05-057 347 Audubon Rd Planningf RESERVED FOR REGISTERS USE ONLY
o 0 w
MONUMENTS SHOWN ARE AS TAKEN FROM PLANS OF
RECORD AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF AN ON THE
GROUND SURVEY AT THIS TIME.
loo 0 loo ?� 300 400 FEET
SO 0 SO 100 METERS
LE
O IRON PIPE
A UNMONUMENTED POINT
I t 0
wl
�J
0%
L
t N
�U /
t3`o s j 48' WIDE
•off• DRIVEWAY /
EASEMENT LYNELL M . /
BRANCH
SEE: BOOK 4487 -PAGE 329
LEONARD BASKIN &
.90 PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5 / LISA BASKIN ;� SET ( LOT #
SEE: BOOK 2370 -PAGE 255 0 4 �k
BOOK 2370 -PAGE 257 , _ _ , 39 `E
PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5 - \
LOT
( ) QD / p \
3 o / O QO
M
Z 1.5 � I X62 I
k 1 �,��`� /
1 X OA /
S?67 9�4 8 j,
w t� \ /
�
�� ` L
` N N86 3
IRA HELFAND & 8 ` - g oo SEE
SMITH
DEBORAH E. /00 S
SEE: BOOK 2381 -PAGE 118
PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5 z / �'
(LOT #7)
LOTS 8 & 9 (PORTION)
ARE LAND OF
JOHN J. HERLIHY
SEE: BOOK 2936 —PAGE 213
BOOK 2936 —PAGE 216
PLAN BOOK 117 —PAGE 5
N5 '28 8'21 » E `
501.34'
N
J PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5
(LOT #8)
ou
cc
19 9
Z
��o�A
DiRE
K
D
,o
O
C
r��r�iVf�
Z
0
C
C
r
m
CID
z
m
Z
0
D
Z
0
O
Fn
8
z
c3
4 IV
. N
N
J
V�
� G
PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5
(A PORTION OF LOT I9)
\ p O SEp 1 �
o )
> f / Co
l<
:l
� 966 ' 9 0' /
10 /
BIRCH
/ TREE
r `
OT 9 (PORTION)/ �� /'?
13.62f ACRES/ �
BOOK 2936— PAGE/216
(PORTION)
0
4v )
POINT IN CENTER
OF BROOK
2 COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE
h4, J�� SEE. BOOK 697 -PAGE 161
LOT 8
5.100 ACRES
SEE. BK. 2936 -PG. 213 y
'IV
843.2 \
�illillilillill 11111
n
y �
v 40
0 s
POND
NOTES:
/ � o
� 1. LOTS 8 & 9 ARE FLAG LOTS: BUILDING IS PERMITTED ONLY
/ p IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIAL FLAG LOT PROVISIONS
OF THE NORTHAMPTON ZONING ORDINANCE.
2. DRIVEWAY RUNOFF TO BE DESIGNED FOR SHEETFLOW RUNOFF.
50. 3. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS
�POINT IN AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
CENTER 4. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY OVER A 48 FOOT
OF BROOK WIDE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON A PLAN RECORDED IN
� TOT XL PLANBOOK 117 PAGE 5 AND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 2936 PAGE 213.
1001. 1052't
PREVIOUS SOUTH LINE OF LOT /KJ/
IN PLAN BOOK 117 -PAGE 5.
/ / 3
/ o
EDWARD M. RISEMAN &
MARY E. OLSON
SEE: BOOK 4813 -PAGE 121
PLAN BOOK 179 -PAGE 204
tw a RESEARCH: p
� FIELD: HU N TLEY
FL CAD:
�u�eiep �
"°.low CALCS: TIER Y, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYORS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CHECKED: 30 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EAST
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSE'T'TS
»
s 5 0 �p 4' 42
SCALE:
HORIZ: 1"= 100'
VERT: N/A
I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY LINES OF
EXISTING OWNERSHIPS, AND THE LINES OF STREETS AND WAYS
SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE WAYS ALREADY
ESTABLISHED AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR THE DIVISION
OF EXISTING OWNERSHIPS OR NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN;
I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE TECHNICAL AND
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING
IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;
I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS
OF E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
eb. 28 199"7
PAUL R. LUSSIER, MA PLS #29648 DATE
PLAN OF LAND IN
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
PREPARED FOR
DATE: 2 -28 -97
JOHN J. HERLIHY
PROJECT NO.
