Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 0 FLAGSHIP DRIVE 4/30/2018K Legal Notice TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE,. March 22, 1988 0 0 IL_ 0 , Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town AZL;Z! Building, North Andover, on VTO Tuesday evening the 12th day of April, 1988, at 7:30 o'clock, to all partibs in- terested in the appeal of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton requesting a Special Permit of Sec. 4, Parag 4.11 (3) of the Zoning By Law so as to permit relief to use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F, Flagship Drive. By Order of the Board of Appeals , Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman Publish in North Andover Citizen March 24 and March 31, 1988 53198-9 Legal Notice TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSEITS BOARD OF APVdLS NOTICE 6 March 22, 1988 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town Building, North Andover, on Tuesday evening the 12th day Of APHI, 1988, at 7:30 O'clock, to all partik in- terested in the appeal of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton requesting a Special Permit of Sec. 4.-Parag 4.11 (3) of the Zoning By Law so as to permit relief to use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F, Flagship Nve. "y Order 6Tte Board of Appeals * Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman Publish in North Andover Citizen March 24 and March 31, 1988 53198-9 topography must seek a variance from the Zoning Board- of Appeals (ZBA), Stocking.�.�id. "We're saying that we think common driveways with standards are a reasonable way to avoid wetland im- pact," Stocking explained. "Other than that, we don't think they should be in town." The proposed bylaw also gives regula- tions for length, grade and identifica- tion of common driveways, Stocking said, in additictn to stipulating that com- mon driveways may serve no more than two homes on sepa-rate lots. Current standards aII6-w up to three homes on a common driveway. R TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS March 22 ... 19.88 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town Building, North Andover, on. Tuesday .. . evening .. the . 12thday of .. April ............. . 19 88 , at. 7: 30clock, to all parties interested in the appeal of Gordon Hall,. III .&.Davi.d.J,.Berton.............. requesting a W oefrec . 4.,..Parag. 4...1106f the Zoning By Law so as to permit. relief . to. us.e..1and. zoned .R-2 , as the required .100.foot .buffer.area.for.an.industrial.,building. ...................................................... on the premises, located at. Lot. F,. Flagship. Drive ....... By Order of- t%h'e Board of Appe ✓./t-o-.�,�!'1it-civ, �. Frank Serio, J ., Chairman Publish in the N. A. Citizen on March 24 & March 31, 1988 v LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON GEORGE M.MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER JANE M. O'MALLEY KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M. KORMAN ANNE -MARIE M. HYLAND RICHARD BOWEN KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of North Andover North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 June 6, 1989 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust v. Gordon Hall III et als Essex Superior Court C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Members of the Board: (617) 451-0750 FAX 451-1863 This is to update you on the status of the above case. On Monday, June 5, 1989, I argued on behalf of the Town defendants before the Appeals Court. As you may recall, the case which involves a dispute over the proper method of calculating setback when a lot is located in both a residential and an industrial district, was appealed by the Town. Generally, the court does not issue a decision until several months after the hearing. I will keep you advised of any action taken by the court in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. JMO/myj cc: Board of Selectmen Very truly yours, C Oahe M. O'Malley Gordon Hall, III David J. Berton 145 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION RECEIVED DANIEL LONG TOWN CLERK NORTH Ai NDOVER MAY 2 8 59 FM '88 Date ... April , . 29 .....1.9.8 8 ........... Petition No...... 12.77.8.8 ........ _ . Date of Hearing .. Apr i 1 12, 1988 Decision: April 26, 1988 Petition of.Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton .............................................................................. Premises affected .Lot FT Flagship. Drive ............................................... ' Perm't Referring to the above petition fora fti rom e requirements of the .Section 4, Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw .......................................................................................... so as to permit . re,lief • of. use. land. ,zoned. R72 .as. the. required. .100. foot, buffer. area for an industrial building ........................................................................................ After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to .... URK ... the Special Permithl���X�vX ................................ PRIMw..................................... .......................................... Signed Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman ........................................... Augustine Nickerson, Clerk Walter Soule ...................................... William Sullivan ..... Raymond V-ivenzio............. .......................... Board of Appeals El GFeCK' y ************************** * Gordon Hall, III & David J. Berton * 145 State Street * NORT{, OF q4, Y -r d fl Y y, SSq CFH Ilse TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS Petition #: 127-88 DECISION RECEIVED DANIEL L.ORG TOWN rf_"r.it% NORTH ,�twOVER MAY z q Qo f 'aa The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on April 12, 1988 and a Special meeting on April 26, 1988 on the application of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton re- questing a Special Permit from the requirements of Seciton 4, Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw so as to permit relief of use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F, Flagship Drive. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, William Sullivan and Raymond Vivenzio. The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on March 24, 1988 and March 31, 1988 and all abutters were notified by regular mail. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit as requested. The Board requires that Table 3 be adhered to and that consistancy be maintained as in Petition #: 24-82, Edward & Nancy Condon/Robert and Monique Goodrich, dated July 12, 1982, and Civil Action No. 82-12223 heard at the Superior Court House in Peabody on July 19, 1982. The'Board finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.3 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this Special Permit would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws. Dated this 29th day of April, 1988. BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman /awt LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCEFRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M.MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M.KORMAN KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 November 16, 1988 BY HAND Ms. Nancy Turck Foley, Clerk Appeals Court, 15th Floor New Court House Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust v. Gordon Hall III. et als. Appeals Court No. 88-P-928 Dear Ms. Foley: (617) 451-0750 Enclosed for filing please find fifteen copies of Appellants' Brief and Appendix in the above -captioned case. Thank you for your attention in this matter. JMO/myj Enclosure cc: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Selectmen Board of Appeals Very truly yours, e ane M. O'Malley 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jane M. O'Malley, do hereby certify that on November 16, 1988, I served two copies of the foregoing Brief and Appendix by causing a copy to be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Fitzgibbons, Slipp & Homsey 126A Pleasant Street Methuen, MA 01844 AW 1, L,, /111, 0 ne M. O'Malley �-7;V t ARDIFF & MORSE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59 DANVERS, MA 01923 (508) 774-7123 TELECOPIER (508) 774-7164 Mr. Daniel Long, Clerk Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 7: ,, n L. L OCT r it U ffLPH E. AROIFF.JR. ` EORGE E. MORSE :MALCOLM F. MACLEAN III ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR ALAN L�GRENIER ROBERT P. YEATON JOHN S.LEGASEY DAVID BAER ROBERT C.McCANN DENISE C. S. WOODRUFF MICHAEL P. MCCARRON PAUL R. SCHNEIDER October 19, 1988 JEAN CAREY DAVIS CARLA S. COX RICHARD S. KELLEY, JR. KATHLEEN P. DWYER GARY C. BUBB JEFFREY B.LOEB GEORGE A. HALL. JR. PHILIP B. POSNER NANCY A. S. ATTAYA LISA STERN TAYLOR MARSHALL G. NEELY III RE: Notice of Appeal under G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17: Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton, Applicants Dear Mr. Long: Notice is hereby given that Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton have filed an appeal from the September 29, 1988 decision of the North Andover Planning Board denying their application for a special permit in the form of site plan approval. Said appeal has been taken to the Land Court. A true copy of the Complaint, with a certified copy of the decision appealed from, is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. GORDON HALL, III and DAVID J. BERTON By their attorney, George Hall, Esq./.- ARDIFF V MORSE, P.C: 10 Elm Street Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 (508) 774-7123 RECE1:%e 1H D TG'f!A i' VO;` i .1 .'.,iii-Ijy .1\ 1201f/0026f 101888afm OCT 19 12 , i P,14 f COMMONWEALTH O M SACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. GORDON HALL, III and DAVID J. BERTON, Plaintiffs v. PAUL A. HEDSTROM, GEORGE PERNA, JOHN SIMONS, ERICK NITZCHE and MICHAEL LEARY as they are the PLANNING BOARD for the TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, and the TOWN OF 14ORTH ANDOVER, Defendants INTRODUCTION LAND COURT DEPARTMENT MISC. CASE NO. COMPLAINT AND APPEAL UNDER G.L. CHAPTER 40A SECTION 17 1. This is an appeal from the September 28, 1988 decision of the defendant North Andover Planning Board to deny the plaintiffs' application for a special permit in the form of site plan approval for an industrial building to be located on Flagship Drive, an industrially zoned area in North Andover. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action is expressly conferred upon the Land Court by G.L. chapter 40A, section 17. PARTIES 3. The plaintiffs, Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton, reside at 3 Glover Square, Marblehead, MA and 145 State ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P O. BOX 59 DANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 774-7123 ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59 DANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 7747123 Street, Newburyport, MA, respectively. They are the prospective purchasers of the property known as Lot F, Flagship Drive, North Andover. 4. The defendants, whose names and addresses are listed in full below in accordance with the requirements of G.L. chapter 40A, section 17, are the members of the North Andover Planning Board: Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman 30 Oaxes Drive North Andover, MA 01845 George Perna, Vice Chairman. 280 Farnum Street North Andover, MA 01845 John Simons, Clerk 25 Ironwood Road North Andover, MA 01845 Erick Nitzche 1253 Salem Street North Andover, MA 01845 Michael Leary 57 Essex Street North Andover, MA 01845 Under Section 8.3 of the North Andover Zoning By-law, the Planning Board is the special permit granting authority for site plan approval. 5. The Town of North Andover is a municipal corporation located in Essex County with its principal place of business at 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845. 12Oif/0026f 101888afm -2- ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. 0. BOX 59 DANVERS. MASS, 01923 TEL. 1617) 7747123 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. On October 19, 1987, the plaintiffs entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of the property known as Lot F, Flagship Drive, North Andover (hereinafter "the property"). The property consists of approximately 4.06 acres of vacant land, located predominantly in the Industrial 1 Zoning District as defined by the North Andover Zoning By-law. A small portion of the property, located in the rear, lies within the Residence II Zoning District. 