J cc: M. Howard, Conservation Administrator B. Nicetta, Building Commissioner J. Serwatka, Hancock Engineering Police Chief Interested parties � 71EE, Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 August 22, 1997 Re: Sandra Lane/Glen Road/ Sutton Hill Road Development: Fencing at Lot 30B/Armitage boundaries Mr. William Scott Office of Community Development 20 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Scott, I was advised by the Planning Board that when the developers started to erect the fences that they,the Planning Board,had ordered that I was to call the Board so it could be determined that the fences are consistent with their instructions. This letter is to confirm my phone call to your office on Friday 8/22/97 to say 1 that the five and a half foot scalloped fencing with six foot posts that has been piled in various places near my property by the developers of Lot 30B is totally unacceptable for the following reasons: Early in 1996 I appeared several times before the planning board at public hearings related to the Sandra Lane/Glen Road/Sutton Hill Road development. I spoke "to protect my late husband's investment in a safe and secure home for his family in all its stages; from being young to being old. " I asked the Planning Board to include in their conditions that the developer be asked to erect a stockade fence to assure the safety and security of my property. We had always expected the amenities of Glen Road e.g., police patrol, berms, sidewalks,street lights,access, etc. and my husband had written to that end for many years. When it was negotiated away into two private driveways those amenities were lost to us. Particularly at night anybody can use the "private driveways"as easy access to the 200' rear lot line of my property. The planning board understood my concern and in their Decision of March 8, 1996 they said, "A wooden stockade fence must be placed along the northern and western (Glen Road) boundary with property owned by Armitage." All parties concerned have understood that the fencing is to be 6 foot stockade fencing of sturdy quality. For example, when I told Mr. Henry Bendikian that I had been told that I could have my choice of a 6' or an 8' fence he said I could not, I could have only a 6' fence. I phoned the Planning Board. The secretary consulted with Kathleen Colwell and told me that Mr. Bendikian was correct, that state regulations allow 8' for commercial use only. As a result it was clearly understood that the fencing would be 6' and I conveyed the result of my inquiry to Mr. Bendikian. When Al McGregor (hired by the developer to do the fencing) was in my yard he asked me to show him what I had in mind. I showed him Mr.Joseph Caimi's 6 foot stockade fence that separates our yards. I mentioned that it provides security and safety and that when the fence bordering my property is erected there will be continuity in the style of fencing. He replied, "Makes sense." Apart from the serious considerations of safety and security the visual impact of having two fences of different styles bordering one yard is less than palatable. The scalloped, five and a half foot fencing with six foot poles is decorative but it is not a six foot stockade fence and is completely unacceptable and inadequate for the safety and security that the Planning Board and I have had in mind. Have the developers been made aware of the serious purpose of the fencing? In further reference to safety and security I would like to bring to your attention that breaking and entering is increasing in the section of North Andover where I live. During the last 6 months there has been a break-in at 285 Sutton Hill Road. A motor cycle was stolen. The day before that incident was reported in the local newspaper two motorcyclists rode up and down the driveway of Lot 30B. In other words, along my rear lot line. There also has been a recent break-in at 74 Heath Road. I respectfully request that you uphold the intent of the Planning Board and notify the developer that only a 6' sturdy stockade fence is expected. The kind pointed out to Mr. McGregor on my Northern boundary. Your secretary has told me that you will phone me on Monday,August 25, 1997. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ,(Ll�zlvp cc: R. Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mary Armitage Police Chief (Mrs. H.G.,Jr.) Interested Parties August 26, 1997 10:49 a.m. Mary Armitage called re the fence. She is at work today, tomorrow and Thursday. It is okay to call her at work 686-9230. As of Saturday she is leaving for Maine for three weeks. She has two issues and hopes someone can get back to her by Friday. 1. The height of the fence. Is the Planning Board insisting on a 6' stockage fence? If not, they (McGregor Fence Co.???) can raise the fence 3 or 4" to get as near as possible to the 6'. 