97- 040 -16
SHEET N0.
1 OF 1
DWG. NO. 90 -294A
Scanned
Digitized
Checked
FORM A \
NORTHAMPTON,MA
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT
OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL
File five completed forms and plans and one mylar with the City Clark and the
Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.02.
To the Planning Board:
The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of his /her property
in the City of Northampton does not constitute division within the meaning of the
Subdivision Control Law, herewith submits said plan for a determination and
endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not
required.
- _ II III
1. Applicant_
��/� type a Sign ure
A CMYTS A" al Nf�
Address ..y».ud��,ss - � HJ3- 5Bg -7a7)
Phone
2. Owner T.I. J. l'1 f)
Print or type name Signature
SNmt
Address _.
.. Phone
3
• b ikse,
Address
584 -�d44
i
/ Phone
4.
Deed or property recorded in dmp �re Registry,
Location
and Des r
�N��19.1
„of Prope ty: -
-' -
G
Lec��
6.
Assessor's
Map ID•
Lot(s):
Date Submitted
Board Approval:
for Planning
Date Planning rd
Decision - -
City
Clerk:
City Cle k:
(Signature)
_ ( ignatu�
(8/13/91)
SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS - - - - -- -PAGE 60
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Conservation Commission • Historical Commission
• Housing Partnership • Parking Commission
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
APPLICANT: John J. Herlihy
ADDRESS: c/o Timothy Washburn, Esq.
8 Crafts Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
OWNER: John J. Herlihy
ADDRESS: c/o Timothy Washburn, Esq.
8 Crafts Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: Audubon Road, Leeds
MAP n PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP 5 PARCEL 57 -59
At a meeting conducted on May 22, 1997, the Northampton Planning
Board voted unanimously 6:0 to grant the request of John J.
Herlihy for a SPECIAL PERMIT WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL under the
provisions of Section 6.13 in the Northampton Zoning Ordinance,
to create a flag lot (Lot 8) at property located at Audubon Road,
Leeds, also known as Assessor's Map #5, Parcel #57 -59, in
accordance with the following plan:
1. "Plan of Land in Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared
for John J. Herlihy," by Almer Huntley, Jr. &
Associates, Inc., dated February 28, 1997.
Planning Board Members present and voting were: Vice Chair
Daniel J. Yacuzzo, Jody Blatt, Paul Diemand, Nancy Duseau,
Kenneth Jodrie and Associate Member Sanford Weil, Jr.
In Granting the Special Permit, the Planning Board found:
A. The requested use for a flag lot protects adjoining premises
against seriously detrimental uses because flag lots are
allowed by Special Permit in Rural Residential (RR)
districts.
B. The requested use promotes the convenience and safety of
vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on
1
DR, IV2 PH I M I OON Pr CYCL, P PAPYi
adjacent streets and minimizes traffic impacts on the
streets and roads in the area because access to the lot will
be over an existing common driveway, and no new curb cut is
required.
C. The requested use promotes a harmonious relationship of
structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area
because the requested use involves the e creation of with fl the
l for a single- family home,
residential use of the area.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate
adverse impacts on, the City's resources, including the
effect on the City's water supply and distribution system,
sanitary and stor sewage a collection and treatment systems,
fire protection,
E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in
the Zoning Ordinance. specifically, Section 6.13 - Flag Lot;
see "Attachment A," for criteria.
