HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 120 MAIN STREET 4/30/2018 ti
JOSEPH E. BOULAN13ER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
11 CHESTNUT STREET
ANDOVER, MASS. 01810
TELEPHONE: (617) 475-6505
March 16, 1988
Mr. Frank Serio
Board of Appeals
Town of North Andover
120 Main Street
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: Carter et al
vs: Soule et al
Essex Superior Civil No. 83-462
Dear Mr. Serio and Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Plaintiff ' s Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment in the above entitled matter. I
will keep you informed of the progress on this matter.
Very truly yours,
oseph E. Boulan r
JEB/tp
Enc.
g i
CQP7 FOR YOUR
'i ���oR���K���►a
i► COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
it DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
i
jESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 83-462 I
II
!IJOHN E. CARTER, ET AL,
Plaintiffs
'iv.
*
WALTER F. SOULE, ET AL,
�1
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS'S MOTION TO ALTER OR 4
AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e)
Now come the Plaintiffs and move this Court , pursuant to
M.R. C.P. , Rule 59(e) , to alter or amend the judgment entered by I
.i
I
!the Clerk-Magistrate on March 9 1988 pursuant to the j
"Findings, Rulings and Order" of the Court (Associate Justice I
Peter F. Brady) dated March 2, 1988 .
I.
li As grounds , Plaintiffs seek to have the Court clearly rule on
; 1
Jone of the principal issues tried and argued to the Court -- that i
is , whether the North Andover Building Inspector' s ruling that i
'Ithere was a proposed "change in use" , which ruling was upheld by I
11the Defendants, was incorrect , as Plaintiffs claim. If this I
I I
j!ruling was incorrect , then Plaintiffs should never have had to i
►seek relief from Defendants at all by way of Special Permit. The
f; i
�1Court , in his March 2 , 1988 decision, has not squarely and
;,clearly dealt with this issue in the "Rulings" portion of the
I
decision, although the Court clearly appears to have decided the i
fi
II
J
i
'r
I
.i �
• � it a I
;issue factually in plaintiffs ' favor at page 3 of the decision:
"It is clear that the Rollin' s contemplated j
business use of the tower was not 1
ii inconsistant with the past usage of the
tower, and it is difficult to see how the
contemplated use would place a further
I� burden on the Town."
Based on this factual finding, Plaintiffs urge the Court to
falter or amend the judgment so as to squarely rule that since no
!change in use was proposed , no special permit was needed , and
'therefore that the Defendants ' first decision is annulled as
!'incorrect and the second (denying a special permit) is annulled
.i
iias unnecessary. 1
I; Plaintiffs presented their arguments on the above issue at
(length (1) in their November 19, 1984 Trial Memorandum (pp. 7-9) ;
1(2) in oral argument at trial ; and (3) in their April 19, 1985
(Post-Trial Memorandum (Section II , pp.11-18) . A copy of said I
Section II from Plaintiff ' s Post-Trial Memorandum is attached
iihereto for ease of reference.
I� 1
u ,
j! Respectfully submitted,
Ii
Martin Jaco Esquire
BRODY $ AC BS
i! One Fane Hall Marketplace
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
�i (617) 367-3300
i
'I
ilMarch f y, 1988 i
,'0332C36-37
i
i
z
i
. . . /11
.somehow justify their votes of two years earlier.l
As for any "reasons" for the Board' s decisions offered
only in argument by counsel in connection with this zoning
appeal plaintiffs urge this Court not to consider these
"reasons" at all. If, however, the Court does give con-
sideration to such "reasons" , plaintiffs maintain that
they are similarly unavailing and pretextual.
II. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S
RULING OF A PROPOSED "CHANGE IN USE" ,
UPHELD BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS,
WAS INCORRECT
(A) The Law Involved
Whereas the proposed use of the Mills Hill tower by
Rollins did not constitute an impermissible change in the
nonconforming use in existence when the zoning by-law
changed in 1972, the proposed use is protected by M.G.L.
c. 40A§6, as amended, which reads in part: j
"Except as hereinafter provided, a zoning
ordinance or by-law shall not apply to
structures or uses lawfully in existence. . . "
and by Section 9 , paragraph 9.1 of the zoning by-law,
which allows the continuation of existing uses.