7. The North Andover Zoning By-law requires that buildings to be constructed within the Industrial 1 Zoning District be located 100 feet from adjacent residential zoning districts, and that the first 50 feet of the setback adjacent to the residential district be open and green, landscaped, unpaved and unbuilt upon. 8. On November 24, 1987, Jerry A. Goldlust, the owner of the property, sought a ruling from the Building Inspector that the above -referenced setback requirements should be measured from the property line and not from the zoning oistrict boundary line which lies over 100 feet inside the property. 9. On November 24, 1987, the North Andover Building Inspector, Daniel McConaghy, indicated in writing that he agreed with Mr. Goldlust's interpretation of the setback requirement. However, by letter dated December 4, 1987 and -3- 1201f/0026f 101888afm ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59 DANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 774-7123 signed by Bruce H. Clark, the Assistant Building Inspector, the Building Department_ reversed itself, stating that any building located within 100 feet of the zoning district line would require a special permit under Section 4.11(3) of the North Andover Zoning By-law, which provides for the extension of permitted uses 100 feet into adjacent zoning districts. 10. In March 1988, the plaintiffs, acting in accordance with the position -of the Building Department as set forth in its December 4, 1988 letter, applied to the Board of Appeals for a special permit under Section 4.11(3) of the North Andover Zoning By-law to construct a two-story industrial building within 100 feet of the zoning district line. 11. On April 7, 1988, the plaintiffs filed an application to the Planning Board for a special permit under Section 8.3 of the Zoning By-law (which provides for site plan approval) for the same proposal. The site plan proposed a two-story building with a "footprint" of approximately 31,320 square feet, or less than 18 percent of the lot area, with approximately 62,640 square feet of gross floor area. 12. On or about April 26, 1988, the Board of Appeals voted to deny the plaintiffs' special permit application. On April 29, 1988, the plaintiffs sought leave from the Planning Board to withdraw the site plan application without prejudice. Said request was granted. 12Oif/0026f 101888afm -4- 0 13. Subsequent to the issuance of the Board of Appeals' decision,.Jerry A. Goldlust filed duly an appeal with the Essex County Superior Court (Civil Action No. 88-1312) seeking annulment of the Planning Board's decision, or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that the Building Department's interpretation of the Zoning By-law as set forth in its December 4, 1987 letter was erroneous as a matter of law. 14. On May 9, 1988, the plaintiffs filed a new application for site plan approval for a scaled-down version of the building earlier proposed, which would conform to the 100 -foot setback requirement as interpreted by the Building Department and the Board of Appeals. The site plan proposed a building with a "footprint" of 23,220 square feet, or thirteen (13) percent of the lot area, and a gross floor area of 46,400. square feet. 15. On May 17, 1988, the Planning Board held a public nearing on the plaintiffs' site plan application. At that time, a member of the North Andover Planning Department staff appeared and informed the Planning Board that the plaintiffs, had not conformed to the submittal requirements for site plan approval as set forth in the Planning Board's regulations promulgated between April 7, 1988 and May 9, 1988. A majority of the Planning Board then indicated that they were disinclined to continue the public hearing, and that unless the plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw without prejudice, they would be ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. 0. BOX 59 OANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 774-7123 12Oif/0026f 1U1888afm ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59 OANVERS. MASS, 01923 TEL. (617) 774-7123 inclined to vote to deny the application. The plaintiffs sought, and were granted, leave to withdraw the application without prejudice. 16. On or about June 13, 1988, the plaintiffs refiled their site plan application. On or before that date, the plaintiffs' engineer and attorney met with the Planning Department staff to ensure that ail of the submittal requirements for site plan approval had been met. 17. On June 30, 1988, the Planning Board held a public nearing on the plaintiffs' site plan application as refiled. The nearing was continued to July 21, 1988 and then to August 4, 1988 at the plaintiffs' request. 18. During the course of the public hearing, members of the Planning Board and/or representatives of other Town departments recommended that the plaintiffs be required to contribute money toward the installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Drive and Route 114, and that the plaintiffs be required to construct an eight inch water main between Flagship and Marion Drives (a distance of about 750 feet) as a condition of site plan approval. The plaintiffs agreed to pay a "proportionate" share of the cost of a traffic signal, to provide an easement for the water main along the length of the property, and to construct approximately 350 feet of the water main. 12Oif/0026f 101888afm ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59 DANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 7747123 19. Before the close of the public hearing, a member of the Planning Department staff appeared and stated that the plaintiffs had adequately complied with the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations and that the staff had sufficient information with which to draft a conditional approval. No further information was requested by the Planning Board from the plaintiffs. 20. On September 29, 1988, the North Andover Planning Board filed with the Town Clerk a written decision denying the plaintiffs' application for site plan approval. A certified copy of that decision, setting forth the reasons for denial, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. rnrriorn nian 21. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint are reaileged as if fully set forth herein. 22. Section 8.31 of the North Andover Zoning By-law requires that any building or any building addition to be constructed in the Industrial I zoning district which contains more.than 2,000 square feet of gross floor area must receive a special permit from the Planning Board in the form of site plan approval under Section 8.3. 23. The above -referenced requirement effectively subjects every use in the Industrial 1 Zoning District to a special permit requirement, because, given the cost of industrially -zoned property, and the minimum lot size 12Oif/0026f 101888afm -/- ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. 0. BOX S9 DANVERS. MASS. 01923 TEL. (617) 774-7123 requirement of 80,000 square feet, it would be economically unfeasible to construct a building small enough to evade the requirement. 24. The above -referenced requirement is an unlawful exercise of the zoning power under G.L. chapter 40A, sections 4 and 9. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: A. Declare that Section 8.3 of the North Andover Zoning By-law is invalid; B. Annul the decision of the Planning Board; and C. Award such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. nnrrw�m mr+� 25. Paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint are realleged as if fully set forth herein. 26. The September 29, 1988 decision of the Planning Board was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse.of discretion, and in excess of its legal authority. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: A. Annul the decision of the Planning Board; B. Order the Planning Board to issue a special permit approving the proposed project subject to reasonable conditions; and 12Oif/0026f 101888afm i ARDIFF & MORSE LAW OFFICES 10 ELM STREET P. O. BOX 59�, 3ANVERS. MASS. 01923II TEL. (617) 7747123 C. Award such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. GORDON HALL, III and DAVID J. BERTON George A. Hall, Esq. ARDIFF & MORSE, P.C. 10 Elm Street Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 Dated: October 19, 1988 (508) 774-7123 12Oif/0026f 101888afm EXHIBIT A MUM MH TOWN OF NORTIL ANDOVER MASSACILUS13TTS Any appeal shall be filed within (20) days after the date of filing of this Notice in the Office of the Town Clerk. NOTICE OF DECISION • RECEIVED ' DANIEL LONG TOWN Ct.F.1m AOR1 ti hj=VER SEP Z9 9.23 ATTEST; A True Copy Town Clerk Date.Seft i ber.28.. 1988......,. Date of Ilcaring ..40..tp.mber 22, 1983 ........... Petition of ,Gordon .Hall. !II .and. David. J. Berton ........... . ........... . . .... . . ... ... ..... . Premises affected , , , , , , Lot .F, Flagship. Drive. , ... . ...... Referring to the above petition for a special permit from the requirements of the ......Audoviex..2ouizig. kiylaw,. S.ection..8-1. i Raview). so as to permit ........ building. ..................................................................... After a public hearing given on the above date, the Planning Board voted to . PKLiX ..........the PIA9 .Pev:i'ew.................................... cc: Director of Public 6Jorns Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Tree Warden Building Inspector Board of Health Assessors Conservation Commission Police Chief Fire Chief Applicant, Engineer File, interested Paries bused upon the following conditions: Signed Paul. George. Perna,. Vice -Chairrlan. . John Simons, Clerk ................................ Erich Nitzsche ................................ i•14chael Leary OFFICES OP: APPEALS NORiH ro ...o ., �'y0 n ; Town of NORTH A 120 Main Street Nc>rlh Aiidover, .: A�,e�` �O�NILC RK ti,.,SSWI,1 IS( Its 1845 CONSERVATION 011,0"rR (6I7)685477i HEAL] H NORTH PLANNING PLANNING & CONIMUNITY UEVI' t)PNIENT Z9 9 23 M1 W-I�p KAIN I I.P.iPN :.SON, I )IRI:C Olt September 27, 1988 Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Lot F Flagship Drive Site Plan Review through the Special Permit Process Dear Mr. Long: The North Andover Planning Board held a public hearing on June 30, 1988 in the Town Hall, Selectmen's Meeting Room, upon the application of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton, 145 State Street, Newburyport, 14A. The hearing was duly advertised in the Lawrence Eagel Tribune on June 15 and June 23, 1988. The following members were present: George Perna, Vice -Chairman; Michael Leary and Erich Nitzscihe. John Simons, Clerk, arrived at 7:56 p.m., Paul Hedstrom, Chairman, arrived at 8:15 p.m. The petitioners seek a Special Permit under Section 8.3 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to review the proposal to construct a 46,440 sq.ft., two story building on 176,953 sq.ft. of land on the south side of Flagship Drive, Lot F, in an Industrial -1 and Residentail-2 Zoning District. John Simons read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Letters were received and read from the Police Department, Board of Health, Fire Department and Ardiff & I4loore. David Berton, Gordon Hall and Peter Richardson were present. Peter Richardson, of Richard F. Kaminski & Associates gave a brief presentation citing the following: 1. Proposing 16 units for industrial condo's, two stories 2. Municipal sewer & water 3. Drainage calculations for 2, 10, 25 and 100 year storm event submitted 4. Located in an I -i Zoning District 5. Large amount of excavation from the site Peter Richardson went over concerns that the Planner had with respect to the site plan review. 1. Height of the retaining wall 2. Landscaping along the zoning 3. Landscaping for parking lot 4. Directory sign to be setback 5. Stabilzing the retention area 6. Utilities -placed underground 7. All aisleway shall be 25' 8. Loading docks area to require 9. Screening the dumpster area not to be over 6'. line 10' from right-of-way two point turnout Page 2. 