F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the
public convenience or welfare, and will not unduly impair
the integrity of character of the district or adjoining
zones.
The use will not be detrimental to the health, morals, or
general welfare and shall be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to
the extent possible and will not adversely affect those
objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted
under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D.
In addition, in reviewing the Site Plan, the Planning Hoard found
the applicant has complied with the following technical
performance standards:
F. 1. Curb cuts onto streets have been minimized because the
lot will be served by a common drive.
2. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic movement on
site are separated to the extent possible.
The following condition was imposed upon this Special Permit:
1. This lot is subject to restrictive covenants registered
at the Hampshire county Registry of Deeds.
2
ATTACHMENT A
Section 6.13 Flag Lots. In reviewing the application for a
Special Permit with Site Plan Approval for a Flag Lot, the
Planning Hoard found said lot has:
1. met the requirements of the Table of Dimensional and Density
Regulations, Section 6.2;
2. an access roadway with no curve having a radius of less than
eighty (SO) feet or, if access is from another lot, an area
on the flag lot for an access roadway with no curve having a
radius of less than eighty (SO) feet;
3. configurations such that the principal structure is located
on the lot in such manner that a circle, with a minimum
diameter equal to one and one -half (1 1/2) times the amount
of the minimum frontage requirement required for a non -flag
lot in that district, can be placed around the principal
structure without any portion of said circle falling outside
of the property's line; and
q. for the subdivision of any single lot or contiguous lots
under common ownership, in existence at the time of adoption
of this Ordinance or subsequent thereto, there may be no
more than three Flag Lots having abutting, contiguous street
frontage. This flag lot is served by a legally pre- existing
common drive. Appropriate easements are delineated on the
Plot Plan and on the deeds to the lots, including a clear
provision for the responsibility for the maintenance of the
�- common driveway, common utilities (if any) and snow removal,
running with the land. Said easements are:
A. part of the deed, and
B. recorded at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds.
5. The lot is served by an legally pre- existing common
driveway.
6. Plans submitted to the Planning Board under this Section
were the same as the plan submitted to the Planning Board
under the Subdivision Control Law, and included the
statement "Lot (s) S is a Flag Lot: building is permitted
only in accordance with the special Flag Lot Provisions of
the Northampton Zoning Ordinance."
7. The proposed driveway is legally pre- existing and therefore
was not shown on the plans. However, the location and
layout of the proposed driveway and house and all provisions
for drainage and storm water run -off were depicted on all
plans.
3
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A,
Section 11, no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have
elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal
has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded
in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as
applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The
fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner
or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to
Pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it
at the Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Special
Permit with Site Plan Approval has been GRANTED and that copies
of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed
with the Planning Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15,
notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the
Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed
pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire
County Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the
City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this
decision was filed with the City Clerk.
Applicant: John J. Herlihy - Audubon Road, Leeds
DECISION DATE: May 22, 1997
DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 6, 1997
e 25
e 2
l �
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Conservation Commission • Historical Commission
• Housing Partnership • Parking Commission
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
Northampton Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
May 22, 1997
The Northampton Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, May 22,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Present were Members: Vice Chair Daniel J. Yacuzzo, Jody Blatt,
Paul Diemand, Nancy Duseau, Kenneth Jodrie (7:15 p.m.) and
Associate Member Sanford Weil, Jr.
Staff: Board Secretary Laura Krutzler.
Yacuzzo opened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
At 7:30 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Public Hearing on a request from
ii. John J. Herlihy for two Special Permits with Site Plan Approval to
create two flag lots under Section 6.13, 10.10 & 10.11 of the
Zoning Ordinance, for property located at Audubon Road, Leeds, also
known as Northampton Assessor's Map 5, Parcel 57 - 59.
Yacuzzo read the legal notice and explained the procedure he would
use in conducting the hearing.