2. Placement of the fence. If it is on the boundary line there is no problem. If it is 1' over, then there will be a problem with 1 %' drop and grading will be required. 177/{�+���� -yp`pyp.*.v{ym}yyn\u�/f� ri . August 28, 1997 Mr. Scott, - - It is an irony that after waiting for a long time, the resolution of the matter of the fencing to be erected by Mr. Bendikian comes when I will be away from my home for the first time in seven years. Recent observations that I have made boil down to two points; (1) the height of the fencing and, (2) the placement of the fencing (see pg. #2). May I respectfully ask that resolution of these points be delayed until I come home from vacation on Sept. 20, 1997. I will appreciate your consideration. Please confirm. Mail sent to my home will be forwarded to me, or can be sent directly toe Mary Armitage, General Delivery Bailey Island,ME 04003 Tel. 1-207-833-5242 Mary Armitage 2. 1. The height of the fence. (ref. letter of August 22, 1997, in your files) a. Is the planning board going to insist on a 6' sturdy stockade fence of good quality and not accept the fencing that has been delivered? b. If they settle for the fence that has been delivered can Al McGregor be instructed to raise it as many inches as he can to get it as near six feet in height as is possible without compromising the integrity of the posts? 2. The Rlacement of the fence. (ref. letter of July 15,1977,in your files) a. If the fence is placed on the "Northern and Western (Glen Road) boundary" (def. 2.45 Zoning Bylaws) as requested in the planning Board Decision there is no problem. I am willing to assume repair and maintenance presuming that the fence is legally mine. b. If the fence is placed 1'more or less outside the boundary,as Mr. Bendikian suggests, then there are problems. 1. There will be a 1 and a half foot difference between the natural lay of my property and the artificially created driveway bed. There will have to be grading to keep the fence at a height of 6'. 2. The owners will be whomever owns lot 30B. The repair and maintenance will be their responsibility. I do not think that that is the intent of the Planning Board, nor is it mine. If this is the case,I will have to be privy to instructions written into their deed in order to fulfill the purpose of the fence. For example, the owner of the fence cannot decide arbitrarily to take it down. 3. Ownership has to be resolved and has to be crystal clear for insurance purposes, one way or the other. i to Town of North over � N4RrN q o ro OFFICE OF �� y°� °.° oaG CO I'T DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 30 School Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �9ssnca 00"� WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director c September 17, 1997 p p° Mrs. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Dear Mrs. Armitage: In response to your letters of August 22 and 28, 1997 1 offer the following response: 1. The key word in the decision is "along". The word means: "In line with; following the length or path of. Therefore, the decision states that the fence shall be "in line with" the property line and not on the property line. 2. The fence shall not be located on your property. The obligation to erect and maintain the fence is the developers and subsequent property owner. The fence is not an exaction from the developer to you, it is a means to provide screening between properties. 3. if the developer has not met their obligations to erect the fence, then i will notify them of their non-performance. 4. If the developer is not erecting a 6 -foot fence, then I will notify him of his obligation. 5. The height of the fence is a function of the distance from the ground to the top of the fence. The height is not a function of the elevation of your property and the top of the fence. If you wish that the fence be located on your property, to take advantage of the topography, then you should negotiate that change with the developer. Our office will accommodate any changes that you are able to negotiate. As it stands, the fence shall reside on the applicant's property and, therefore; the ownership is currently clear. CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PI..ANNEIM 688-9535 Mrs. Mary Armitage September 17, 1997 Page 2 The Planning Board decision is clear, the fence is not meant to be erected on your property. If you wish to change the terms of the decision to read: "the fence shall be erected on the property of Armitage along the property line" then you need to discuss the matter with the developer and reach a solution. Sincerely v' ZV�illiarn J. co Director =; N 11 E �� E D C 1497 Mr. William J. Scott, Director (19 Community Development and Services ;' { North Andover, MA 01845 f, Sept. 23, 1997 ' a Dear Mr. Scott, Thank you for your thoughtful and informative letter