10. Show entrance to structure including laoding docks 11. Supply building elevations (front & side) 12. Additional screen along front of structure 13. Additional parking required per new bylaw Scott Stocking asked mill Hmuricak if he had anything to add. Bill stated that the sewer design goes to a non -existing main sewer. Bill said it would have to be redesigned. He also stated that there was a 40' right-of-way that exist from Marian Drive to the property line. He would like to see the connection, extending the water main, not looping it. He stated that he would like to see an erosion control plan and a construction schedule that will mitigate the impact of erosion on the site. John Grover, an abutter, had concerns with the elevation and asked if shielding could be done with tall trees. Joan Grover, abutter, questioned DAvid Berton on the plans changing due to a law suit. David Berton stated that it was up to the person doing the suing. A motion was made by John Simons to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement. Paul Hedstrom suggested that in light of questions that still remain to be addressed that the hearing remain open. John Simons ar;iended his motion to continue the public hearing until July 21, 1988. The motion was seconded by Michael Leary and was voted unanimously by the Board. On July 21, 1988 the Planning Board held a meeting. The following members were present: Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. George Perna, Vice -Chairman was absent. A letter was received from the applciants asking for an extension until August 4, 1988. A motion was made by John Simons to accept an extension from the applicants. Erich Nitzsche seconded the motion and the Board vote unanimously to accept the extension. On August 4, 1988 the Planning Board held a meeting. The following members were present: George Perna, Vice -Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom, Chairman, was absent. John Simons read a letter that was received from the D.P.W. Peter Richardson showed the Board members the changes that were made from their comments from the previous public hearing. John Simons questioned if the screening was complying with Section 8.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. Erich Nitzsche spoke on the easement through the property and the water main stopping at the top of the hill. Erich Nitzsche made a motion to close the public hearing and directed the Planner to draft a decision. The motion was seconded by Michael Leary and the Board voted unanimously on the motion. On August 18, 1988 the Planning Board Yield a meeting. The following members were present: George Perna, Vice -Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Chairman, Paul Hedstrom arrived at 8:40 p.m. A • Page 3: Scott Stocking, Town Planner presented the Board with a draft decision. After a brief discussion Michael Leary made a motion to have the decision voted on at the September 8, 1983 meeting. The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche anal the Board voted unanimously. On September 13, 1988 the Planning Board held a meeting. The September 8th meeting was canceled due to the lack of a quorum. The following members were present: Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; George Perna, Vice -Chairman; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. John Simons, Clerk, arrived at 8:15 p.m. Following a lengthy discussion John Simons and Paul Hedstrom agreed to work on the decision and have it ready for September 22, 1988. On ... September 22, 1988 the Planning Board held a meeting. The following members were present: Paul Hedstrom, Chairman; George Perna, Vice -Chairman; John Simons, Clerk; Erich Nitzsche and Michael Leary. Paul Hedstrom turned the chair over to Vice -Chairman, George Perna. Paul Hedstrom suggested that the Board deny the special permit because there was insufficient detail protecting the roadway during the construction period because of the large volume of trucks. The estimated amount of material to be removed from the site is 40,000 cubic yards. A motion was made by Paul Hedstrom to deny the application because the plan does not show proper screening, signal light at Willow Street and Route 114, when will it occur, additional information need on the amount of -trucks and the amount of material being removed from the site, security measures to be used during the excavation and fact that the Board understands that in excess of 40,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site. The motion was seconded by Erich Nitzsche and the Board voted unanimously to deny the application. cc: Director of Public Works Board of Public Works Highway Surveyor Tree Warden Building Inspector Board of Health Assessors Conservation Commission Police Chief Fire Chief Applicant Engineer, File Interested Parties Sincerely, NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD /°&" a. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman Lot F Flagship Drive Denial Spacial Permit - Site Plan The Planning Board makes the fol lowinc) t Lrriiiin17) reaardi.nq thi appl.icatinn for z Special I'F,r colt; 7s 1 :.,r_1r,ir-r:ri un(12r- SFctinn 10.;31 of the C'_oning Bylaw: A. The Heard from thr-, i vii orm,i'; irarlr_ hrn: t. tc-?cf `rarinnt determine that the specific 3itF' Ir an 3[:1(',i' nil"r-11- lo•ratirn fol- Such a Ll . structure, or r':ond is l ]rl; B the Board cannot: determine fr-rm th= informatinn before us that: the use as develoncr.J or cor.ditiollr-d a:ill not adverseiv affect the surrounding neighbcrhooc:; C. The Board cannot; determine frcfn the information before us that there will be no nuisance or 3erious> hazard to vehicles or ped est.rai nom; D. Adequate and appropriate frac i ! i t; i rs viere not shown or provided for the proper opel-cat ion olf t! -e oropo_ed use-, E. The Special Permit application bofnrC- U�-is not in har(nony with the general purpose and intent of this; Pylaw and will not provide for a sufficient degree of public safety during the construction of the facility. The Planning Doard make=, the findings as rewired under- Section 8.35 that the site plan roes not comply with Tot -:n BylalT requirements but still requires addil1ic31-1at information t�, he submitted with come.;pondinq conditions to fully comply with the purcr),:es and intent of the 2-'oni.nq law. The Board makes the dry t;e+-mi lat _oi, . _ i tod ra!Dove by reaching the following finding- in fact: 1. The land=,,ape plr.r-1 d. -;,_.s riot tri= requirements of Section of the Ening Ly lal•j. - a. E 1']ht: �C) iCJCi7 t:i(ji'a�. Ill-trtb` ':..'jr y F1 rF'S are r-equit'ed Irl under to coliform wi t;11 �;c=r:i.iu;'l (R cif the Lori incl Bylaw (%'C' h. IhF? lir,7rd fiIJ that i:In -c.n,;.-,)./r:;T:eI-,t'. r�'f T} ]r?lE' r:. I::r (l f; f-,r)',P 1. are not met t;)r� :U1 Llr'!0V' i! Ci(addltl(1na1 1andScdping m tel -ials t-dhirn ':n!"(r` a sa11d y'ecaI- r n u n d scrE?E'li at least +' hi(7h i - needed. r_ Th!= = J t? p 1 �n i ?(_: :r� ci ni; vr? i [`• .',r?tE=5 tile area South cf the 1 1 T"; (i a l':. - .-tui Ded as reg11:1-ed by '::he r_'"=1'Ij[l!: t:'Jl3vi cot-,ta 11c;' )ti 'h 1 -,al aF ''r of ttiC? 1 I. Ci ] 1- r T; d ,_i f el=t 7bovP h ir_IhecSa_A- I,t'r_'' .fill -.'i'_rd tri F? i71_ll id iiia Thlf Ulr: i t-, to Lr--� [ •_; I_ ._ t •j' a r 1 r J 1" C1 r', d t'J r:i V '-:. . J I t}lam `r.; ' c.ca:�E'm(a1-1 u � l.' I `..t1(.:' l'1�3 �_f-,1- i i i' , hr" ill 711 t.f.-'l) ..O 1,~',.� � C.11li'. pr lOP" i;0 t 1 1 i;`tQ t:ila _Itc.` 'I i;r.. 1, !, 1] 1;1' t!E' flt•g i `.�ti y o Pe='tic=. r1,lS not bC---_'1 r I'Cly iGC'?d ).(] :he f cri 'j /V G:0 3J, ! 1 t h 3 -3 F- I d t I n v i d r' n!-- e t t h i 7, H r egard i nQ the t i (TI e t a h e for" 'hp traffic I i f. 1, t t h -a W' i t r L -j '-S t r (:--, e I II --r-tion the [Ir.-) r ri f n rr7 t h C, t t t I i s: i n t (? r 5 e c I C) n 15 e t - F-;-' c7 d n u e r o tj s In 1tS C I- I I- T 1-1 c: o nd i t I o r 3 n d find t ci t -.i c! d i- i -i ;i a c _i (n r) n t of add i t i t i -o, f F i c: to this i n t c _ i - e -. : ?, C? I-, i c ir ther j nq or b e -, r- f i r. - t h t- h . t:,a c t y --i de., t t h e c o m mt L n - t y 5. T t i e- amr! icant has- f,71 I I Ed to information reaard I TIQ F-�' t, 0 t c3 1 a (r, o t -i n t of mater i .I I to b P � c. -3 ,a t e d in order to cons t'ruct this aci litv. the amr,-jnt nt f. T : 2 1 t, D f f i C 'I CrIP-T- at P- d to r Pmr, ', F:, t h i f n --A t c--, r i Fi I h i? f7 i n a 1 c! E-, t vi.- i r.-) n of t h i 7. ma t e r 1 a 1 and M-.vj I arQe trUC'-- VJi 1 1 s a f P y t h F- W 1 1 ow 5 t r Ee t / Rc u t e 1 14, i n t e!- sec t i. on t r-) I eav, 1Iie 1 1 1 di k i• -A L F3 r k Ifll:3 ✓o a r -,-j n i t c: a- 1 c: L; t ';lc:. rj r T-: 1 t r a f, -r C e S rT) aDpro,-, i rTI a t E-? i V trilCl` 10-343 of ff)ager ial must be remo,..�?d fr,)zn the site and utilize t h (m- 1I 1 1 .1 o,.., i Fp e t /R o Li t p- 1141 intersection. Thc= Soard find: this -if:uatto- i= rot furthering or be TI L-- f i t t - nq the public health, safety and (.,e-!ieral welfare of the COrmntrli t-,' . The following plans shai I be dep-med i3ar C.,F this disci -,ton: Plans prepared h-,/ Pi! --hard F. i:,a(nin7,i.1 !l SF;C=idte5 Entitled: "North Pridover Fjusinp-sF Center" Dated 2/19/88 and 11/4/019 revise_rJ o;-1 and 7/29/138 ;!,(I O`th�? structure not. titled cw Shepts 1,2,3.4.5 -3nd perspec:tIve djr numbered which sho,-,; view 1-2. 31-)--i '--q a Mid,-7caped plan , ure-nar-d by: HKDA Associates entitled N.O. Center. dated 5/24/U9.. sheef:s L --i and L-2. LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M. MATTHEWS EVERETT J.MARDER JANE M. O'MALLEY KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M. KORMAN ANNE -MARIE M. HYLAND KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Board of Appeals Town of North Andover North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 October 6, 1988 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust v. Gordon Hall III et al Dear Members of the Board: (617) 451-0750 Please be advised that the Appeals Court has granted our motion to enlarge the time in which to file a brief in the above - captioned case to November 1, 1988. Due to the delay in receiving notice from the town authorizing the appeal, we requested the extension to insure that we have sufficient time to properly prepare our brief. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Jo B. Bard JBB/JMO/myj cc: Board of Selectmen LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE JOEL B. BARD RICHARD J. FALLON GEORGE M. MATTHEWS JAMES A. DYREK EVERETT J. MARDER JANE M. O'MALLEY KAREN V. KELLY COLLEEN B. WALKER SONDRA M. KORMAN ANNE -MARIE M. HYLAND RICHARD BOWEN CHERYL ANN BANKS KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Zoning Board of Appeals North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 September 28, 1989 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust v. Zoning Board of Appeals of North Andover Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (617) 451-0750 FAX 451-1863 I am very pleased to inform you that the Supreme Judicial Court has denied plaintiff's Motion for Further Appellate Review in the above case. As you may recall, the Appeals Court found in favor of the Town when it reversed the Superior Court and upheld the Town's interpretation of yard setback requirements for lots in both residential and industrial districts. The Court's denial means that Mr. Goldlust has exhausted all of his appeals and this matter is finally resolved in the Town's favor. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Jane M. O'Malley JMO/myj cc: Board of Selectmen IL v911,(V'� 9 KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET So ; v J 16 tis LEONARD KOPELMAN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110;1\ DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE s ." °. 1, (617) 451-0750 JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO` t� A, _ t { f.M1.^\�� t1 A"ti JOEL B. BARD EIN JOEL A.1•, . l�(. RICHARD J. J. FAL FALCONON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE D ��\��a GEORGE M.MATTHEWS 1 EVERETT J. MARDER 2, KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L GALLOGLY 8 SONDRA M. KORMAN September 23 9$$ Mr. Paul Sharon, Town Manager North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon Hall, III, et al Dear Mr. Sharon: This is to report to you the substance of my conversation with Scott Stocking, Town Planner, and to confirm my under- standing of the ',Town's position with respect to pursuing an appeal in the above matter. Mr. Stocking informed me that the Board of Appeals (and the Planning Department) wants Town Counsel to pursue this appeal. Since you told me to follow his instructions in this matter, I will resume our efforts in this appeal. The next step is to prepare an Appeals Court brief by October 11, 1988. You relayed to me the substance of Board of Selectmen's general discussion of appeals and the role of Town Counsel. Leonard Kopelman has asked me to reiterate that the policy of Kopelman and Paige is never to pursue any litigation without authorization from the Board of Selectmen. If someone appeals the grant of a variance or permit, our firm's practice is to devote as little time as possible to the case and to let the variance/permit recipient defend himself. We generally enter an appearance on behalf of the board being sued, but we do not aggressively defend the permit unless so instructed by the Selectmen. The Goldlust case is a different situation. The Board of Appeals denied a special permit and the applicant has challenged the Town's interpretation of its Zoning By Law. KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P. C. Mr. Paul Sharon, Town Manager Page 2 September 23, 1988 Do not hesitate to contact me or Leonard if you have any questions on this subject. Very truly yours, Jo 1 B. Bard JBB/meg cc: Board of Selectmen Yw LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M. MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L GALLOGLY SONORA M. KORMAN • 4P KoPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Mr. Paul Sharon, TO ., Mf*"= Cr y North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon HALL, III, ET AL Dear Mr. Sharon: August 31, 1988 (617) 451-0750 I have received a copy of the Board of Appeals' August 26 letter to you requesting that an appeal be pursued in the above matter. I am writing to inform you and the Board of Selectmen of the current status of this suit. On August 3, 1988, we filed an appeal of the Superior Court decision. Our action was taken at your request as the deadline for the appeal was approaching. Most recently, on August 29, the last possible day, we kept the appeal alive by docketing the case with the state Appeals Court. This action triggers a deadline for the filing of a brief. We have been informed that the brief is due October 11, 1988. I understand that the Board of Selectmen will soon act on the request of the Board of Appeals that this appeal be pursued. We will await the decision of the Board of Selectmen before preparing our brief. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions in this matter. JBB/meg cc: Board of Appeals Very truly yours, _ 1 Sb,y4 B. Bard LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W, GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M.MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M.KORMAN T KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 August 29, 1988 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Nancy Turck Foley, Clerk Appeals Court 15th Floor New Court House Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordan Hall, III, et als. Essex C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Ms. Foley: (617) 451.0750 On behalf of the North Andover Board of Appeals, enclosed is a check for $150.00 to enter the above case in the Appeals Court. Kindly enter this appeal upon the docket. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Joel B. Bard JBB/meg Enclosure cc: Board of Selectmen Board of Appeals o NOItTh\ TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS August 26, 1988 Mr. Paul Sharon Town Manager North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Jerry A. Goldlust VS: Gordon Hall, III, et al.C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Mr. Sharon: The Board of Appeals held a Special meeting on Monday evening, August 22, 1988 regarding the above subject matter. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson the Board voted, unanimously, that this matter be referred to the Board of Selectmen with the request that it be sent to Town Counsel for appeal. /awt cc: Kopelman & Paige, P.C. Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Selectmen Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS William Sullivan Acting Chairman TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS August 26, 1988 Mr. Paul Sharon Town Manager North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Jerry A. Goldlust VS: Gordon Hall, III, et al.C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Mr. Sharon: The Board of Appeals held a Special meeting on Monday evening, August 22, 1988 regarding the above subject matter. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Nickerson the Board voted, unanimously, that this matter be referred to the Board of Selectmen with the request that it be sent to Town Counsel for appeal. /awt cc: Kopelman & Paige, P.C. Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Selectmen Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS William SullivanCO Acting Chairman LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCEFRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M.MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M.KORMAN Clerk, Civil Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 KOPELMAN AND PAIGE. P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon Hall, III, et al. C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Sir/Madam: 0 August '5.1-,-1,7`988 (617) 451-0750 Enclosed for filing in the above matter is this firm's Notice of Appearance and predecessor counsel's Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance. Kindly file same. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Joel B. Bard JBB/meg Enclosure cc: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Appeals Town Manager Board of Selectmen COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT C.A. NO. 88-589 JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE GORDON HALL, III, et als, ) Defendants ) Please enter my appearance on behalf of the defendants, Gordon Hall, III, et als. Leona d Kopelman Joel. Bard Kopelman and Paige, P.C. 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 451-0750 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joel B. Bard, hereby certify that on the below date, I served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance, by mailing a copy, first class mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Fitzgibbons, Slipp & Homsey 316 Essex Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Jod.l . Bard DATED: , _S COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 88-1312 JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) GORDON HALL, III, et als, ) Defendants ) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE To the Clerk: Please enter the withdrawal of our appearance as attornies for the Defendant, Gordon Hall, III et als. The appearance of successor counsel is filed herewith. No motions are now pending in this action and no trial date has been set. I certify that I have served notice of said withdrawal on my clients annd on all other parties in the manner provided in Rule 5(b). August 1, 1988 a t�l 1 ff 1. Peter G. Shaheen, Town Counsel Domenic J. Balis, Town Counsel * Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 i We, Peter G. Shaheen and Domenic J. Scalise certify that we have mailed a copy of the attached Notice of f Withdrawal of Appearance to Plaintiff's attorney of record Joseph Fitzgibbons of 126A Pleasant Valley Street, Methuen, l: MA 01844 and to our clients, the Town of North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Building Inspector, Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 postage prepaid, first class mail, this first day of August 1988. i ,Pete -'G. Shaheen, Town Counsel i Domenic J. S'�Yalise Town Counsel , f i jI i I LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M. MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L GALLOGLY SONDRA M.KORMAN Clerk, Civil Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Re:. Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon Hall, III, et al. C.A. No. 88-1312 Dear Sir/Madam: August 5, 1988 (61 7) 451-0750 Enclosed for filing in the above matter is this firm's Notice of Appearance and predecessor counsel's Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance. Kindly file same. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Joel B. Bard JBB/meg Enclosure cc: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Appeals Town Manager Board of Selectmen 13 j COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT C. -A. NO. 88-589 JERRY A. GOLDLUST, Plaintiff , V. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE GORDON HALL, III, et als, Defendants Please enter my appearance on behalf of the defendants, Gordon Hall, III, et als. -1 7 ,r zz Leo a d Kopelman Joel Bard Kopelman and Paige, P.C. 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 451-0750 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joel B. Bard, hereby certify that on the below date, I served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance, by mailing a copy, first class mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: DATED: S� Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Fitzgibbons, Slipp & Homsey 316 Essex Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Jo ' . Bard COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 88-1312 JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) GORDON HALL, III, et als, ) Defendants ) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE To the Clerk Please enter the withdrawal of our appearance as attornies for the Defendant, Gordon Hall, III et als. The appearance of successor counsel is filed herewith. No notions are now pending in this action and no trial date has been set. I certify that I have served notice of said withdrawal on my clients annd on all other parties in the manner provided in Rule 5(b). August 1, 1988 s t i 1 Pe r G. Shaheen, Town Counsel D©'menic J. alis, Town Counsel c U CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, Peter G. Shaheen and Domenic J. Scalise certify that we have mailed a copy of the attached Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance to Plaintiff's attorney of record Joseph Fitzgibbons of 126A Pleasant Valley Street, Methuen, MA 01844 and to our clients, the Town of North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Building Inspector, Dain Street, North Andover, MA 01845 postage prepaid, first class mail, this first day of August 1988. 'G. Shaheen, Town Counsel Ddmenic J. valise Town Counsel LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A. LANE JOYCE FRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M. MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L GALLOGLY SONDRA M. KORMAN KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Mr. Paul Sharon, Town Manager North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon Hall, III, et al. Dear Mr. Sharon: August 3, 1988 (617) 451-0750 Enclosed please find the Notice of Appeal filed in the above matter at your request. The appeal deadline is August 4. I understand that the Board of Appeals has not met since the Superior Court rendered its decision in this matter, but that the Board will be meeting soon to vote formally to pursue this appeal. There should be no need for us to take further action until the Board has acted. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions Very truly yours, Joel B. Bard JB B/meg Enclosure cc: Board of Appeals Board of Selectmen LEONARD KOPELMAN DONALD G. PAIGE ELIZABETH A LANE JOYCEFRANK JOHN W. GIORGIO JOEL B. BARD JOEL A. BERNSTEIN RICHARD J. FALLON BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE GEORGE M.MATTHEWS EVERETT J. MARDER KAREN V. KELLY DAVID L. GALLOGLY SONDRA M.KORMAN FEDERAL EXPRESS KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1000 77 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02110 Clerk, Civil Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Jerry A. Goldlust vs: Gordon Hall, III, et al. C.A. No. 88-1312 August 3, 1988 (617) 451-0750 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed for filing in the above matter is a Notice of Appeal. Kindly file same. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Joel B. Bard JBB/meg Enclosure cc: Joseph Fitzgibbons, Esq. Board of Appeals Town Manager COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 88-1312 } JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff ) V. } NOTICE OF APPEAL } GORDON HALL, III, et al., ) Defendants ) From the Judgment of this Court dated June 30, 1988 and entered July 5, 1988, the defendants, as they are te Board of Appeals of the Town of North Andover, hereby appeal. GORDON HALL, III, et al. By their Attorneys, i .._.KS i (r Leon d Kopelman' Jo B. Bard Kopelman and Paige, P.C. 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 451-0750 M r +f COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 88-1312 } JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff ) V. } NOTICE OF APPEAL } GORDON HALL, III, et al., ) Defendants ) From the Judgment of this Court dated June 30, 1988 and entered July 5, 1988, the defendants, as they are te Board of Appeals of the Town of North Andover, hereby appeal. GORDON HALL, III, et al. By their Attorneys, i .._.KS i (r Leon d Kopelman' Jo B. Bard Kopelman and Paige, P.C. 