Tim Washburn, Esq. presented the application. The two lots in
question were originally laid out in 1981 as part of a nine -lot
subdivision, Washburn explained. Herlihy purchased the two lots in
the early 1980's as a buffer for his house. The nine lots all
share a common driveway, and the other seven lots have been built
on.
At the time they were laid out, the two building lots, designated
as Lot 8 and Lot 9, met all zoning requirements. However, because
flag lot and common drive provisions were added to the zoning
ordinance in 1985 and 1987, the lots now qualify as flag lots. The
deeds to all nine lots are subject to a right -of -way to pass and
repass over the common driveway and to a Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants. Also, the lots are subject to other restrictive
oHiewAL PI r 1 m oN HECra eo rP rL P
covenants limiting the buildable area in order to preserve existing
fields.
The plan for the flag lots meets all necessary requirements of
Section 6.13, Washburn stated. He reviewed the flag lot criteria
as follows:
- - -- Each lot has at least fifty (50) feet of frontage, and
the minimum width of each lot is at least fifty (50)
feet.
- - -- The lots are served by the common driveway shown on the
plan.
- - -- Each lot has in excess of twice the minimum lot area for
the district. (The lots have 13.62 acres and 5.1 acres.)
- - -- The lots meet setback, building coverage and open space
requirements.
- - -- Plans show house locations within a circle with a
diameter of at least one and one half times the frontage
required in the district, as required by 6.13 (h).
The lots will be used for single - family dwellings, Washburn stated.
The applicant is not subdividing the lots but is only before the
Planning Board because of the change in zoning which designated the
lots as flag lots, thereby requiring Special Permits.
Blatt questioned why Lot 8 requires a Special Permit, since it has
185 feet of frontage, and zoning requires 175 feet? (The plan shows
only 172 feet, she noted.)
The Building Inspector told him the lot was a flag lot, Washburn
replied, and Kuzdeba confirmed this.
Blatt also questioned whether the proposal should be considered
under subdivision regulations, since zoning no longer allows a
common drive to serve more than three lots?
However, Yacuzzo clarified that the common drive is grandfathered,
since it was approved before the addition to the zoning ordinance
requiring common drives to receive Special Permits.
Diemand asked why the original plan showed Lot 9 as 15.4 acres,
when it now has only 13.6 acres? Herlihy sold his house lot about
a year ago, and, at the buyer's request, he also conveyed a portion
of Lot 9 to straighten out the house lot's boundary line, Washburn
explained.
In response to a question from Blatt, Washburn said the proposed
house locations on Lot 8 and Lot 9 are 800 feet and 1000 feet from
2
the brook, respectively.
Members clarified that the reason Lot 8 requires flag lot approval
is that, at points, the lots width is narrower than the frontage_
Yacuzzo asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of
application? No one spoke_ the
The following people spoke in opposition:
Alan Branch of 407 Audubon Road said he wanted to make sure the two
lots would still be subject to the Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants originally imposed in 1981.
Washburn explained that the deeds to all nine lots are subject to
these restrictions, which include agreements regarding the
maintenance of the common drive. These restrictions can only be
amended or rescinded by a vote of all the lot owners.
Branch asked whether the change to the lot lines affected these
restrictions? Washburn said no.
Branch asked other questions to clarify the information which had
been presented.
In
Washburn response
said to a that mtherebi Branch
stream a wet area by Audubon
about and stream h property,
Road, but these are hundreds of feet from the proposed house site.
}f- Branch said that he wanted to make sure the Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants still applied to the flag lots because
anybody buying the flag lots should be aware of his responsibility
to maintain the common drive. There might be outstanding costs
related to the drive's maintenance, he indicated.
Washburn confirmed that the two lots were subject to the
restrictive covenants originally imposed on all nine lots.
