HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegal Document - 122 FOSTER STREET 11/30/2017 CAFFREY & CAFFREY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
One Elm Square
Andover, Massachusetts 01810
Andrew A. Caffrey,A (978)475-2412(tel)
Andrew A. Caffrey
1921-2008
November 30,2017
North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: Varsity Wireless
122 Foster Street
Dear Board Members,
I represent the interests of Kenneth Lindauer and Elaine Finbury who are direct abutters at 160
Foster Street who are opposed to this request for some five variances to the By-Law.
As I indicated at the November 14th meeting, the applicant has no hardship relating to sail
conditions, shape or topography of the land to justify the granting of the variances,particularly those
relative to setback.
Varsity Wireless has apparently agreed to lease from Steven Young, a particular piece of his
property which best suits its needs.This location,however,places the tower a mere 138 feet from my
clients property line, and the infrastructure compound even closer, 56 feet off of the property line.
Varsity could have chosen to locate the tower back in the middle of Mr. Young's extensive
property and further away from the neighbors and Foster Street. While this would have caused them
to lose some elevation, they could have requested a taller tower.
The point is that the hardship here is self-imposed. I refer you to the Statement of Stephen
Kelleher,which I believe is Ex. 5, together with the Supplemental Alternative Site Analysis for
North Andover.This is where Mr. Kelleher, in paragraph 7, opines that"there are no viable
alternative candidates located within this search ring that would be considered superior to the
proposed site."
Clearly, there are other possible sites,but Varsity wants to cram their commercial tower and
compound next to my clients'property because it is superior,that is,best for them.
Among the criteria cited by Mr. Kelleher in paragraph 5 are"a willing landowner with whom
commercially reasonable lease terms may be negotiated."I don't believe that this is an FCC criteria,
but is their own self-serving criteria. What is "commercially reasonable?" It appears that Varsity
believes that its commercial success is justification for the grant of variances and imposing on and
disturbing my clients'property rights.
Would Mr. Young lease the center area of his property to Varsity,thereby lessening the visual
impact on the neighbors, or would that area not be "commercially reasonable."
Varsity has provided a Supplemental Alternative Site Analysis of some 20 other"potential" sites.
I ask that the Board and its peer reviewer consider this carefully. I question whether the comments
which seem to disqualify these sites as"inferior,"are accurate,or whether the real reason is that they
could not obtain"commercially reasonable lease terms."Also,why are they limited to lease terms,
why can't they purchase a site?
The proposed site is at elevation 187. Several of the Alternative Sites,A, B, and P have greater
elevation but are conservation or open space parcels.Would towers be prohibited?Parcel Q has
elevation of 250 and is owned by National Grid.It is really"too far east,"or is it not as commercially
viable?
Parcel J appears viable and perhaps superior, except that is has a residence. Why can't Varsity
purchase that, or lease it?According to its appraiser,the tower would not diminish the property
value, and would generate a rent stream for the property owner if only leased.
The point here is that everything that Varsity submits is self-serving to justify this eyesore of a
commercial intrusion into a residential/farm area. This Board would be justified in: 1) determining
that there are alternative sites; 2) denying this application, and 3) upholding the express purpose of
the By-Law, Section 8.9 (1).
Very truly yours,
Andrew At 6a rey, Jr.
cc: Kenneth Lindauer and Elaine Finbury