Haverhill City Councilors rejected Ronald Judkins’ request Tuesday for a special permit to build a two-family home at 0 Stanley Drive, which belongs to the city’s Water Supply Protection Overlay District.
Under the overlay ordinance, because the dwelling is larger than one, single-family dwelling and is closer than 500 feet to the nearest body of water, construction requires special permission. The proposed site would lie 100 feet from Round Pond. After Attorney Michael Migliori, Judkins’s representative and the engineer on the project, George Zambouras explained their request, Councilor Melissa J. Lewandowski disputed the application adequately addressed the ordinance’s requirements.
Listing its stipulations, she said, “I mean, it goes on and on and on. The application didn’t contain the level of detail that our particular regulations require. While we can impose additional conditions and safeguards, if we were to grant the special permit, I really think it’s not right until all those things are done based on our own regulations.”
One key piece missing from the application materials, according to Attorney Paul A. Magliocchetti, representing neighbors Ed and Linda Baxter, is how to address toxic spillage during construction.
“When you’re constructing on a site, you’re going to have excavators, you’re going to have bulldozers, if a hydraulic line breaks, and that hydraulic fluid leaks on the ground, what’s going to happen?” Magliocchetti asked.
Migliori responded to critics that city department heads exercised their professional discretion in approving the application with information that Lewandowski charged is incomplete. Zambouras, who is a hydrologist as well as an engineer, added groundwater would be appropriately safeguarded during construction, though Magliocchetti and Councilor Melinda E. Barrett expressed doubts.
Neighbors spoke out against the permit request. They cited a lack of transparency from the developer, pollution concerns and worries about the size of the construction project. One was Arthur Tzitzon.
“I would like to respectfully correct attorney Migliori, who I have known for a good number of years, in his assessment that all of the abutters and neighbors are in agreement with this project. I most definitely am not.”
James Allen said he’d prefer a single-family home with an in-law unit, which he initially supported. Learning later that the plan was to construct two dwellings, he had some concerns.
“Double sewer lines, double water lines,” Allen said. “If it was an in-law unit, it only gets one line. So, the disturbance on the lake is 100% less.” He added that oil from cars parked at the house might spill into the water. And if it were a two-family dwelling, as the plan dictates, the number of cars would increase.
With eight nays, and one absent, the special permit request was rejected. Councilors advised Judkins to reduce the project to one, single-family home, and address every element of the ordinance before requesting another special permit. Some expressed dismay at the extent of city officials’ discretion in allowing the application through.
“I think we need to send our comments back to the department heads and get some answers to a lot of the questions that have come up tonight,” Council Vice President John A. Michitson said.