of 8/17/97. `It is very much appreciated and it clarifies issues that have been of concern to me. While I was vacationing the fencing was erected. For the most part it is satisfactory. I think that a sincere effort was made to fulfill my expectations. If I had been at home I would have made sure that the gate was put between the markers that I had put in place at the request of Mr. McGregor. For some reason or other that was not done and the gate is in an awkward place behind a shed on my property. Perhaps there is a logical explanation. If not,I would like it to be changed. One more section offence is.needed on the northern boundary of Lot 30B to fulfill what was discussed, and I thought agreed upon, between Mr. Bendikian and myself. Also, because the fence was placed "along" and not "on" the western boundary there is a gap between it and an adjoining fence and that defeats the purpose of safety and security. Again, there may be a legal or logical explanation but if not,can consideration be given to closing the gap. When you view the fencing for final approval perhaps I can be present. Although you say that your office will accommodate any change in location of the fence "on the property of Armitage along the property line"that I can negotitate with the developer your letter arrived after the fact. I had hoped that you,not I,would be influential. Therefore in that regard I will respect and honor the original decision of the Planning Board as you have explained it. The only thing left is for me to be privy to the instructions given to the subsequent owners of Lot 30B particularly in regard to their not being able to arbitrarily take down the fence. Will an explanation of the Planning Board decision be included in their deed and may I have a copy? Please advise. The Planning Board has been most attentive to and considerate of my concerns since the first public hearing in 1996 to the present time and I wish to express my appreciation to the Board. And particularly to you,Mr. Scott, for the candor, fairness and professionalism of your most recent letter. Kindest regards, Sincerely, Mrs. Mary Armitage cc Interested parties i i 1 _ , i _ c kJA a, a Town of North Andover � NORTH , OFFICE OF 3�0`ir��o ,•�6ti�OL COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 0 p 30 School Street North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �, °�• °-�'�cy WILLIAM J. SCOTT SSAcm Director December 5, 1997 Ms. Deena Zimmerman 28 Edmands Road North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 50 Sutton Hill Road - Watershed Special Permit Dear Ms. Zimmerman, -- I am writing to clarify the extent of the no-cut, non-disturbance buffer zone approved by the Planning Board at 50 Sutton Hill Road. The North Andover Zoning Bylaw prohibits the disturbance of land within 100' of the edge of a watershed wetland without a special permit from the Vgnning Board. On this lot the Planning Board granted a special permit to allow disturbance. within 75' of the edge of the wetland. This line is marked on the site by a post and rail fence. Please see the attached map for clarification. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 688-9535. Very truly yours, Kathleen Bradley Colwell Town Planner cc. R. Rowen, Chairman,PB H. Bendekian B. Osgood, Jr. CONSERVATION-(978)688 9530 • HEALTH-(978)688-9540 • PLANNING-(978)688-9535 *BUILDINGOFFICE-(978)688-9545 • *ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-(978)688-9541 • *146 MAIN STREET t UA G)v Of ty Xr OTI J 1 -I# t t 1rr.a�_ * .._♦1 ��z - S. i I��r`a"1�Y�r - S .`. i rt ��{r� _ r F- V 7F� 4qi 7 �w \ - - ; x oti�5 5 a C-D CD December 4, 1997 0 W A Jim, ,-TLANNING BOX" Ms. Kathleen Bradley Colwell Town Planner 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 This letter is to inform you that I will be installing a 2 rail post and rail round cedar fence at 50 Sutton Hill Road for Mr. Henry Bendekian on Friday December 5, 1997. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to give me call at - ,S' erely Al McGre r (Mrs.) Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road a , f North Andover MA 01845 January 23, 1998 Re: Fencing o Board Decision of 3 asons of safety and security, "along the northern and western (Glen Road) boundary with property owned n/f by Armitage." Mr. William Scott, Director Community Development and Services North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Scott, In order for us to understand one another I would like to clarify an observation you make in Para.