The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDenial - 100 ANDOVER BY-PASS 12/27/2001 of N•TIJ Zoning Bylaw Denial t M Town Of North Andover Building Department 27 Charles St. North Andover, MA. 01845 Phone 978-688-9545 Fax 978-688-9542 Street, f -bmvrt _.. Map/Lot: Applicant: ExEe�at i Re guest: nrrul4-TE-4 P s. eoro�l2 ag�3� - Date: 7oZ l Please be advised that after review of your Application and Plans that your Application is DENIED for the following.Zoning Bylaw reasons: Zonin Item Notes Item A Lot Area Notes F Frontage 1 Lot area Insufficient 1 Frontage Insufficient 2 Lot Area Preexisting 2 Frontage Complies 3 Lot Area Complies 3 Preexisting frontage 4 Insufficient Information 4 Insufficient Information B Use 5 No access over Frontage 1 Allowed g Contiguous Building Area 2 Not Allowed 1 Insufficient Area 3 Use Preexisting 2 Com lies 4 Special Permit Required 3 Preexisting CBA 5 Insufficlent Information C3 4 1 Insufficient Information C Setback H I Building Height 1 All setbacks comply 1 Height Exceeds Maximum �' 2 Front Insufficient 2 Complies 3 Left Side Insufficlent; 3 + Preexisting Height 4 Right Side insufficient S 4 Insufficient Information 5 Rear Insufficient l Building Coverage 6 Preexisting setback s) 1 Coverage exceeds maximum 7 Insufficient Information 2 Coverage Com Ties �-S Watershed 3 Coverage Preexisting t Not in Watershed �-5 4 Insufficient Information �' 2 In Watershed J Sign 3 Loi prior to 10/24/94 1 Sign not allowed A F, ; + 4 Zone to be;Determined _ 2 Sign Complies 5 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information E Historic-District K Pafking 1 In District review required xo 1 More Parking Required 2 Not in district 2 Parking Complies 3 Insufficient Information 3 Insufficient Information 4 ir-i-existing Parking a Remedy for the above is checked below. Item# Special Permits Planning Board Item# Variance Site Plan Review S ecial Permit Setback Variance Access other than fronts e Special Permit Parkin Variance Fronts a Exce tion Lot Special Permit of Area Variance Common Drivewa S ecial Permit Hei ht Variance Con re ate Housin S ecial Permit Variance for Si n Continuing Care Retirement Special Permit Special Permits Zoning Board Inde endent Elderl Housin S ecial Permit S ecial Permit Non-Conformtn Use ZBA Lar a Estate Condo S eaiai Permit Earth Removal S ecial Permit ZBA Planned Develo ment District S ecial Permit S ecial Permit Use not Listed but Similar Planned Residential S ecial Permit S ecial Permit for Si n Watershed S ecial Permit R-6 Dshe Special Permit S ecial Permit p[eextstlng nonconforming t� W r The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the applicant provide definitive answers to the above reasons for DENIAL. Any inaccuracies, serve to misleading infomwtion,or other subsequent changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to be voided at the discretion of the Building Department.The attached document titled'Plan Review Narrative'shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation for the above file.You must file a new building permit application form and begin the permitting process. Building Department Official Signature Application Received Application genie Denial Sent: If Faxed Phone Number/Date: i .. Plan Review Narrative t The following narrative is provided to further explain tfia reasons for denial fog the applicationk permit for the property indicated on the reverse side: it r t f� KAY¢—... �rP71�YiN ¢- tr'9 Z/3,9• ms's � !� c i c - TTYiPiti stir ply. Town of North Andover Project: Building Department Ot N°RTM s4ao �1N 27 CHARLES ST X- 9 78-688-9545 'M— APPLICANT: MEs ► l/ h? �rn RE: ot,!q X 3vt\2 � DATE: &7 moo t Title of Plans and Documents: 7 Please be advised that after review of your Building Permit Application and Plans that your Application is DENIED for the following reasons: Plait Review The plans and documentation submitted have the following inadequacies: 1.Information Is not provided,2.Requires additional Information, 3.Information requires more clarification 4. Information is incorrect. 5.All of the above. # # S Foundation Plan Plumbin2 Plans Subsurface investigation Certified Plot Plan with proposed structure Construction Plans 116 Affidavit Mechanical Plans and or details Plans Stamped by ro er discipline Electrical Plans and or details Framin Plan In y' Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plan Roofing Plan ;i .S Footing Plan Plans to scale ,i Utilities Site Plan Water Supply Sewage Disposal ' ( Waste Disposal Driveway Entry App.DPW ADA and or ABBA,requirements Administration The documentation submitted has the following inadequacies: 1:Information is not provided.2.Requires additional information. 3.Information requires more clarification.4.-Information is incorrect.5.All of the above. # # Water Fee J State Builders License Sewer Fee Workman's Compensation Building Permit Fee Homeowners Improvement Registration \ gig" Building Permit Application Homeowners Exem tian Form M ffiu' 3 The above review and attached explanation of such is based on the plans and information submitted. No definitive review and or advice shall be based on verbal explanations by the applicant nor shall such verbal explanations by the applicant serve to provide definitive answers to the above reasons for DENIAL.Any inaccuracies,misleading information or other subsequent y } changes to the information submitted by the applicant shall be grounds for this review to be voided at the discretion of the �2, Building Department.The attached document titled'Plan Review Narrative'shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein s by reference. The building department will retain all plans and documentation for the above rile.You must file a new building �. permit application form in the permitting process. z fir;' Building ah Rartment Official Signature Application Received Application Denied ' • �� If faxed:# Date Sent Referral recommended: Fire Health Police Zoning Board Conservation Department of Public Works Planning Commission cc: William Scott Revised 9197im r = j s ri- d— The following narrative is provided to fat#tte ex�pJiaiFythe reasons for denial for the buiiding " Permit for