Blatt stated that, as is its practice, the Board would make the
Special Permit subject to any previous conditions placed on the
applicant.
development. Washburn said this would be acceptable to the
Ira Helfand of 371 Audubon Road (Lot 7 in the development) said
that Herlihy has been in default of his responsibility to maintain
the common driveway for years. Neighbors got a court order forcing
him to pay his share, but he still has not paid his most recent
share. Helfand said he was concerned about Herlihy selling the
lots while he is still in default of kris obligations_ Also,
Helfand said he was concerned because the lots were advertised as
having town water and sewer, when they do not.
3
Yacuzzo explained that the owner's history has no bearing on
whether his application meets the criteria of zoning. The Board's
responsibility is to insure the application meets zoning by -laws,
and members have no power to insure the lots are correctly
advertised or to guarantee that any buyer will be responsible for
paying his share of fees.
Krutzler noted that the lots were created by the filing of an
Approval Not Required (ANR) plan, so no Special Permit or
conditions were ever issued_
Members discussed whether they had the authority to include a
condition stating that the lots are subject to existing covenants.
Branch said he was concerned that if the two lots are approved as
flag lots, the original restrictions will no longer apply.
Washburn clarified that the deeds to the lots recite that the lots
are subject to restrictive covenants, and the lots can not be sold
without these deed covenants.
However, Duseau said she saw nothing wrong with stating in the
permit that the lots are subject to existing restrictive covenants
which continue to apply. Yacuzzo said he would be willing to
include such a condition to address Branch's concern. However, he
cautioned Branch that this condition may not be authoritative.
Branch said he was reassured by Washburn's public statement
regarding the restrictions and satisfied with the suggested
condition.
Duseau moved to close the Public Hearing. Weil seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously 6:0.
Duseau moved to approve two Special Permits with Site Plan Approval
to create two flag lots at Audubon Road, Leeds, also known as
Assessor's Map 5, Parcels 57 - 59, because they meet the criteria
set out by the ordinance for flag lots, noting that these lots are
subject to covenants registered at the Hampshire County Registry of
Deeds. Blatt seconded the motion.
Jodrie and Blatt expressed hesitation about including the reference
to deed covenants as a condition, since the Planning Board has no
authority to enforce deed covenants. Jodrie noted that the lot
owners could vote to change these covenants.
However, the motion passed unanimously 6:0.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FOR:
Type of Project
SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
Intermediate Project (Site Plan)
Major Project (Site Plan Special Permit)
OR
� SPECIALPERIMIT:
Intermediate Projecf(,vith Site Plan Approval)
Major Pmjcet(Site Plan Special Permit )
Permit is requested under Zoning Ordinance Section .Pg
1. Applicant's Name:
Address ANy { 7 v ws <tra elephoron e13- 3P4 -7 ?71
fM o
2. Parcel identification: ZoningNI N v P reel # l7 orting D"ri r.
Sheet Address �'(qr, e c _
3. Status of Applicant X_ Owner; Contract Pic Lessee
4. Property Owner. Jc� ,A. P fGCE ^ IV�`�
A y _C t us ,.r 1 \
Address: r, C r Telephone: 'I73 -J �y T,] 7 t
p
N.tb�Mp�e� I1 r,ss (;PR 241997
5. Describe Proposed Work/Project (list additional sheets d'neeessary
�
° Y ��< AK NOPt�`�f
—S /� n PAA f Ir+s 1,1
i
+++ w+ w+ wwwwx w+ wwr+++ w++++ wwww++++++ w+ www ++w + +w +w+rw +w+ + +www+ +r ++++w+ww •+wrw +www + ++ ++++ ++++ ++
Has the following information been included in the application?
X Site/Plot Plan Y, l,isl of requested waivers I ( fee
2 sets of labels (supplied by the Assess is Office)
_ V Signed dated and denied Zoning Persil Application
)<— Ihi ee (3) espies of t Certified Abutters Liss from As<essors Office
1
g. Site Plan and Special �rmit Approval Criteria. Qf any permit crilen. xs rent apply, explain why)
Use additional sheets if uecessary.