Three tests are applied in deciding whether a dis-
puted use is protected as a lawful nonconforming use
1 _
The Board's first decision on the "change of use" ruling
by the Building Inspector can be read to have simply
adopted Mr. Foster' s reasoning. The December, 1964
"reasons" appear to have explicitly done so.
• /12
or has so changed that it is no longer protected:
" (1) Whether the use reflects the nature and
purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning
by-law took effect;
(2) Whether there is a difference in the quality
or character, as well as the degree, of use;
(3) Whether the current use is 'different in
kind in its effect on the neighborhood. ' "
Powers v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 363 Mass.
648, 652-653 , 663 (1973) . Bridgewater v. Chuckran, 351
Mass. 20, 23 (1966) . The Supreme Judicial Court has
stated that " [i]t is inevitable that the development
and application of a rule of law governing nonconforming
uses on a case by case basis, with the result depending
almost entirely on the particular facts of each case, should
produce two separate and distinct lines of cases. . . "
Powers, Id at 653.
It is generally accepted that one-may not as of right
alter the structure cr extend the area devoted to a non-
conforming use but may increase the amount of use within
the same structure or area. Sullivan v. Board of
Appeals of Harwich, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 286, 288 (1983) .
It is also clear that a nonconforming use is not
extinguished by a transfer of property, Cape Resorts
Hotels, Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth,
385 Mass. 205, 221 (1982) and that a change in the form
. of ownership does not by itself effect a change of 'use.
Id. at 222. CHR Gen. , Inc. v. Newton, 387 Mass. 351,
356-357 (1982) Sullivan, Id. , at 290 .
. . . /13
(B) The "Reasons" Given By The Building Inspector and
Board of Appeals
The sole and complete reason stated by the Building
Inspector in his December- 3, 1982 letter for the decision
he rendered was that "the proposed use of the tower for
commercial purposes by Rollins Cablevision is a change
in use that cannot be allowed" (emphasis added) . This was
also the complete and only reason stated by the Board in
upholding the Building Inspector's decision on a vote of
4-1 (Associate Member Soule voting to overturn the Build-
ing Inspector) .
The stated reason is wholly unexplained, but at trial
Mr. Foster appeared to testify that what he objected to
was that Rollins Cablevision, the proposed actual user
of the tower, is a for-profit corporation (seeking to make
a profit) whereas MIT and MITRE Corporation were not.
The problems with this "reason" are many:
(i) It ignores the undisputed facts that the
successive owners of the Mills Hill site
were making money from leasing it to MIT
and MITRE throughout the years, a state
of affairs that Foster himself "presumed"
was the case;
(ii) It ignores the undisputed fact that MITRE
Corporation, though technically a "nonprofit"
corporation, is a major defense contractor
employing thousands of people in the per-
.
P
r'
1.' . ./14
formance of defense contracts for which it
obviously received substantial revenue. As
is indisputably clear from the documents sub-
poenaed from MITRE (through Henry Spiers,
Contracts Manager) , the Mills Hill tower was
utilized throughout the years in the performance
of certain of these contracts.
(iii) To the extent that it rests upon the identity
and/or corporate form of the actual user,- it
runs afoul of the cases cited above (Cape
Resorts, CHR Gen. , Inc. , Sullivan) as well as
Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hadley,
12 Mass. App. Ct. 710 (1981) , which held improper
the placing of a condition in a variance Limiting
the rights granted therein to a particular person.
(iv) The emphasis on the corporate/organizational
form of the user is also inconsistent with the
proper analysis required by the three-pronged
Powers test, where the emphasis is clearly placed
on the use, not the user.
(v) The Building Inspector himself admitted at trial
that the 1958 height variance granted for the
erection of the Mills Hill tower (Ex. 2) did not
impose any conditions or limits on its ' use
consistent with the "reason" stated.
•)
.c
• . . ./15
(C) Other "Reasons" Argued At Trial
Once again, plaintiffs emphasize that neither the
Building Inspector nor the Board has ever given any reason
for the "change of use" decision other than that just
discussed. However, defendants ' counsel, in his brief
and arguments, has attempted to characterize, explain,
alter and add to the stated reason as follows:
(i) That Rollins' proposed use was to receive and
distribute commercial cable television signals,
which is a prohibited change from the reception
and measurement of signals for national defense
research only, because the use has a difference
"nature and purpose" , is different in "quality,
character and degree" and "in its effect on
the neighborhood" .