the property indicated on the reVeYse�ide: � s N ,`rte w NINE= Chu STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE QUARTERS, LLC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO THE NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The applicant, Executive Quarters, LLC ("EQ"), seeks a variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback in a Business 4 district (`B-4 District") to 36 feet pursuant to § 7.3, Table 2, Summary of Dimensional Requirements, of the Town of North Andover Zoning By-law (the `By-law") and § 10.4, Variances and Appeals, of the By- law. EQ seeks to construct a 720 square-foot single story wood frame.and brick veneer garage on property located at 100 Andover By-Pass and identified as Lot 79 on the North Andover Assessor's Map 25 (the "Locus"). The proposed garage is to be constructed behind EQ's existing office building on the Locus and set back 36 feet from Hillside Road. The By-law Section 7.3, Table 2, Summary of Dimensional Requirements, of the By-law requires a front yard setback of 50 feet in a B-4 District. Section 10.4, Variances and Appeals, of the By-law, authorizes the North Andover Zoning Board (the "Board") to grant variances from the terms of the By-law. Zoning Relief EQ seeks to construct a 720 square-foot single story wood frame and brick veneer garage at the Locus. The proposed garage is to be located 36 feet from the front yard lot line, which borders on Hillside Road. The By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet. EQ, therefore, seeks a 14-foot variance for the construction of its proposed garage at this location. {J:C lit\300229\0002\F0203563.DOC;2} 130ARD OF APPEALS Section 10.4 of the By-law sets forth the criteria for the grant of a variance by the Board: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power upon appeal to grant variances from the terms of this Zoning Bylaw where the Board finds that owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in general, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Bylaw will involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Bylaw. EQ meets each of the criteria for a variance under the Bylaw: (a) "owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in general... " The Locus is irregular in shape with 10 different boundary lines varying from 26.49 feet to 700.15 feet. The lot shape is best described as an arrowhead, certainly an uncommon shape justifying a variance. See, e.g., Paulding v. Bruins, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 707 (1984) (uniquely—shaped lot unlike any other in zoning district supports variance). The Locus also has unique soil conditions. The Locus is approximately 2.58 acres and contains an existing office building. However, a substantial portion of the Locus consists of wetlands. In fact, almost the entire undeveloped portion of the Locus is comprised of a bordering vegetated wetland and wetland buffer zones. Due to the constraints imposed by the wetlands and the irregular shape of the Locus, EQ is restricted in the location of its proposed garage. These unique characteristics affect the Locus, but not the zoning district in general. {J:\CLIENTS\lit\300229\0002\F0203563.DOC;2} 2 (b) "a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Bylaw will involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant... " The Locus presently contains an office building surrounded by a parking lot. In addition to the wetlands and the unique shape of the Locus, the location of the proposed garage is also restricted by the existing conditions of the development. The proposed garage is located between the office building's HVAC facility and dumpster enclosure and outside the required 25-foot parking access aisle along the rear of the building. The proposed garage cannot be located anywhere on the Locus that would comply with the 50-foot front yard setback requirement of the By-law,without removing or significantly changing the existing structures on the Locus. Such a change would be infeasible and cause EQ to incur substantial hardship. See, e.g., Simone v. Board of Appeals of Haverhill, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 112 (1983)(unique physical features and additional costs justify variance.) (c) "desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nulling or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Bylaw... " EQ proposes to construct a garage for the purpose of storing equipment and materials required to maintain the Locus. This use will be accessory to the existing office building and will not, in any way, change the existing use of the Locus. The proposed garage has also been designed to be aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive to the area. The proposed fagade for the garage has been chosen to match the existing office building. It will be buffered on all sides by either the existing office building, natural vegetation or the landscaping that was installed as part of the original development. The garage, itself, will enclose maintenance equipment and materials that would otherwise be stored outside {J:\CLIENTS\lit\300229\0002\F0203563.DOC;2} 3 in open view. The garage will, therefore, improve the aesthetics and cleanliness of the Locus. The proposed garage is in compliance with the purpose of the By-law to promote the health, safety, convenience,morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of North Andover by, among other things, encouraging the most appropriate use of land and conserving the value of the land and buildings. See, e.g., Broderick v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 361 Mass. 472 (1972)(no substantial derogation where project does not detract from zoning plan of district). Conclusion For the above reasons, EQ is entitled to a variance under §§ 7.3 and 10.4 of the By-law from the required 50-foot front yard setback to 36 feet in order to construct a garage for the storage of equipment and materials at the Locus. EXECUTIVE QUARTERS, LLC By its attorney, Vu i Brian C. Levey, Esq. (B'AO #542129) Bowditch &Dewey, LLP 161 Worcester Road Framingham,MA 01701 (508) 879-5700 {J:\CLIENTS\lit\300229\0002\F0203563.DOC;2} 4