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 451-0750 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joel B. Bard, hereby certify that on August 3, 1988, I served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal, by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to: Joseph Fitzgibbons Fitzgibbons, Slipp & Homsey 316 Essex Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Joe B Bard f -j" S t DOMENIC J. SCALISE PETER C. SHAHEEN TOWN COUNSEL OFFICE OF TOWN COUNSEL 89 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 August 1, 1988 Gordon Hall, III and Members of the Board of Appeals Robert Necetta, Building Inspector Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Goldlust v. Gordon Hall, et als. No. 88-1312 Dear Members of the Board of Appeals and Building Inspector: (617)682-4153 (617)689-0800 Please be advised that this office no longer represents the Defendant Gordon Hall, et als. in the above referenced matter. Our term as town counsel terminated on June 30, 1988. The successor town counsel is Leonard Kopelman, Esq. of Kopelman & Paige 77 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. who can be reached at (617) 451-0750. Please forward any and all future correspondence to their office. Thank you for your attention to this matter. . Shaheen, Town Cousel t / D menic J.,,,JrCalise, Town Counsel PGS/DJS:srd r COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT NO. 88-1312 JERRY A. GOLDLUST, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) GORDON HALL, III, et als, ) Defendants ) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE To the Clerk: Please enter the withdrawal of our appearance as attornies for the Defendant, Gordon Hall, III et als. The appearance of successor counsel is filed herewith. No motions are now pending in this action and no trial date has been set. I certify that I have served notice of said withdrawal on my clients annd on all other parties in the manner provided in Rule 5(b). August 1, 1988 G. Shaheen, Town Counsel D menic J. alis, Town Counsel f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, Peter G. Shaheen and Domenic J. Scalise certify that we have mailed a copy of the attached Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance to Plaintiff's attorney of record Joseph Fitzgibbons of 126A Pleasant Valley Street, Methuen, MA 01844 and to our clients, the Town of North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Building Inspector, Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 postage prepaid, first class mail, this first day of August 1988. Or, --G. Shaheen, Town Counsel D menic J. S alise Town Counsel COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 88-1312 FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF BACKGROUND This case comes before the Court upon the plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff is seeking to annul the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals denial of its petition for a special permit. He is seeking a declaration of the manner in which a rear set back in the Town of North Andover is measured. FACTS The Zoning laws of the Town of North Andover regulating rear set back provisions are provided in footnote threer of table two, summary of dimensional requirements, "adjacent to residential districts the required side or rear set back shall be one hundred feet. The first fifty feet of such set back abutting the residential district shall remain open and green, be suitably landscaped, unbuilt upon, unpaved and not parked upon". Section 2.73 of the Town of North Andover By -Laws defines the "rear yard set back" as on "open space extending across the entire width of a lot on which the building stands". During November, 1984, the plaintiff corresponded with the North Andover building inspector pertaining to a site plan for proposed buildings on lot F1 (Flagship Drive in North Andover). The plan indicated that lot Fl was a split lot zoned partially for industrial use and partially for residential use. A zoning district boundary line crossed the lot creating a split zoned lot with the greater part within the designated industrial I zone and the lesser part within the designated residential II zone. JERRY A. GOLDLUST, Plaintiff VS GORDON HALL, III and DAVID J. `BERTON, and FRANK SERIO, JR., * AGUSTINE NICKERSON, WALTER SOULE, WILLIAM SULLIVAN, RAYMOND VEVENZIO, ALFRED FRIZELLE, ANNA O'CONNOR and LOUIS RISSIN as they are members of the Board of Appeals of the Town of North Andover, and ROBERT NECETTA, as he is Building Inspector of the Town of North Andover, Defendants *********************************** SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 88-1312 FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF BACKGROUND This case comes before the Court upon the plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff is seeking to annul the North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals denial of its petition for a special permit. He is seeking a declaration of the manner in which a rear set back in the Town of North Andover is measured. FACTS The Zoning laws of the Town of North Andover regulating rear set back provisions are provided in footnote threer of table two, summary of dimensional requirements, "adjacent to residential districts the required side or rear set back shall be one hundred feet. The first fifty feet of such set back abutting the residential district shall remain open and green, be suitably landscaped, unbuilt upon, unpaved and not parked upon". Section 2.73 of the Town of North Andover By -Laws defines the "rear yard set back" as on "open space extending across the entire width of a lot on which the building stands". During November, 1984, the plaintiff corresponded with the North Andover building inspector pertaining to a site plan for proposed buildings on lot F1 (Flagship Drive in North Andover). The plan indicated that lot Fl was a split lot zoned partially for industrial use and partially for residential use. A zoning district boundary line crossed the lot creating a split zoned lot with the greater part within the designated industrial I zone and the lesser part within the designated residential II zone. I,/ PAGE TWO 88-1312 The site plan called for two buildings to be built on the lot entirely within the industrial I zone. The rear set backs to the lot line would have one hundred thirty feet and one hundred eighteen feet respectively though -the set back included rearage within the residential II zone extending to the lot line. Originally the building inspector notified the plaintiff that the rear set back plans on the site plans complied with Zoning By -Laws. Within several weeks there was a change of -building inspectors and the successor building inspector changed the opinion of his office indicating the plans did not comply with the By -Laws. He expressed the opinion that a rear set back should be measured from the Zoning district boundary line rather than the lot line. His interpretation included a notice to the plaintiff that they should apply for a special permit from the Board of Appeals. The plaintiff had not actually filed an application for building permits with the building inspector and consequently did not appeal the opinion of the inspector to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Rather the plaintiff complied with the suggestion of the building inspector and filed for a special permit with the North Andover Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals rendered a decision on April 26, 1988 and gave notice of its decision to the plaintiff on April 29, 1988 dening the application for a special permit based upon the apparent concession by the plaintiff that he could not meet the set back requirements of the By -Laws. The plaintiff now asks this Court to grant Summary Judgment on his complaint arguing that the Boards reliance on the building inspectors interpretation of the By -Laws was erronous. DISCUSSION A rule 56 motion will be allowed when the record before the Court shows "that there is no genuine issue to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" Community National Bank vs. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553 (1976). Rule 56c also provides Summary Judgment when appro- priate maybe rendered against the moving party. This case is appropriate for Summary Judgment because there are no material issues of fact in dispute and the only issues before the Court are legal issues ---whether the Zoning Board of Appeals erred in rendering its decision based on the data before it. As to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application for special permit I find that the facts are undisputed. I find the plaintiffs arguments are without merit as the Board never had before it facts challenging the sufficiency of the rear set back requirement of the By -Law, I find and rule the Zoning Board of Appeals acted properly and within their discretion in denying the application for special permit. The plaintiff in effect appeared before the Board conceding the set back requirement of the By -Laws could not be met. The Board acted on this unchallenged premise and within its rights deciding against the plaintiff for the reason stated -failure to meet dimensional requirements. Summary Judgment is in order for the defendants affirming the decision denying the special permit. Apart from ordering Summary Judgment the Court directs the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to apply for building permits to the building inspector for permission to build the two buildings he seeks to construct. The plaintiff should also be given the right to appeal any denial of such permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PAGE THREE 88-1312 The Court in making this determination finds the building inspectors ultimate interpretation of the Zoning By -Law as to the method of measuring rear set backs was an error. The Court declares the correct manner of measuring the rear set back measurement is by measuring the distance from the back of the proposed buildings to the lot line and not the zoning boundary line. The Court in declaring this manner of measurement to be correct relies on the holding of Tembone vs. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 348 Mass. 539, 569 "the side yard requirements refer to the distance the building shall be set back from the lot line rather than the Zoning boundary line" and Tofias vs. Butler, 26 Mass. Appeals Court 89 at 95. Note the reference at page 95 to Ford City Inc. vs. Payson, 239 Atlantic 2nd, 167 (1968) permitting the use of a more restricted area to supply rear yard requirement for a building in the less restricted zone Which our Court found instructive. See also other cases cited. While Summary Judgment is to enter in this case.for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has leave , to proceed as suggested above. June 30, 1988 R6dertBanks Justic q �5�48 SF IS ,7)j���. � � ►0,,,, F s, / 4�L ,cr+ (6 ` Essex, ss. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Jerry A. Goldlust vs. Gordon Hall, III; at als SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( MASS. R. CIV. P. 5b) Superior Court No. 88-1312 This action came to be heard before the Court, Banks, J. pre- siding, upon the motion of the plaintiff Jerry A. Goldlust for summ- ary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5e, the parties having been heard, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. It is hereby Ordered that; the Court directs the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to apply for buinding permits to the building inspector for permission to build the two buildings he seeks to construct. The plaintiff should also be given the right to appeal any denial of such permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Court in making this determination finds the building inspec- tors ultimate interpretation of the Zoning By -Laws as to the method of measuring rear set backs was in error. The Court declares the correct manner of measuring the rear set back measurement is by measuring the distance from the back of the proposed buildings to the lot line and not the zoning boundary line. The Court in declaring this manner of measurement to be correct relies on the holding of Tembone vs. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, ,- 348 Mass. 539, 5bthe side and requirements refer to the distance the building shall be set back from the lot line rather than the Zoning boundary line",and Tofias vs. Butler, 26 Mass. Appeals Court 89 at 95. Note the reference at page 95 to Ford City Inc. vs. Payson, 239 Atlantic 2nd, 167 (1968) permitting the use of a more restricted area to supply rear yard requirement for a building in the less re- stricted zone, which our Court found instructive. See also other cases cited. While Summary Judgment is to enter in this case for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has leave to proceed as suggested above. The Clerk -Magistrate of the Court is directed to mail an attested copy of this judgment within thirty days from the date hereof, to the Town Clerk, Building Inspector, and Board of Appeals, respectively of the Town of North Andover. Dated at Peabody, Massachusetts, ASST CLERK this 5th day of July, 1988. Ass s anClerk A JOSEPH FITZGIBBONS PETER T. SLIPP KENNETH M. HOMSEY CHARLES F.PERRAULT (AOMITTEO MASS.. NH & MO AMYJ.DONAHUE � IOwIJ �UNS�� FITZGIBBONS, SLIPP &e HOMSEy ���� �61-)LUST If. ��►-� ljFi ATTORNEYS AT LAW ���AC1S►lrP �2• 126APLEASANTVALLEY STREET - METHUEN. MASSACHUSETTS 01844 TELEPHONE - �./ (617) 681.0666 v 2�`Q�g .tea y 20, 1988 North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Goldlust vs. Hall, III, et al Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find a copy of a Complaint filed this date with the Essex Superior Court. This suit is an Appeal pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Annotated, Chapter 40A, Section 17, from an April 29, 1988 Decision of the Board of Appeals in the Petition of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton, Petition No. 127-88. The Complaint also contains a prayer for Declaratory Relief. JF/lsk Enclosure Very truly yours, FITZGIBBONS, SLIPP & HOMSEY "`� -4an� DELIVERED IN HAND x(�� N r'c;f"n N =r r-{ Town Clerk-°) rn�� Town of North Andover - 120 Main Street m North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Goldlust vs. Hall, III, et al Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find a copy of a Complaint filed this date with the Essex Superior Court. This suit is an Appeal pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Annotated, Chapter 40A, Section 17, from an April 29, 1988 Decision of the Board of Appeals in the Petition of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton, Petition No. 127-88. The Complaint also contains a prayer for Declaratory Relief. JF/lsk Enclosure Very truly yours, FITZGIBBONS, SLIPP & HOMSEY TYPE OR USE BALL PONT M _ WM MASSA ESSEY, PLAINTIFF(S) JERRY A. GOLDLUST ATTORNEY(S) (Firm Name. Address,Td.) JOSEPH FITZGIBBONS, ESQ. 126A Pleasant Valley Street Weihuen, Massachusetts 01844 - DO t'- • r CHUSETTS TRIAL LO(�RT s, ; ����.,�,�� � CIVIL ACTION COVER sl�iT r ` „ ..ftPVdM_ CST DEPARTME ff. be O.d.dtl,..dt caipiey� -�:� �win� • �'�� �.3i � =GORDON HALL, III IBTAL3_ATTORwypq Olt" ; Fine an E In one box DNI►- 1. F01 Complaint " :..: J. F04 ` plat IM ❑ 4. a,`` ���� [32. F02 Removal to sup. CL GIM. x.104 ❑ L FDS Reactivated after PAM 11�Ilst �R, C]3. F03 Retransfar to Sup. CL C.23t, L102C from jt+dpmant/order plats. R. Cly. r sm Place an ® In one box only NATURE OF ACTION CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY `�, �����•R 3_''�LlANEOUE �� r ❑ A01 Servlcw labor and materials ❑ CM Land taking (entirtent domain) `❑ •Appeal from administrative per. ❑ A02 Goods sold and delivered 002 Zoning appeal. G.L a40A �. '• . -�a.L G.�OA , �� ❑ A03 Commercial paper ❑ CO3 Dispute concerting title ,' 0 EM Action against Commonwealth or ❑ A08 Sale or lease of real estate ❑ CD4 Foreclosure of enortgape fl- :. Mtrrtk:ipsltty. G.L eme ❑ A99 Other (specify) ❑ C99 Other (specify) D E04 Mcpayer VA G.L C.40 s.53 13 IN `CoMwrastkln of arbitration awards, TORT x° t * * .G.L czl *' [D 803 Motor vehicle negligence -personal EGUITABLE REMEDIES ❑ EX Massachusetts Antitrust Am �' w` G.L t.93 -„ "Specific injury/property damage ❑ D01 performance of Contract Appointment of ieceiwr C] B04 Other -negligence -personal Injury ❑ D02 Reach and apply. G.L C.214 '_❑ , k • x- s.3(6l•(9) '_ ' -' I'D Genent Contraetor'ssurety beard, ❑ B05 property damage�G,L Products liability C]006 Contribution or indemnification € r t�14g, ss29.29a .. 13E10 8ummaryyprocess appeal C B06 Malpractice-medlcal O D07 Imposition of trust .' . + 1. �_ ' ": Ell Workman's Compensation ❑ B07 Malpractice -other ❑ DOB Minority stockholder's suit ;� • '` :,�❑ E12',i.5ff 1 Claims Appeal �� .• (specify) ❑ D/0 Accounting + `t, . Y t,, -, D E1S Labor Dispute . ❑ BOB Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, s.2A ❑ D12 Dissolution of partnership . { •et Q E14 Chapter 1 — SDP ❑ B15 Defamation (libel -slander) ® D13 Declaratory judgment, G.L c.231A i its ,,61.Petition <> : ❑ EIS Abuse PNitio a ❑ B99 Other (specify) ❑ D99 Other (specify) . ❑ �Et6 Auto Surehsrgp Appeal it Ap. l �' _., . • - ; : ❑ E17 CMI Rights Act, G.L c.12, ss.11 H-1 IS THIS A JURY CASE? [3 YES M NO ❑ Ells (specify) ,.zi SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29. Requirement of statement as to money damages to prevent the transfer of civil actions to District or Municipal Court Departments. ., 1. Superior Court Rule 29, r_ as amended requires the statement of money damages on the reverse side be completed. 2. Failure to complete the statement, wKere appropriate, will result in transfer of this action (Superior Dort R _ � - • - , . - U F A OF RECORD DATE. 15/19/88 USE ONL DISPOSITION BY: A. Judgment Entered 1. Ne hdgmeat Emend DATE: ❑ 1. Before jury trial or non -jury hearing ` & Transferred to District Court DISP ENTERED C 2. During jury trial or non -jury hearing under G.L. c.231, s102C ❑ 3. After jury verdict . - " BY: ❑ 4. After court finding �" :-, ,4_.; DATE: ❑ L After post tyles urotbn Dispoattlsn dew CLERK'S OFFICE COPY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, SS: SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. Ty-/3/� JERRY A. GOLDLUST, Plaintiff VS. GORDON HALL, III and DAVID J. BERTON, and FRANK SERIO, JR., AUGUSTINE NICKERSON, WALTER SOULE, WILLIAM SULLIVAN, RAYMOND VIVENZIO, ALFRED FRIZELLE,, ANNA O'CONNOR and LOUIS RISSIN As They Are Members Of The Board Of Appeals Of The Town Of North Andover, and ROBERT NECETTA As He Is Building Inspector Of The Town Of North Andover, Defendants COMPLAINT 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of The Town of North Andover (hereinafter referred to as the Board of Appeals) pursuant to M.G.L.A., Chapter 40A, Section 17. Said decision (a copy of which is attached as "Exhibit A") is dated April 29, 1988 and was filed with the office of the Clerk of the Town of North Andover on May 2, 1988. Declaratory relief is also sought'in.this action. 2. The Plaintiff, Jerry A. Goldlust, is the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot F', Flagship Drive in North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as "Lot F"). 3. The Defendant, Gordon Hall, III, an original co -applicant to the Board of Appeals, resides at 145 State Street, Newburyport, Essex County, Massachusetts. 4. The. Defendant, David J. Berton, an original co -applicant to the Board of Appeals, resides at 145 State Street, Newburyport, Essex County, Massachusetts. 5. The Defendant, Frank Serio, Jr., is a member of the Board of Appeals, and resides at 250 Hillside Road, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 6. The Defendant, Augustine Nickerson, is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 100 Moody Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts.== 7.. The Defendant, Walter Soule, --is a member of -the Board of Appeals and resides at 70 Raleigh Tavern Lane, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 8. The Defendant, William Sullivan, is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 405 Salem Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 9. The Defendant, Raymond Vivenzio, is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 11 Appledore Lane, North Andover, Essex .County, Massachusetts. 10. The Defendant, Alfred Frizelle, is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 131 Appleton Street, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 11. The Defendant, Anna O'Connor,is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 88 Martin Avenue, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 12. The Defendant, Louis Rissin, is a member of the Board of Appeals and resides at 59 Blueberry Hill Lane, North Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts. 13. The Plaintiff has signed an Agreement for the sale of Lot F which is contingent upon the issuance of permits for the construction of two buildings on said lot. 14. A zoning district boundary line crosses the subject lot with the substantially greater part of the same within the - Industrial - 1 Zone and the lesser part within the Residential - 2 Zone. 15. The buildings as proposed would have one hundred and eighteen (118) foot and one hundred thirty (130) foot setbacks, respectively, and would be constructed entirely within the Industrially Zoned land. 16. The Building Inspector would not issue the building permits in question due to his stated belief that the rear setback from the proposed buildings should be measured from the zoning district boundary line rather than from the rear lot line. (See letter of Building Inspector attached as "Exhibit B"). 17. The Building Inspector's predecessor, on November 24, 1987 had agreed with the Plaintiff's interpretation as to the measurement of the rear setback required from the property line. (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto). 18. The Building InspectorFs belief is clearly erroneous in that according to Section 2.33 of the Town of North Andover Zoning By -Laws; the rear setback is calculated by -measuring the distance between "the rear of any building ... and the rear lot line of the lot on which such building stands". 19. As the result of the Building Inspector's decision and his directive to file for a special permit, Defendants Hall and Berton (the prospective buyers of Lot F) filed an application with the Board of Appeals for a special permit. under the provisions of Section 4.11(3) of the Zoning By Laws of the Town of North Andover, seeking to establish the 100 feet of residential land as the required buffer area for an industrial area. 20. Defendants/Applicants Hall and Berton demonstrated to the Board of Appeals that the site was an appropriate location for the proposed building, that the proposed use would neither adversely affect the neighborhood, nor constitute a nuisance, that the proposed facility was adequate and that the use was in harmony and compliance with the purpose and intent of the Town of North Andover By Laws. 21. The Board of Appeals denied the application, citing'a prior case as its basis for decision and the need for consistency with that prior case. The Board's reliance on the prior case as a basis of its decision is misplaced and in error. 22. The decision of the Board of Appeals renders a substantial portion of the subject lot valueless and significantly - diminishes the value of the lot as a whole, and is legally untenable. 23. The Board, in rendering its decision, exceeded its authority. 24. The Plaintiff will suffer from financial loss 'if he is required to comply with the erroneous interpretation of the Zoning By Laws as the buyer of the lot will not pay the agreed purchase price. 25. An actual and serious controversy has arisen between the Plaintiff and the various Defendants as to whether or not the 100 feet of rear yard setback is to be measured from the lot line or from the zoning line. 26. The Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that he and the named Defendants are all of the parties having or claiming any interest which might be affected by any declaratory ruling of the Court under these proceedings. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands: 1. That. .the Court -enter a judgment_ to annul the decision of the Board of Appeals. 2. That declaratory relief be granted determining that the 100 foot setback required by the Zoning By Laws is to be measured from the Plaintiff's lot line and not from the zoning line. 3. That the Court enter such further order and/or judgment as it deems just. JERRY A. GOLDLUST, Plaintiff 126A Pleasant Valley Street Methuen, MA 01844 Tel. No. (617).681-0666 Gordon Hall, III David J. Berton 145 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION RECEIVED DANIEL LONG TOWN CLERK NORTH ANDOVER- - HAT .-Z- 5-9 FF '88 Date ... April 29, 1988 ........................ Petition No ..... 12.7-88 .......... Date of Hearing.. Apr * il * 12, * 1988 ' ' * .Decision: "­�Lpril 26, 1988 Petition of..,Gordon Hall, IIZ and David J. Berton .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. ............. .. .. . . .. . Premises affected 49 t. F P. T41 9 s 4P. Ari7e ...... Referring to the above petition for a 4iWUfrPoemrm9et requirements of the . Section. 4,, ... . Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw .............................................................. 0 ........................... so as to permit - Tellgf. . of use ..and. ,toned, A:-2 ,as. the, xqqvj:r P-0. AQQ. f PPX. buffer. area for an industrial building .......................... ............................................................. After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to .UN.Y. the Special Permit . t .................................... Signed ) - C; . Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman . . .. .... ...... ... ... .................. .. . . .. Augustine Nickerson, Clerk ................... I ...................... Walter Soule ALTTZSTfl .................... William Sullivan' Raymond- Vlwenzio ............. Townalsrk.................................. Board of Appeals A AA1091 LONG` is , �,; IGWN CLERK ACRI AmoOVER t•c IS 0"N 3t a x of TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER dat the pf{roe � •;� ���.��. � .: �:��,. 