Plaintiffs first urge that characterizing
the stated "reasons" in this way is merely an
attempt to cloud the fact that the given reason
improperly focused on the identity of the user,
as set forth in Section (B) , above.
Moreover, although it seems almost too
obvious to mention, it must be admitted that
it is the crystal clear nature and purpose of
a tower such as the one at Mills Hill to boost
communications equipment to a great height.
This is the only reason anyone would ever
build such a tower; it has no other uses.
. . . /16
Certainly it is true that different users
of the tower have their own agendas, equipment
and purposes; and that one would always find
a change in use if the focus is placed on these
differences. But this focus is incorrect, as
the cases cited above clearly show, unless these
differences have a real impact upon the use of
the land as measured by the Powers tests.
Rollins did not seek to alter the tower
structure itself or extend the area devoted to
its use, but only to attach to it 14 antennae,
to place three dishes at the base and to place
other electronic equipment inside the existing
10' x 12 ' utility building (Ex. 30) . otherwise,
the tower and site were to be used as it always
had been; as an unmanned, passive use without
any traffic or other effects on the neighborhood.
This use was not an improper change in use,
applying the Powers tests; rather it fell well
within the guidelines set by Sullivan, supra
at 288 (one may increase the amount of use
within the same structure or area) .
That the addition of 14 antennae would amount
to an alteration of the tower itself within
the meaning of M.G.L. c. 40A§6 for a "sub-
stantially different purpose or for the same
I
17
purpose in a substantially different manner
to a substantially greater extent. "
All of the arguments advanced just above (in sub-
section (i) ) are equally applicable here. Moreover,
Mr. Carter testified to seeing how these antennae are
actually affixed to the tower. They are simply clamped
on to the structure in a matter of seconds. In no way
can they be viewed or understood as changes to the
structure itself.
(iii) That it is the type of electronic equipment which
determines whether there is a change in use.
Defendants make this rather bold assertion in
their Pre-Trial Memorandum, citing Jasper v. Michael
A. Dolan, Inc. , 355 Mass. 17 (1968) and Cape Resorts
Hotels, Inc v Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth,
385 Mass. 205 (1982) • Both of these cases, however,
involved substantial changes and alterations in use
which directly implicated one of the most common
and highly charged concerns of municipal boards -
the sale and service of liquor to members of the
public.
None of the factors which are typically im-
plicated in liquor sales/service disputes i.e.
traffic, crowds, noise, etc. ) are in any way
implicated in this' case.
of course, the more narrowly the prior uses made of
the Mills Hill tower/site are characterized (by user,
. . . /18
by type of equipment, by the precise nature of the activity
i.e. reception versus transmission or testing/research versus
cable television) , the easier it is for defendants to now
argue that Rollins was proposing a change. But our case
law does not support such efforts at narrow characteriza-
tion. Powers, Sullivan and other such cases clearly direct
the focus upon the substantiality (if any) of the different ,
effects that the proposed use would have on its ' neighbors .
III . THE BOARD' S DENIAL
OF ROLLINS' SPECIAL PERMIT
APPLICATION WAS BASED ON
LEGALLY UNTENABLE GROUNDS AND
WAS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE,
WHIMSICAL AND/OR CAPRICIOUS
A. The Law Involved
It is well settled by the case law that:
" [t]he manifest objects and purposes of the
enabling act and the by-law furnish a large
measure of guidance for the board. The by-law
confers a measure of discretionary power to
grant or withhold special permits by the arbi-
trary exercise of that discretion. . .The board
must act fairly and reasonably on the evidence
presented to it, keeping in mind the objects
and purposes of the enabling act and the by-
law. The decision of the board cannot be
disturbed unless it is based on a legally un-
tenable ground, or is unreasonable, whimsical,
capricious or arbitrary. "
MacGibbon v Board of Appeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 635,
X638-639 (1970) .
The Courts have often disturbed (annulled) deci-
sions of zoning boards when those decisions are found to
be based on legally untenable grounds, arbitrary, un-
reasonable, whimsical and/or capricious. See, for ex-
Legal Notice
TOWN'OF
NOOTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS-
MOTICE
FORTH
OF t�ao ib SHO
3= g�a'...'•. a O� '„
O P
F j '
�SSACHtISEt }:+.