Assistance for completing this information is available through the Office of Planning @ Development.
A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? 1 \ 1 I
-,+.() .a tY —' n e. m. L. PISIP{"'l Ft�rtDZC(f
How will the project provide for
surfacewaterdrainage /1/i' n Li
�
sound and sight buffers: - . hl P
the p of views, light and and air: l htS t P.r le I S 1 nA � �1 I " 1
,�.� nr CeS�n .�cn �•rP F++ F +JF�SCSff �c�i[ns ms s�[ww
7 .
B- How wine requ 51 "' rr♦o IFS ested rest pro T thewmenienec and safety of pedestrian movement wit}un the site and on
How will the project minimize naQK impacts on the streets and roads in the
..- I - -- --- .- A ._._ a. - ae......,... I t...,. fnr
eJ
Ael w,
�
provisions for persons with disabilities Ni / ✓Sf,
NPR 2 4 1997 1 2
C How will the proposed use promote a harm. o¢s eI tionship of structures 1 mid opus spaces to:
the natural landscape' //r f (� � a _. Fe s��N +h N I n T �N r/
_�PfI + 4� 4 Pk �+ C IOf ti � 5 i4�
toexislingbuildipgs. P,,qurj4e nse .s �of ys, �P rdnml�.r �GNtF1 [N �rnyP 14 5
other community assets in the
D. What measures are being taken that show the use wil lln lI
l not overload the City's resources, including'.
water supply and distribution systern,,(1 le WAIPf inAtl��l w�,� ICJ
sanit 'sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: �fA 5 fF Se W Alh
,s IPwn
I
fire protection, streets and schools.
V✓�� NG1 rV'I M nc� f0 �C• � P P SGr
How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as [sled
above^ A0t 06� 1 cv /P
E. List the section(s) of die Zoning Ordinance that stales oliat special regulations are required for the proposed
project (flag lot, common drive, lot she avcraping etc.)
S [} e s �> 13 �c 10 pN i0
How does d ie project meet die special requirements? (Us additional sheers if neressary)? 6
41 , l o"J ` i � (' S fP9 lP p�/l�
S ee' S 7G �IOIn
,oJ oc) )z- � 4 / s � � l � R )A� .✓ �
CN '}' F f ns:) S �PPI ce P/Ar ,N� Pc, IQ,I�,
F Stilehoo• the project meets the following teclutical performance standards_
I- Curb cuts are minimized. N IPw e [.
/APR 2 ii 1997
ADDITIONAL SHEET
The general conditions of Section 10.10, Sub.3 are fulfilled
as follows:
a) The requested use for single family homes is permitted
in this zone;
b) The requested use for single family homes on large
rural flag lots in a residential neighborhood is
consistent with the zoning district, adds to the tax
base, and bears a positive relationship to public
convenience by allowing construction of single family
homes;
C) The requested use for true single family homes will not
create undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian
safety on Audubon Road;
d) Two single family homes with on -site sewage disposal
will not overload the public water supply;
e) Not applicable; and
f) The requested use is for construction of single family
homes in a neighborhood and zoning district of single
family homes.
APR 21 19,1:
Check off all that apply to the project.
X use of a common driveway for access to more than one l!-9 - W JOt
use of an existing side street use of a loopad service road
p. Does the project require more than one driveway cut?
Y NO _ YES (if yes, explain why)_
3. An pedestrian, bicycle and vebiculartraffiic separated on -site?
_ YES _ NO (f no, explain why) a � �e
For projects that require Intermediate Site Plan Approval, ONLY , sign application and end
here.
9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the hest of my
knowledge. The undersigned owner (s) Planning Board permission to enter the
property to review this application.
Da1e_�o� Applicants SignaNre: /I� ��� J d b / � f� ��
Date_ Owner's
(if not same as applicant)
For projects that require a Special Permit or which are a major project, applicants must also
complete the following page.
9
APR 2 4 1997