1C1,� MASSACHUSETTS �' V. BOARD OF APPEALS - d a" 1t7k 7k 7t 7�**�'7k 7k 71C 7k*7k 7E 7k 7ti 7t if 9t****** 'k :.1 +� i '•' Gordon Hall, III & * Petition #: 127-88_ .1-4 David J. Berton i r 145 State Street * DECISION -'*# **** The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on April 12, 1988 and a Special.jmeeting on April 26, 1988 on the application of Gordon Hall, III and David J.;.'Berton re- questing a Special Permit from the requirements of Seciton 4, Paragraph'.,4.11(3)Mof the Zoning ByLaw so as to permit relief of use land. zoned R-2 as the,required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located.•at Lot.`' -F,„,`•_` 4. �'J Flagship Drive. The following members were present and voting: �Frank-tSerio.r.-, Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, William Sullivan'"and Raymond Vivenzio . The hearing was advertised in the North -Andover Citizen on March. 24;,,,,1988 and3. March 31, 1988 and all abutters were notified by regular mail.y” Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson,;, the` -Board .voted::,' unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit as requested. v The Board requires that Table 3 be adhered to and that consistancy $ maintained '• as in Petition #: 24-82, Edward & Nancy Condon/Robert and Monique Goodrich;'.`;-' ' dated July 12, 1982, and Civil Action No. 82-12223 heard at the Superio_,Court House in Peabody on July 19:, 1982. The Board finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.3 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this Special Permit would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws. Dated this 29th day of April, 1988. BOARD OF APPEALS �T Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman 1 Tlur,R.BAD�f /awt 41 To Glerk I disagree with your inteApxetati.on o f .the Zoning By -Law in xegand to .Lot F, Ftagsh.ip Dn.ive. I Deet that Note 3 of 7abte 2 cteaxty states that iuhen.• -� .4 . adjacent to a Res.identia.0 VistA.ict, the kequited xean setback sha.Pte bel00 �. it. with the iiut 50 it. abutting the Re6.c.dentiat Vistti.et unbu'Ut I Jee�C the 100 Joot setback ahoutd be meaw%ed Jxom the Zon"g D.cstncet .eine, in oxden to .pnov i,de the 50 it. gxeen bui Jen. In oxden to bu,ied at theAosed toeation, .i t woued %equ,iAe a Spec tae Petimit Jxom the Boaxd of Apppeaea as peg. Section 4.11 (3) of the Noxth£ f� Andover Zoning By -Law. y: L IS thi.6 oJJiee can be o6 any JuntheA a6s.istance, peease ca t... (617)688-8102. s Vexy thu.ey young, l5we X 6"t I, Bruce H. Ctaxk, Asst Buieding Iaspeeton BHC: gb cc: D.in. , DPCD Town of ; 0FFICW.S OF: ORTH ANDOVER 120 Main Street APPi c =N_ ,x.xgNonh Arndover. " Massach usets o 1845 CONSERVATION DIVISION OF ,(617) 685.4775 HEALTH PLANNING -� - PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KAREN HP: NELSON. DIRECTOR ���'] 4L�R .�L i.. 18•,.y. •a1-.2� f Deeemben 4, 1487:�� Jvfty A Gotedeu,6t:_ Box 121 r CaxP, Ze, ASA 01141 y Re: Lot F, Ftagsh,ip Dn i.ve a�• • . i:'"i.... itis , , /� � C ,%: Deaf J Wim• I disagree with your inteApxetati.on o f .the Zoning By -Law in xegand to .Lot F, Ftagsh.ip Dn.ive. I Deet that Note 3 of 7abte 2 cteaxty states that iuhen.• -� .4 . adjacent to a Res.identia.0 VistA.ict, the kequited xean setback sha.Pte bel00 �. it. with the iiut 50 it. abutting the Re6.c.dentiat Vistti.et unbu'Ut I Jee�C the 100 Joot setback ahoutd be meaw%ed Jxom the Zon"g D.cstncet .eine, in oxden to .pnov i,de the 50 it. gxeen bui Jen. In oxden to bu,ied at theAosed toeation, .i t woued %equ,iAe a Spec tae Petimit Jxom the Boaxd of Apppeaea as peg. Section 4.11 (3) of the Noxth£ f� Andover Zoning By -Law. y: L IS thi.6 oJJiee can be o6 any JuntheA a6s.istance, peease ca t... (617)688-8102. s Vexy thu.ey young, l5we X 6"t I, Bruce H. Ctaxk, Asst Buieding Iaspeeton BHC: gb cc: D.in. , DPCD 24 Nov 87 Building Inspector Town of North Andover North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Mr. Daniel McConaghy Subject: Lot Coverage, Lot F' Flagship Dr. Gentlemen: i We wish to advise that an agreement on the sale of Lot F' (Flagship Drive) has been reached and that a request for building permit will shortly be directed to your offices. As you are aware the development of full plans for this project will, among other things, be predicated on a recognition of the zoning by-laws regarding setbacks, coverage and so forth. Prior to the development of a full, detailed plan, we are submitting herein a preliminary siting plan for your comments, specifically to address the question of the rear setback in view of the fact that Lot F' has a zoning line across its rear portion. We believe the enclosed plan (DWG. NO. 11-10-87) shows the building placement in accordance with the zoning by-laws for the following reason. Minimum rear setback shown. is 118 feet which is greater than the 100 feet required (See note 3 of Table 2, pg 99 and definition of rear setback, paragraph 2-73 on pg 9 of the zoning by-laws). Your consideration and comments regarding this plan are vital"to the development of a complete submission package. Your earliest reply would be welcomed. If convenient, please use the form below for response. Very truly your 2 y 7T ree with th s interpretation Je ry A. Goldlust Q I disagree with this Box 121 interpretation for Carlisle, MA 01741 the following reason: Signed: Dated: Gordon Hall, III David J. Berton 145 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 i/3: ��Q��r • TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION Date ... April, I. 29...... 1988............ Petition No..... 127-88 Date of Hearing.. Aril 12, 1988 Decision: April 26, 1988 Petition of ... Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton ................................................................... Premises affected Lot F, Flagship. Drive ............................................... ' Permit Referring to the above petition for a from the requirements of the . Sect ion . 4, Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw ......................................................................................... so as to permit .relief . of. use . land. .zoned . R-2..as. the. required_ ,100. foot, buffer. area for an industrial building ........................................................................................ After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to .... VW� ... the Special Permit ..................................... mmfitxtw ......................... . ................................................... Signed Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman .................... I .............. I....... Augustine Nickerson, Clerk Walter Soule ......................................... William Sullivan Raymond it ;,enzio... • ....... . ............................... Board of Appeals TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS Gordon Hall, III & Petition #: 127-88 David J. Berton 145 State Street * DECISION The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on April 12, 1988 and a Special meeting on April 26, 1988 on the application of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton re- questing a Special Permit from the requirements of Seciton 4, Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw so as to permit relief of use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F, Flagship Drive. The following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Walter Soule, William Sullivan and Raymond Vivenzio. The hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on March 24, 1988 and March 31, 1988 and all abutters were notified by regular mail. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Nickerson, the Board voted, unanimously, to DENY the Special Permit as1requested. The Board i"rb4eF requires that Table 3 be adhered to and that consistancy be maintained as in Petition #: 24-82, Edward & Nancy Condon/Robert and Monique Goodrich, dated July 12, 1982, and Civil Action No. 82-12223 heard at the Superior Court House in Peabody on July 19, 1982. The Board finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of Section 10, Paragraph 10.3 of the Zoning ByLaws and the granting of this Special Permit would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning ByLaws. Dated this 29th day of April, 1988. /awt BOARD OF APPEALS Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman 53 Marian Drive North Andover, MA 01845 April 19, 1988 To the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As direct abutters to Lot F, Flagship Drive, we strongly urge you to deny the request of David Berton and Gordon Hall for a special permit to locate an industrial building 100 feet from our residential property. The proposed structure will be a 62,000+ sq. ft. industrial condo with the capacity to house nineteen industries. No doubt these companies will use 1-2++ vehicles each. Such a large building so close to us would greatly decrease the value of our property and will constitute a constant nuisance and annoyance with the noise and activity generated by the trucks, etc. Needless to say, the quality of life we will experience will be less than optimum. As the industries continue to proliferate and encroach on the residential side of Marian Drive, the street has become a "But" on North Andover's zoning map: "It's a nice area but there's industry behind there." This diminishes the value and desirability of the homes. Also, it is imperative to take note of the Superior Court decision in the case of Condon v. Foster in which it was determined that the residential zone would extend from 300 feet from the center of Marian Drive. This ruling is not to be taken lightly and, in order to be consistent, the decision should apply to our property also. Being the longest residents of Marian Drive, we have lived in our home for twenty and a half years. We have enjoyed the country atmosphere and are very saddened at this turn of events. Mr. Berton stated to us that he wanted the special permit to build a large enough structure to maximize his profit. We ask: "Do we now have to pay the -price for an outsider to make lots of money?" We feel we have a right to protect the value of our property and quality of life. Is this not to be considered by the Board? We do not look forward to sitting on our porch in the summer and listening to the high pitched sounds of air conditioners from such a huge structure so close to us. Please put yourself in our position! Please deny the request for the special permit. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely yours, OFFICES OF: APPEALS BUILDING CONSERVATION HEALTH PLANNING OF NORr,, 3� Town of NORTH ANDOVER 8@ CHU DIVISION OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KAREN H.P. NELSON, DIRECTOR April 12, 1988 Board of Appeals Town Office Building North Andover, MA Re: Special Permit Request of G. Hall, III, & D. J. Berton Lot F, Flagship Drive Dear Board Members: 120 Main Street North Andover, Massachusetts O 1845 (617) 685-4775 In response to your referral on the above request, please be advised that I have no objection to the granting of a Special Permit. From the information available it does not appear that the granting would derogate from the intent of the Zoning By -Law. I suggest that a 6' high living fence be planted in lieu of a 6' wooden stockade fence as called for in item #2 of the Planner's letter. Very truly yours, D. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector DRN : gb cc: Dir., DPCD � � 41 'm ~d'k ,bu� ` " . 0 F 1. C560F APPEALS U(J|LD|NG CONSERVATION HEALTH � PLANNING Of Town of ������N� ���N�������U� ~-���~����=^��~��r���=NVISION OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPM' | K/\KFN|U' N|],SK)N.|)|RF�C"[()R |1F!|0PANDUM TO: Board of Appeals FROM: Scott A. Sfockinq. lenner DATE: March 301 19% * RE: Special Permit ?.11(A) Lot F Flagship D,jv�? 120 Main Street North Andover, Massachusetts 0|845 (617) 6854715 - This request attempts to address the somewhat "random" placement _\ of a zoning district line which did not correspond to a property line. Many lots along Flagship Drive have the same problem and in fact the Board granted relief b; utiliri^g this section of the bylaw to Lot 0 Flagship Drive (Kenics Site) in ]u/`e of 1985, The applicant seeks rn\tpf from the location of the zoning line on his property ln order to build e proposed structure and adhere to the requirements of Table 2y Font`note 3 which calls for a 100' setback between Industrial and RosidEntjal DiNtricts. Should the Board see fit to gqant this Special Permit, staff recommends the following: (1) lhat the requirements of Table 2, Footnote 3 be adhered to and that all csisting tree cover found in the 50' buffer be le[t W its natural condition, (2) That a 6' high solid wood fence be installed along the 50' tree line in the rear of the property. Please be advised that the applicant must appear before the Planning Board for Site P]an Review in accordance with Section 8.3 of the Zoning Bylaw. ' @ 6.15. �'I _ V1) �CY✓i � 3tw94? Town of North Andover, Massachusetts Board of Appeals 120 Main Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Dear Sir\Madam, The undersigned are submitting this letter to register opposition to the appeal of Gordon Hall, III, and David J. Berton, who are requesting a special permit to use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F,. Flagship Drive. Owners of other industrially zoned lots on Flagship Drive have been successful in similar appeals. Our experience with these abuttors reinforces the following objections to the subject appeal: 1. Lack of privacy. Car and truck lights at night shine directly into our homes. 