#2 of your letter to me of Sept. 17, 1997 that says in part, "The fence (that is to be erected along my property line ) is a means to provide screening between properties." That statement is not correct. My remarks before the planning board when I requested the rear fence were based solely on safety and security; not screening. Permission was granted for the fencing for those reasons. See 1996 testimony before the board when I said that I spoke "to protect my late husband's investment in a safe and secure home for his family in all its stages; from being young to being old." In a nut shell; Consistently through the years, since 1976, we are on record (see your files) as supporting the development of the land near our property with Glen Road as access. When private driveways were negotiated, my rear lot line was opened in a way that gave easy access to the rear of my property particularly in the dark of night- but without amenities such as police protection, street lights,control of traffic,sidewalks, berms, etc. �I Therefore when the gate in the fence was placed out of sight BEHIND my storage shed,without regard for the place that I had selected for it (see ltr. of 7/9/97, para #4,pg #2) the concept of security and safety was breached. I cannot even see it to determine whether it is open or shut. When my young grandchildren visit that is important to me. And it is important to me when I secure my property in the evening. I referred to this, among other concerns, in a letter to you on Sept. 23,1997 so that you could address this problem before giving final approval to the fencing. I also brought this to the attention of Mr. Henry Bendikian in a letter dated September 29,1997. Neither one of you has extended me the courtesy of a reply to my request. In that the annlicable 12ermit expires on March 11, 1998 I request a decision regarding my concerns,including; relocating the gate before that date. Which, by the way,should not be difficult because the section of the fence to which it is attached is quite wobbly and insecure and should be inspected before it is accepted. I am enclosing copies of the letters that I have referred to in this letter and trust that during the winter months your work load may have eased and you will be able to address my requests. Sincerely, (Mrs.)Mary Armitage enc. (3) Ltr., Mr. Wm. Scott, 9/23/97 Ltr., Mr. Henry Bendikian, 9/29/97 Excerpt, ltr. of 9/7/97 referred to above cc Kathleen Colwell R. Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr. Henry Bendikian Interested parties u µ 1 Mr. William J. Scott, Director Community Development and Services , North Andover, MA 01845 Sept. 23,1997 Dear Mr. Scott, Thank you for your thoughtful and informative letter of 8/17/97. It is very much appreciated and it clarifies issues that have been of concern to me. While I was vacationing the fencing was erected. For the most part it is satisfactory. I think that a sincere effort was made to fulfill my expectations. If I had been at home I would have made sure that the gate was put between the markers that I had put in place at the request of Mr. McGregor. For some reason or other that was not done and the gate is in an awkward place behind a shed on my property. Perhaps there is a logical explanation. If not, I would like it to be changed. One more section of fence is needed on the northern boundary of Lot 30B to fulfill what was discussed,and I thought agreed upon, between Mr. Bendikian and myself. Also,because the fence was placed "along" and not "on"the western boundary there is a gap between it and an adjoining fence and that defeats the purpose of safety and security. Again, there may be a legal or logical explanation but if not, can consideration be given to closing the gap. When you view the fencing for final approval perhaps I can be present. Although you say that your office will accommodate any change in location of the fence "on the property of Armitage along the property line"that I can negotitate with the developer your letter arrived after the fact. I had hoped that you, not I,would be influential. Therefore in that regard I will respect and honor the original decision of the Planning Board as you have explained it. The only thing left is for me to be privy to the instructions given to the subsequent owners of Lot 30B particularly in regard to their not being able to arbitrarily take down the fence. Will an explanation of the Planning Board decision be included in their deed and may I have a copy? Please advise. The Planning Board has been most attentive to and considerate of my concerns since the first public hearing in 1996 to the present time and I wish to express my appreciation to the Board. And particularly to you, Mr. Scott, for the candor, fairness and professionalism of your most recent letter. Kindest regards, Sp .-Ttember 29..1997 Mr. Henry Bendikian Country Estate Homes, Inc. PO Box 345 Reading,MA 01867 Dear Henry, I am very pleased that the long wait for the fence is over and that it is finally in place. For the most part it fulfills the reasons for my requesting it from the Planning Board; the reasons being safety and security. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I sent recently to Mr. William Scott, Director of Community Development and Services on Sept. 23, 1997. You may find my observations regarding the fence to be of interest to you. My most serious concern is the placement of the gate. The place I chose was clearly markedby stakes,as you had requested. It was selected to achieve both neighborliness and security. For some reason my selection was not honored and the gate was put behind my shed. When I do the evening check to secure my property for the night I cannot even see it from my windows to determine whether it is open or shut. This demands a daily walk to behind the shed to determine the status of the gate and at my age (75) 1 don't intend to make this, in all seasons,a part of my routine, This is a serious breech of the security and safety that I have been trying to achieve. A simple phone call would have easily resolved the matter. Though I was on vacation my son knew where to reach me and I had left my address with Mr. Scott in the event there were questions and in the event that he could not honor my request to delay the erection of the fence until I returned home. There are any number of alternate placements for the gate but I would never have considered one behind the shed. Thanks for your consideration. Kindest regards, (Mrs.) Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 Tel. 508-685-2255 T en Al McGregor engaged me in a conversation about a private, bus ess agreement that he and I have had since our first discussion on May 5, 199 . He has agreed to shore up a chain link fence on one side of a play ar that my sband and I had built for our children 30 odd years ago. Sween Fences bui he enclosure and the McGregors worked for Sweeney at time d one e- s side ears d ss e 0 0 f a 0 pn playM ayare re ago. S een� e time e or and d I S 0. w Sweeney at i wit therefore it se ed logical to hire someone who was familiar with e structure. I did. o one's business but my own. While Mr. M regor and I were waiting for the round to dry so he could work, the lea s on the t t t bittersweet that grows the chain link fence came out. knows that they mag, are an invaluable screen a d rather than risk dai in he vines he suggested that we wait until e fall when the leave are thinner. It would make his work easier. I agreed. //� THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CON TI BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIQN OF THE PLANNING 'ARD TO ERECT FENCES 13YIUNE 16TH AND MY PRIVATE TRANSACAO'NWITH MR. MCGREGOR ABOUT A STRUCTURE IN MY YARD. I find it to be an unbelievabl ntrusion upon my 'vats transactions with Mr. McGregor to have Mr. sgood presume that Cher is some connection th m a y t th v er upon e transactions tr s s some connection between my separate and istinct business affairs and his. The following furth demonstrates my desire that the develo is fences go j n jk d in as soon as pos * le. Within this time frame Henry Bendikian Id me that I Al McGregor uld be installing a fence at another house in the g developmen early in the week and that he most likely would be installing the fence ound my property by the next Thursday. I phoned Mr. McGregor to pinp int the day so I could stay home from work and be sure the gate went wher wanted it. Mr. McGregor said that the fence would not be going in tha soon because he had only that day faxed his proposal to Henry Bendikian. But he suggested that I put stakes where I wanted the gate and he would look for them if I were at work when he came. I put the stakes in. I have written enough. I want to make it abundantly clear that I took no part in a mu agreement to a lengthy postponment of the installation of the developer's fen tes.-Uincerely hope they will be installed as�Soon� �e. The delays have prohii,ite4-fQr more than a year plant* ad hoped 7to do. tau 1z But more important, as you kni34-there are t n regulations allowing a n regulations I rty, Workmen al 3'� buffer between driveways and abut erty. Workmen are driving up and down the driveway at-srpres6ds that shoul rohibited and that I consider a danger--t6-m'y grandchildren when they a in my yard. The ori&al4nt6 nit of the fences that the planning board so k ly granted was n exactly for those reasons,safety and security. It certainly is ti a to install them. The sooner, the better. I Imo. i i e Mrs. Mary Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 September 30, 1998 Mr. Michael Howard Conservation Commission 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Howard, In reference to our phone conversation of to-day I would like to bring the following to your attention: 1 .) After a very rainy spring this year the piece of land between my fenced in play area and the fence of the adjoining property was extremely wet. It was soggy, mushy, swamp-like and sodden for a