1` October 24,1983
Notice is hereby given that the
Board of Appeals will give� a)'"hearing at the Town Bwlding.. i
North Andover. on Monday;
J evening the' 14th day of
I November. 1983, at 7:30 p.m.I
90 all parties interested in the,ap•j
peal of JOHN E. CARTER AND
RAYMOND B.AGLER requesting
a review of a decision made by;,
the Building Inspector o.F other.
authority and a determination
that the action taken by the
Building. Inspector..in his
December .3, 1982 cor-1
respondence is incorrect and;
that the 1958 variance permits'
the applicants to use the existing
140 foot communications tower
and the tower site for cable
television equipment, on.
premises located at 300
Chestnut Street and known as
-Mills Hill."
By Order of the Board of Ap-
peals.
Frank Serio,Jr.
Chairman.
?ublish N_a Citizen: Oct. 27
and Nov.3.1983 024 604
•�� 1 �. ., Ill
NOR7q
O �
� a
41
,SJACNUstt
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
October 24 , 1983
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building , North Andover , on Monday evening ,
the 14th day of November , 1983 , at 7 : 30 p .m , to all parties
interested in the appeal of JOHN E . CARTER AND RAYMOND B . AGLER
3
requesting a review of a decision made by the Building Inspector
or other authority and a determination that the action taken
by the Building Inspector in his December 3 , 1982 correspondence
is incorrect and that the 1958 variance permits the applicants
to use the existing 140 foot communications tower and the tower
site for cable television equipment , on premises located at
300 Chestnut Street and known as "Mills Hill "
By Order of the Board of Appeals
By: Frank Serio , Jr . , Chairman
Publish : North Andover Citizen : October 27 and November 3, 1983
Send bill to : John E . Carter
300 Chestnut St.
North Andover , Mass . 01845
,kORT11
hO0
O w
F gp
,SIACNUS�t
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
TO Parties in Interest
FROM Board of Appeals
SUBJECT; Petition of John Carter and Raymond Agler
DATE November 23 , 1983
The petition of John Carter and Raymond Agler requesting a review
of a decision made by the Building Inspector has been withdrawn by
the applicants . Therefore , no decision will be -forwarded regarding .
this- - petition -from the Board. of :Appeal s_. _
KH
JOSEPH E. BOULANGER ugh _
ATTORNEY AT LAW
11 CHESTNUT STREET
ANDOVER, MASS. 01810 f i
TELEPHONE: (617) 475-6505
March 16, 1988
Mr. Paul Sharon
Town Manager
Town of North Andover
120 Main Street
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: Carter et al
vs: Soule et al
Essex Superior Civil No. 83-462
Dear Mr. Sharon,
Enclosed please find a copy of the Judge' s findings in
the above entitled matter, the Judgment which was entered
on March 9, 1988, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. I will keep you informed of the progress
on this matter.
If you have any questions in the interim, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours
?sephE. Boulange
JEB/tp
Enc.
COT12-Oi?; L T i ; -.,TT COPY FOR YOUR
A-T3 OF �SASSAC;_u�L�_., X. �'
Department Of The Trial Court IXFOPP'lAT1C►J
Essex, sa. Superior Court
'No. 83-462
John E. Carter, et al
vs.
Waltar F. Soule, et al
JUDGMENT
This action came on for trial before the Court, Brady, J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings
having been duly rendered, It is Ordered and Adjudged:
the decision of t:za Board should not be disturbed as it
acted within its authority. Zaltman v. Board Of Appeals Of
Stoneham, 375 Mass. 482.
Judgment for the Defendants.
The Clerk-2'iagistrate of the Court is directed to .nail an.
attested copy of this judgment within thirty days from the date
hereof, to the To,,n Clark, Building Inspector, and Board of Appeals,
respectively of the Torm of Worth Andover.
Dated at Peabody, :Massachusetts, this 9th day of 114arch, 1988.
133 sLa::v v�9r'
r 1�4 ,
i
y �I GCI'; FOR YO
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IFCF�►t�TjC���
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
I
ESSEX,ss. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 83-462
JOHN E. CARTER, ET AL PLAINTIFFS _._-
VS.
WALTER F. SOULE, E'P AL DEFENDANTS
FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDER
This matter came on to be heard by me as the result of the
two Plaintiffs filing a Complaint seeking the annullment of the
defendant's (Board of Appeals of the Town of North Andover)
findings and rulings. I have taken two views of the real estate
in question, last view being during the month prior to this
decision. Certain illnesses have unfortunately delayed these
findings, and all delays have not been the fault of the parties,
but are due to my illnesses.