2. Improper and filthy language by employees near the property line. We have small children who play in our backyards. 3. Remarkable quantities of trash and debris in the buffer zone. Styrofoam cups, trash from "fast-food" establishments, large strips of plastic, etc., all caught in the tress and blowing onto our lawns. 4. Security risk. We find it disturbing to find people we don't know and people who don't reside in our neighborhood to be at our lot lines or coming onto our backyards 5. Noise. Snack trucks signalling their arrival throughout the day; loudspeakers' announcements; truck noise; car horns; 6, Past enforcement on conditions of the granting of an appeal has been non-existent. 7. 'access onto and off of Rcute #114, as well as travel through Rte. #114 is already congested. Larger buiJ.dings bring more employees I o use this roadway. Although we realize there must be a means by which industrially and residentially zoned areas can coexist, we feel this means is adequately addressed and provided for in our current zoning by-laws. We feel decreasing the required buffer zones adds to the welfare of Misters Hall and Berton at our expense. All of the above objections combine to quantitatively and qualitatively lower the value of each of our properties. We feel that to allow this variance would be significantly detrimental to the mature and established neighborhood on Marian Drive in North Andover. We urge you to deny the appeal of Misters Hall and Berton for the presevation of the original intent of Section 4, Paragraph 4." " - By -Laws. Si,„ncere1 yr ---j/7,,. `Raceived by Town Clerk: AN ti TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS LICATION'FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Applicant Gordon Hall III_A. David J. Address 145 State Street ----1 _ N_ ewburygnt, ma O195n Berton 1. Application is hereby made: Tt� '� 459-3237 a) For a variance from the requirements 'of Section Paragraph and Table' of the Zoning By Laws. b) For a Special Permit under Section_4., iParagraph.,Lof the Zoning By Laws. C) As a Party Aggrieved, for review of a decision made by the Building Inspector or other authority. 2. a) Premises affected are land _:and building(s) numbered _ Street T b) Premises affected are property with frontage on the North ( ) South (x ) East ( ) West ( ) side of Flagship Drive Street, and known as X6. Lot F, F1asT1 p Drive ' I-1 and C) Pxemises affected are in Zoning District—, and the premises affected have an area of �3__square feet and frontage of _170.86 feet.1. 3. Ownership a) Name and address of owner (if joint ownership, give all names): JPyrr,.IL-A._rn1c311j.t ------ Date of Purchase may 7-__J2$D_—previous Owner_ Capricorn Corp b) If applicant is not owner, check his/her interest in the premises: X—Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain) ^ Size of proposed building:' 90 feetfront; 348 feet deep; Height 2 stories; feet. a) Approximate date of erection: July 1988 b) Occupancy or use of each floor: . (Building Trades & Light c.) Type of construction:Manufacturing) �S'�Il��e bloc, & Gteel frame i. Size of existing building: _ feet front; feet deep; Height __stories; a) Approximate date of erection: Not Applicable/Vacant Land b) Occupancy or use of each floor: C) Type of construction: �. Has there been a previous appeal, under zoning, on these premises? If so, when? Description of relief sought on *this petition A.plicant seeks a special ' permit to use land zoned R-2 as the re_quired'100 -bot.buffer area for I,an. "industrial building. ---- �. Deed recorded in the Registry of Deeds in Book '0-'1433 Page 318 Land court Certificate No. Book 'Page 'he principal points upon which I base,my application are as follows: must be.stated in detail) ...X The project will conform tghP .F Bo_e and intent o7f the bv-law as over 100' -feet of space will separate the building and the ne-arest'residential property: Strict enforcement of the setback would be a•hardsha to the--ApElic4nt as it-. would render the property 200 feet -from the.rear lot ine unbuildab e. agree to xpenses* pay the filing fee, Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton advertising - by thi:er in newspaper, ati-orriey �'; Ge and incidental r .._„ .,.�.•�..a� v� rC{.l G1V[er s ;, 10 Elm St. , Danvers, MA •t (617)774-7123 0192*3; very application for'action by the Board shall be'made on a form approved 1 -the Board. These forms shall be furnished by the Clerk upon request. ay communication purporting to be an application shall be treated as mere :)tice of intention to seek relief until such time 'as it Is .made on the ffi•cial application form. All information called -for by the form shall e furnished by the applicant in the manner'�herein,:prescribed. very application shall be submitted with a list•of'•"Parties In Interest". rich list shall•include.the petitioner,,abutters, owners of land directly pposite on any public. or private street or way, and abutters to -the outters,•within' three hundred feet (300') of the property line of the :Ititioner as they appear•on the most recent applicable tax list, :)twithstanding that the land of any such owner is located in another city.,'., town, the Planning Board of the city or town,,and the Planning Board of•:.; eery. abutting city or town. �;.1.. :very application shall be submitted with"an application charge cost in, ie amount - of $25.00. In addition, the petitioner 'shall be responsible ':%''.` :)r any. and all costs involved in bringing the petition before the. Board.�;� .1ch. costs shall include mailing and publication, but are not necessarily"...::;',: .mited to these. ,ery application shall be submitted with a plan of land approved "by the - )ard.• No petition will be brought before the Board unless said plan has :en submitted. Copies of the Board's requirements regarding plans are :tached hereto or are available from the Board of Appeals upon request.'. LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST Name & Address .Watts Pegulator Company John A. and Joan M: Grover ,Chestnut'.Street 35 Marian Drive No. Andover, MA 01845 No. Andover, MA '018.45 . Elia and Mary Motolla 53 Marian Drive o. Andover, MA 01845 David W. & Mary E. Moore 835 Chestnut Street No.'Andover, MA 01845 Edward A., Jr. and Nancy A. Condon 89 Marian Drive No. Andover, MA 01845 Theodore C. and Deborah M. Haddad 79 Marian Drive No. Andover, MA 01845 Regweed Realty Trust c/o Robert P. Rpgdn 801 Turnpike Street , No. Andover' MA 01845, Associated Condominium Corp. 793 Turnpike. Street-' No. Andover, MA 018.45 (use additional sheets if' -necessary) Micromatics Prodructs Co., Inc. P.O. Box 172 No. Andover, MA 01845•:'.. Marasco Nominee Trust ­ C/o Patrick, V. Marasco Holt Drive No. Andover, MA 01845•' Kousin Realty Trust c/o. J.J. Cook and C.R. Tomes 65 Flagship Drive No. Andover, MA 01845:" Leander Pease C & P Realty Trust 31 Flagship -" •'` g p Drive t ' No.Andover, MA 018.45• 24 Nov 87 Building Inspector Town of North Andover North Andover,.MA 01845 Attn: Mr. Daniel McConaghy Subject: Lot Coverage, Lot F' Flagship Dr. Gentlemen: We wish to advise that an agreement on the sale of Lot F' (Flagship Drive) has been reached and that a request for a building permit will shortly be directed to your offices. As you are aware the development of full plans for this project will, among other things, be predicated on a recognition of the zoning by-laws regarding setbacks, coverage and so forth. Prior to the development of a full, detailed plan, we are submitting herein a preliminary siting plan for your comments, specifically to address the question of the rear setback in view of the fact that Lot F' has a zoning line across its rear portion. We believe the enclosed-plan (DWG. N0. 11-10-87) shows the building placement in accordance with the zoning by-laws for the following reason. Minimum rear setback shown is 118 feet which is greater than the 100 feet required (See note 3 of Table 2, pg 99 and definition of rear setback, paragraph 2-73 on pg 9 of the zoning by-laws). Your consideration and comments regarding this plan are vital to the development of a complete submission package. Your earliest reply would be welcomed. If convenient, please use the form below for response. Very truly your ree with th s interpretation Je ry A. Goldlust Q I disagree with this Box 121 Carlisle, MA 01741 interpretation for the following reason: ( )1 FIC'ES OF —_ - T-O'Wh. Of - - -- s - :.`. NORTH ANDOVER ---. lit 11 -TANG (;7)NSERVATION - - AC 9`` DIVISION OF - I TEALTH PLANNING - - PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KAREN H.P. NELSON, DIRECTOR DecembeA 4, 1987 1 20 �1�jin titrf•� •1 _ �-�- Nortil Alldovc•r• _ - ---- - �Ii3. �)CINJS( 11S ()1 r (611)GA-73-4775 Jenny A. Go.edtu�st Box 121 Ca,.W 2e, MA 01741 Re: Lot P, Hagsh,ip Dti,ve D can SiA: I di,sagnee with your inteApnetation o6 the Zoning By -Law .in tegand to Lot 1=, Ftag,ship Drive. 16eet that Note 3 o6 Ta-bte 2 cemity statu that when adjacent to a .Rei identiat Di6t Act, the nequ Aed neap -setback sha,P.e. be 100 6t. with the 6iAzt 50 6t. abutting the Rm ider>t-i.at Dath i.e t unbuitt upon. 16ee.2 the 100 boot setback zhodtd be measured snom the Zoning Di'6tAict tine, in otda to pnov.ide the 50 {It. green bub{lm In onden to build at the ptopoz ed .location, it would nequiAe a Spec i.at Penm.i t 6nom the Board o6 Appea,P,,s as peA Section 4.11 (3) o6 the North AndoveA Zoning By -Law. I6 t iz o6jice can be o5 any �uhtheh "sistanee, ptea�se cat t... (617)688-8102. Very tturey yourus, Muce H. Ctank, A.s,s't Buitding Inspeetot -BHC:gb cc: D.itc..,_DPCD Ln IT C2 0 rZ\ Legal Notice OWN 6 —F � _UR i �11 A—D 0 V _ER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE Match 22, 1988 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a hearing at the Town Building, Norlh Andover, on Tuesday evening the 12th day 4ACHUS of April, 1988, at 7:30 o'clock, to all parlibs in- terested in the appeal of Gordon Hall, III and David J. Beflon requesting a Special Permit of Sec. 4, Parag 4.11 (3) of the Zoning By Law so as to permit relief to use land zoned R-2 as the required 100 foot buffer area for an industrial building on the premises located at Lot F, Flagship Drive. By Order of the Board of Appeals Frank Sedo, Jr., Chairrivin Publish in North Andover Citizen March 24 and Match 31, 1988 53198-9 W1,00MO10(i LO 00 n `e� r16 r' � •.pY (. ^ iV `I �n the GjF�ee Gordon Hall, III David J. Berton 145 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD Of APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION RECEIVED DANIEL LONG TOWN CU'RK NORTH ANDOVER MAY 2 8 59 PF '80 Date ... April, . 29.......1988 ........... Petition No:.... 12.778.8 . _ , .. , ... . Date of Hearing .. Apr i 1 12 , 19 88 Decision: April 269 1988 Petition of ... Gordon Hall, III and David J. Berton ..................................................................... Premises affected Lot. F, Flagship Drive ............................................... Referringto the above petition for Perm ' t p from tie requirements of the . Sect ion . 4, Paragraph 4.11(3) of the Zoning ByLaw .......................................................................................... so as to permit .relief, of, use , land. ,zoned, R-.2. ,as , the. required, ,100 , foot, buffer, area for an industrial building ........................................................................................ After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to .... KKK — : the Special Permit .................... MI"Mwtw ........... .................... .... Signed Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman ............................................ Augustine Nickerson, Clerk Walter Soule ......................................... William Sullivan • • • Raymond 'V-irenzio• • . • • • • • ................................. Board of Appeals r TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Applicant: Date-.-/� Enclosed is'a copy of the legal notice for your application before the Board of Appeals. Kindly submit $ ? �� _ for the following: 6.y 16 V Filing Fee $ _ Postage $ � �2 ;� �d?I Your check must be made payable to the Town of North Andover and may be sent to my attention at the Town Office Building, 120 Main Street, North Andover, Mass. 01845. Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS Audrey W. Taylor, Clerk