long period of time. I sank in it up to my ankles. In the past this area could be mowed early in the season. This year it could not be mowed until the eighth mowing and more than once mowers of the lawn crew got stuck. As we know the run off of water from the crest of Sutton HIII Road used to travel a natural course to the ponds that are a tributary to the Hatch. Now that course is obstructed by land fill that was brought in to elevate the foundation of a new home that is located between my court and the ponds. There is also "bubbling" of hot top on our old court that causes me concern about changes in the water table in general. Our meetings and on-sight viewing of this problem led us to agree that installing a swale would take care the matter. I'm inclined now to think that it has not, 2.) 1 happened to walk the area to-day with one of my sons and we both were surprised to find an accumulation of water that caused us to be unable to walk in some places. Because it has been dry and there was only an average amount of rainfall over the week end I am puzzled. If it is possible for you to take a look at the area I have mentioned and advise me it would be appreciated. Sincerely, ? cc to: Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Community Development & Services William Scott, Director, Community Development & Services town of North Andover o* NORTH OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES o p 27 Charles Street 1 North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 �9SSncHUS���y WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director (978)688-9531 Fax(978)688-9542 October 13, 1998 Mrs. Armitage 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Complaint Q #50 Sutton Hill Road. Dear Mrs. Armitage: Per your written request this Department performed a site inspection at the above referenced parcel on this date. The purpose of this inspection was to view the previously constructed grass swale and determine if it was built in accordance with prior approvals of the Planning Department. After three days of heavy precipitation there was no evidence of standing water within the limits of the swale nor was there a stagnant, biological odor typical of areas subject to frequent inundation. I can therefore assume that the swale was constructed correctly and precipitation is infiltrating adequately into the ground. Please note that a swale is designed to trap water and slowly release it into the subsurface, as such, it would not be surprising to witness some degree of standing water particularly at the wettest times of the year. This past spring was perhaps the wettest season on record and abnormal groundwater elevations were exhibited throughout the region. I trust that this correspondence will suffice, however, should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael D. Howard Conservation Administrator BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 CC: Mr.William Scott,Director CD&S Mrs.Kathleen Colwell,Town Planner file M.r.S. Mary Armitane 12 Sutton Hill Road North Andover, MA 01845 September 30, 1995 Mr. Michael Howard Conservation Commission 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Mr. Howard, In reference to our phone conversation of to-day I would like to bring the following to your attention: 1 .) After a very rainy spring this year the piece of land between my fenced in play area and the fence of the adjoining property was extremely wet. It was soggy, mushy, swamp-like and sodden for a long period of time. I sank in it up to my ankles. In the past this area could be mowed early in the season. This year it could not be mowed until the eighth mowing and more than once mowers of the lawn crew got stuck. As we know the run off of water from the crest of Sutton Hill Road used to travel a natural course to the ponds that are a tributary to the Hatch. Now that course is obstructed by land fill that was brought in to elevate the foundation of a new home that is located between my court and the ponds. There is also "bubbling" of hot top on our old court that causes me concern about changes in the water table in general. Our meetings and on-sight viewing of this problem led us to agree that installing a swale would take care the matter. I'm inclined now to think that it has not, 2.) I. happened to walk the area to-day with one of my sons and we both were surprised to find an accumulation of water that caused us to be unable to walk in some places. Because it has been dry and there was only an average amount 'of rainfall over the week end 1 am puzzled. if it is possible for you to take a look at the area I have mentioned and advise me it would be appreciated. Sincerely, 7 Co tf?' Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Community Development R Services William Scott, Director, Community Development & Services