HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-07 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (51)May 6, 2013
Ms. Judy Tymon
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood St
North Andover MA 01845
Re: Great Pond Road, Map 35 Lot 38, Watershed Special Permit Plan
Dear Ms. Tymon:
After
receiving comments from Lisa Eggleston, the Town’s peer review consultant, and corresponding with her via e-mail I have made the following changes in the plans.
1. I have provided
the NRCS soils to Ms. Eggleston, which shows that the site is primarily composed of Paxton and Woodbridge soils. Soil testing took place on Monday May 6,2013 and the results were added
to the plan.
2. The porous pavement for the driveway has been replaced by conventional asphalt pavement and a crushed stone infiltration area adjacent to the drive.
3. I have reduced
the total land disturbance to 19,000 square feet. This compares favorably with three lots that abut the property to the north averaging 43,000 square feet each.
4. The limit of work
is shown on the plan as a tree cut line and has been labeled Limit of Work. As shown on the plan with the exception of the driveway entrance and the area of the utilities not trees will
be cut along Great Pond Road. There is on average 60 feet of natural vegetation to remain between the house and Great Pond Road on the left side of the property and 50 feet on average
on the right side of the property. The vegetation to be planted will be lawn and ornamental shrubs and trees. Notes regarding fertilizers and landscaping have been added to the plan
5.
A note has been added restricting the use of copper downspouts and gutters.
6. A note has been added to the plans regarding maintenance of stormwater management structures.
7. A
construction sequence has been added to the plan.
8. The stone size for the construction entrance has been increased to a minimum of two inches.
9. Ms. Eggleston raised the issue as to whether the lot should be considered a new lot or an existing lot. This issue was addressed during the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and is
outlined in note 2 on the special permit plan. The conclusion reached and certified by the signing of the Variance plan by the Zoning Board of Appeals is that the lot existed as such
prior to 1994.
10. The alternative development plan for the property which we submitted puts the house outside of the 400 ft radius from the lake. The area is flat compared to the
rest of the property. The owners could build this house and the driveway that is shown but chose to build closer to the Lake because the impact would be less. The location of the house
shown in the special permit plan is the location for which a variance has already been obtained from the Board of Appeals as required by the regulations.
I understand Ms. Eggleston’s
concern about limiting work as much as possible but the applicant has already reduced the impact from 37,000 s.f. to 19,000 s.f. That is a reduction of 49%. Also following the regulations
the applicant should be allowed to build as allowed in the underlying zoning district.
Section 4.136 3cii Uses allowed by Special Permit (3) Construction of a new or permanent
structure only after a variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The permit has been granted for the house shown on the plan.
Section 4.136 3c (i) Allowed
Uses All of the Allowed Uses listed in Section 3 (a)(i) of this Watershed Protection District Bylaw are allowed in the Non-Disturbance Zone except as noted.
Section 4.136
3 a i Allowed Uses (1) All permitted uses allowed in Section 4.121 “Permitted Uses Residence 1.2 and 3 District” of the Zoning Bylaw
Section 4.121 Residence 1 District
Nothing in the allowed activities in the section limits house size or clearing. The table of Dimensional Requirements at the end of the Zoning book does not include any limitations concerning
house size or extent of clearing.
Following the above review of the rules it seems to me our application and proposed site plans meets all of the zoning requirements specified.
Very
truly yours
Philip Christiansen P.E.