FINDINGS:
The Plaintiffs own land and real estate in North Andover
which includes an elevated area called Mills Hill. The Plaintiffs
- I live on real estate adjacent to and abutting the "Mills Hill"
lot. This lot contains a residence which the Plaintiffs occupy
and was purchased in 1977. The Mills Hill lot was purchased
I
in 1979 by the Plaintiffs to protect their residential lot
from anticipated residential construction on this Mills Hill
lot and also protect the lot from a sand pit on another lot
south of the Mills Hill lot. The immediate area near Mills
Hill is best described as "woody" with sparse residential use
�i
and some slight commercial use.
II -
(I
I
II
~ r
At the highest elevation of the Mills Hill lot, there
is a steel tower, 140 feet high. This tower was constructed
and owned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958.
The tower was purchased by MITRE CORP. -in 1961. A.-prior owner
of the Mills Hill property had allowed the described tower
to be on the property by agreement with M.I.T_, and later, with
MITRE CORP. All agreements terminated in 1981, and the Plaintiffs
became the sole owner of the tower which remained on Mills Hill.
By agreement dated August 31, 1981, the Plaintiffs contracted
with ELECTROCUM CORPORATION to allow for the installation
of a radio communication system "including, but not limited
to, transmitters, receivers, antenna, supports or masts, cable
and wiring, and accessories used therewith." The Mills Hill
property has been used since August, 1981, according to the
agreement. The U.S. government owned the tower in 197" and
it was used for testing of signals.
Later, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with
the Defendant Rollins Cablevision of Massachusetts, Inc.
I
allowing Rollins to use the Mill Hill tower for its equipment
in the process of providing commercial television to potential
customers. Rollins Cablevision planned to add three receiving
"dishes" at the bottom of the tower as well as a few antenna
on the tower itself. This prior described agreement was reached
in September, 1982.
Shortly thereafter (in December, 1982) , as the result
of complaints Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Farnum, the owners of
Boston Hill, another hill in town which contained a tower,
I�
the North Andover building inspector, by letter, issued a
�I
�I
I
ruling that Rollins Cablevision use of the Plaintiffs' tower
I
for commercial purposes was a change in use that could not
be allowed without a special permit. Rollins wished to use
the tower for commercial cable television. Then the lessee
Rollins, applied to the Board to reverse the ruling of the I
building inspector, or to be granted a special permit. The
Board denied the two (2) requests on February 1, 1983. The i
Board adopted the building inspector's decisions as to the
first application but stated no reasons for the matter of
i
refusing a special permit, perhaps feeling the reasons given
in denying the first request were sufficient.
It is clear that the Rollin's contemplated business use
of the tower was not inconsistant with the past usage of the
tower, and it is difficult to see how the contemplated use
d w
would place a further burden on the Town.
While not necessary to my decision, it is interesting
to note that in July, 1982, the Board allowed the application
I� for further antennae and dishes at Boston Hill ( The Farnums)
i
which was essentially the requested use for Mills Hill. It
further appears that the Board allowed many requests for relief
at Boston Hill after the Mills Hill denials_ The tower at
I
li Boston hill is large and imposing, and sits atop a six story
�I
II ,
li
I;
(4)
(I
concrete r to building, and is quite visable to all those in surroundin
areas and Route 114, a major thoroughfare through the Town.
! The tower at Mills Hill is substantially hidden from the view
of its neighbors and the public at large.
IIt should also be noted that per the order of another
IJudge of this Court, the Board did file a statement of reasons
I
for denying the Special permit.
In denying the Special permit application, the Board found:
I
a. That the continuance or extension of the Special Permit
II would unduly prolong the life of the nonconforming
use of the premises.
b. Granting the Special Permit would amount to an
indefinite continuance of a commercial use in a
homogeneous residential district.
c. That the non-conforming structure has long since
reached the end of its useful life as contemplated
under the terms and conditions of the 1957 variance,
being national defense oriented, the structure having
been erected in 1958.
d. That the continuance of the Special Permit or grant
�I of a Special Permit would unduly prolong the existence
of this non-conforming structure.
1
I�
I
t
I�
�� I
(5)
1 e. Granting the Special Permit would amount to an
indefinite continuance of a commercial structure
in a homogeneous residential district.
f. That the existence or increase of the non-conforming
i
use with the addition. of three dishes and fourteen
iantennas and a portable building is more than 25%
of the original use as outlined in Section 9.2 (3) .
