HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegal Document - 122 FOSTER STREET 12/20/2017 i
'k
Law Office of Attorney
Robert F. M h Jr. y '` '� r r�
Y r i l 'r LJ,;
321 Central Street Suite 100
Lowell MA o 1852 11 DEC 20 PM :
2 V3
TO/Fax(978)454-5655
fuvv'`I 0
c�,Rl"iJ A N-D0 i it
North Andover Planning Board
i
North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
120 Main Street
North Andover MA 01845
RE: Objection- 122 Foster Street Proposed Cell Tower
Dear Chairman(s):
This office represents Albert P. Manzi 11110 Foster Street North Andover hereinafter
C'client") and hereby objects to the placement of cell tower structure at the proposed location of
122 Foster Street.
As grounds therefore,my client's property is located in close proximity to the proposed
site location. Notwithstanding,the Carrier(s) are to identify the least intrusive alternative with
respect to the proposed site location, and the proposed location needs to be based upon site(s)
that were available at the time that the 122 Foster Street application was filed. This is commonly
referred to as an Alternative Site Analysis, specifically,to fill the purported gap of coverage off
Foster Street by means of a tower location.
With respect to the Alternative Site Analysis, the Carrier(s) did not look at and or
consider any other available properties located within the purported gap in coverage that were set
further back from the roadway and from the homes located thereon that were available at the
time the application was filed.
Prior to the current filing,the Carrier(s) including AT&T and or Verizon respectively and
at different times,were aware of viable alternative site locations within the purported gap in
coverage area that were set further back from the road and existing homes pursuant to previous
contact with the Carrier(s)by and through their previous respective agent(s)in regards to the
Foster Street area.
Therefore,pursuant to the aforementioned,the respective Board(s) are urged to deny the
petition(s) as viable alternative site locations set further back from the road and existing homes
have not been properly considered and existed prior to the current filing.
Very truly yours,
Robert F. Murphy Jr.,Esquire