I
g. That Section 10.31 (1 a) of the Zoning By Law has
not been met since it is a commercial use in an
residential area.
h. The use as developed will adversely affect the residentia
neighborhood, so Section 10.31 (1 b) has not been met.
i. Section 10.31 (1 e) is not met because the indefinite
�Icontinuance of a commercial use in a relatively
homogeneous residential district is not a use that is
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Zoning By Law.
RULINGS:
An applicant does not have an absolute right to a Special
Permit, thus the Board is not compelled to grant a Special
Permit. It has a discretionary power. The decision of the
IIBoard can be disturbed only if it is based on a legally untenable
�I
i
I
I
I
(6)
' I
ground, or is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary.
GULF OIL CORP. V. BOARD OF APPEALS OF FRAMINGHAM, 355 MASS. 275,
277.
I rule that the decision of the Board should not be disturbed
as it acted within its authority. ZALTMAN V. BOARD OF APPEALS
OF STONEHAM, 375 MASS. 482:
ORDER:
Judgment is to enter for the Defendants.
Peter F. Brady, Associate Justice
of The Superior Court
ENTERED: March 2, 1988
I
I
1
li I
I�.
I I
i! I
cop'[ FCm youtiq
�e�I`11�1171r{T9�i�
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT �
';ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 83-462
i�
1IJOHN E. CARTER, ET AL,
I, Plaintiffs
!;v
WALTER F. SOULE, ET AL,
Defendants
ii
PLAINTIFFS'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e)
I
I
Now come the Plaintiffs and move this Court , pursuant to
M.R. C.P. , Rule 59(e) , to alter or amend the judgment entered by
I.
!the Clerk-Magistrate on March 9 1988 pursuant to the
'!"Findings, Rulings and Order" of the Court (Associate Justice
lPeter F. Brady) dated March 2 , 1988 .
As grounds , Plaintiffs seek to have the Court clearly rule on
,;one of the principal issues tried and argued to the Court -- that
�is , whether the North Andover Building Inspector' s ruling that
'!there was a "
ro osed chane in usewhich ruling upheld b
P P 8 use" , g was P y _
: the Defendants, was incorrect , as Plaintiffs claim. If this
ilruling was incorrect , then Plaintiffs should never have had to
!:seek relief from Defendants at all by way of Special Permit. The
';Court , in his March 2 , 1988 decision, has not squarely and
:!clearly dealt with this issue in the "Rulings" portion of the
I
Idecision, although the Court clearly appears to have decided the
�i
'i �
issue factually in plaintiffs ' favor at page 3 of the decision:
' "It is clear that the Rollin' s contemplated j
business use of the tower was not
! inconsistant with the past usage of the
�I
tower, and it is difficult to see how the
j contemplated use would place a further
burden on the Town."
Based on this factual finding , Plaintiffs urge the Court to j
i
falter or amend the judgment so as to squarely rule that since no
change in use was proposed , no special permit was needed, . and
'therefore that the Defendants ' first decision is annulled as
,!incorrect and the second (denying a special permit) is annulled
!as unnecessary.
I� !
Plaintiffs presented their arguments on the above issue at
!
(length (1) in their November 19, 1984 Trial Memorandum (pp. 7-9) ;
;j
11(2) in oral argument at trial ; and (3) in their April 19, 1985
!
1;Post-Trial Memorandum (Section II , pp. 11-18) . A copy of said
!Section II from Plaintiff ' s Post-Trial Memorandum is attached
;,hereto for ease of reference.
;i
u
I Respectfully submitted ,
I I '
Martin Jazo , Esquire
BRODY AC BS
!� One FaneLYn Hall Marketplace
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
( 617) 367-3300
it
March f`�, 1988
I'
i
, 0332C36-37
. . . /11
i
.somehow justify their votes of two years earlier.l
As for any "reasons" for the Board' s decisions offered
only in argument by counsel in connection with this zoning
appeal plaintiffs urge this Court not to consider these
"reasons" at all. If, however, the Court does give con- '
sideration to such "reasons", plaintiffs maintain that
they are similarly unavailing and pretextual.
II. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S
RULING OF A PROPOSED "CHANGE IN USE" ,
UPHELD BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS,
WAS INCORRECT
(A) The Law Involved
Whereas the proposed use of the Mills Hill tower by
Rollins did not constitute an impermissible change in the
nonconforming use in existence when the zoning by-law
changed in 1972, the proposed use is protected by M.G.L.
c. 40AS6, as amended, which reads in part:
"Except as hereinafter provided, a zoning
ordinance or by-law shall not apply to
structures or uses lawfully in existence. . . "
and by Section 9, paragraph 9. 1 of the zoning by-law,
which allows the continuation of existing uses.
Three tests are applied in deciding whether a dis-
puted use is protected as a lawful nonconforming use
1
The Board' s first decision on the "change of use" ruling
by the Building Inspector can be read to have simple
adopted Mr. Foster Is reasoning. The December, 1984
"reasons" appear to have explicitly done so.
. /12
or has so changed that it is no longer protected:
" (1) Whether the use reflects the nature and
purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning
by-law took effect;
(2) Whether there is a difference in the quality
or character, as well as the degree, of use;
(3) Whether the current use is ' different in
kind in its effect on the neighborhood. ' "
Powers v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 363 Mass.
648, 652-653, 663 (1973) . Bridgewater V. Chuckran, 351
Mass. 20 , 23 (1966) . The Supreme Judicial Court has
stated that " [i]t is inevitable that the development
and application of a rule of law governing nonconforming
uses on a case by case basis, with the result depending
almost entirely on the particular., facts of each case, should
produce two separate and distinct lines of cases. . . "
Powers, Id at 653.
It is generally accepted that one-may not as of right
alter the structure or extend the area devoted to a non-
conforming use but may increase the amount of use within
the same structure or area. Sullivan v. Board of
Appeals of Harwich, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 286 , 288 (1983) .
It is also clear that a nonconforming use is not
extinguished by a transfer of property, Caoe Resorts
Hotels , Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth,
385 Mass. 205, 221 (1982) and that a change in the form
of ownership does not by itself effect a change of use.
Id. at 222. CHR Gen. , Inc. v. Newton, 387 Mass. 351,
356-357 (1982) Sullivan, Id. , at 290.
. . /13
i
(B) The "Reasons" Given By The Buildina Inspector and
Board of Appeals
The sole and complete reason stated by the Building
Inspector in his December 3, 1982 letter for the decision
he rendered was that "the proposed use of the tower for
commercial purposes �y Rollins Cablevision is a change
in use that cannot be allowed" (emphasis added) . This was
also the complete and only reason stated by the Board in
upholding the Building Inspector' s decision on a vote of
4-1 (Associate Member Soule voting to overturn the Build-
ing Inspector) .
The stated reason is wholly unexplained, but at trial
Mr. Foster appeared to testify that what he objected to
was that Rollins Cablevision, the proposed actual user
of the tower, is a for-profit corporation (seeking to make
a profit) whereas MIT and MITRE Corporation were not.
The problems with this "reason" are many:
(i) It ignores the undisputed facts that the
successive owners of the Mills Hill site
were making money from leasing it to MIT
and MITRE throughout the years , a state
of affairs that Foster himself "presumed"
was the case;
(ii) It ignores the undisputed fact that MITRE
Corporation, though technically a "nonprofit"
corporation, is a major defense contractor
employing thousands of people in- the per-
t
. . /14
formance of defense contracts for which it
obviously received substantial revenue. As
is indisputably clear from the documents sub-
poenaed from MITRE (through Henry Spiers,
Contracts Manager) , the Mills Hill tower was
utilized throughout the years in the performance
of certain of these contracts.
(iii) To the extent that it rests upon the identity
and/or corporate form of the actual user, it
runs afoul of the cases cited above (Cape
Resorts, CHR Gen. , Inc. , Sullivan) as well as
Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hadley,
12 Mass. App. Ct. 710 (1981) , which held improper
the placing of a condition in a variance limiting
the rights granted therein to a particular person.
(iv) The emphasis on the corporate/organizational
form of the user is also inconsistent with the
proper analysis required by the three-pronged
Powers test, where the emphasis is clearly placed
on the use, not the user.
(v) The Building Inspector himself admitted at trial
that the 1958 height variance granted for the
erection of the Mills Hill tower (Ex. 2) did not
impose any conditions or limits on its' use
consistent with the "reason" stated.
7
(C) Other "Reasons" Argued At Trial
Once again, plaintiffs emphasize that neither the
Building Inspector nor the Board has ever given any reason
for the "change of use" decision other than that just
discussed. However, defendants ' counsel, in his brief
and arguments, has attempted to characterize, explain,
alter and add to the stated reason as follows:
(i) That Rollins' proposed use was to receive and
distribute commercial cable television signals ,
which is a prohibited change from the reception
and measurement of signals for national defense
research only, because the use has a difference
"nature and purpose" , is different in "quality,
character and degree" and "in its effect on
the neighborhood" .
Plaintiffs first urge that characterizing
the stated "reasons" in this way is merely an
attempt to cloud the fact that the given reason
improperly focused on the identity of the user,
as set forth in Section (B) , above.
Moreover, although it seems almost too
obvious to mention, it must be admitted that
i
it is the crystal clear nature and purpose of
a tower such as the one at Mills Hill to boost
communications equipment to a great height.
This is the only reason anyone would ever
build such a tower; it has no other uses .
. . . /16
Certainly it is true that different users
of the tower have their own agendas , equipment
and purposes; and that one would always find
a change in use if the focus is placed on these
differences. But this focus is incorrect, as
the cases cited above clearly show, unless these
differences have a real impact upon the use of
the land as measured by the Powers tests .
Rollins did not seek to alter the tower
structure itself or extend the area devoted to
its use, but only to attach to it 14 antennae,
to place three dishes at the base and to place
other electronic equipment inside the existing
10' x 12' utility building (Ex. 30) . otherwise ,
the tower and site were to be used as it always
had been; as an unmanned, passive use without
any traffic or other effects on the neighborhood.
This use was not an improper change in use ,
applying the Po_ tests; rather it fell well
within the guidelines set by Sullivan, su'pra
at 288 (one may increase the amount of use
within the same structure or area) .
' (ii) That the addition of 14 antennae would amount
to an alteration of the tower itself within
the meaning of M.G.L. c. 40A§6 for a "sub-
stantially different purpose or for the same
Ar.
17
purpose in a substantially different manner
to a substantially greater extent. "
All of the arguments advanced just above (in sub-
section (i) ) are equally applicable here. Moreover,
Mr. Carter testified to seeing how these antennae are
actually affixed to the tower. They are simply clamped
on to the structure in a matter of seconds. In no way
can they be viewed or understood as changes to the
structure itself.
(iii) That it is the type of electronic equipment which
determines whether there is a change in use.
Defendants make this rather bold assertion in
their Pre-Trial Memorandum, citing Jasver v. Michael
A. Dolan, Inc. , 355 Mass. 17 (1968) and Cape Resorts
Hotels , Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board of Falmouth,
385 Mass. 205 (1982) . Both of these cases, however,
involved substantial changes and alterations in use
which directly implicated one of the most common
and highly charged concerns of municipal boards -
the sale and service of liquor to members of the
public.
None of the factors which are typically im-
plicated in liquor sales/service disputes i.e.
traffic, crowds, noise, etc. ) are in any way
implicated in this case.
of course, the more narrowly the prior uses made of
the Mills Hill towe_!site are characterized (by user,
- i v
by type of equipment, by the precise nature of the activity -
i.e. reception versus transmission or testing/research versus
cable television) , the easier it is for defendants to now
argue that Rollins was proposing a change . But our case
law does not support such efforts at narrow characteriza-
tion. Powers, Sullivan and other such cases clearly direct
the focus upon the substantiality (if any) of the different .
effects that the proposed use would have on its ' neighbors.
III. THE BOARD' S DENIAL
OF ROLLINS' SPECIAL PERMIT
APPLICATION WAS BASED ON
LEGALLY UNTENABLE GROUNDS AND
WAS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE,
WHIMSICAL AND/OR CAPRICIOUS
A. The Law Involved
It is well settled by the case law that:
" [t]he manifest objects and purposes of the
enabling act and the by-law furnish a large
measure of guidance for the board. The by-law
confers a measure of discretionary power to
grant or withhold special permits by the arbi-
trary exercise of that discretion. . .The board
must act fairly and reasonably on the evidence
presented to it, keeping in mind the objects
and purposes of the enabling act and the by-
law. The decision of the board cannot be
disturbed unless it is based on a legally un-
tenable ground, or is unreasonable, whimsical,
capricious or arbitrary. "
MacGibbon v Board of A )oeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 635 ,
1638-639 (1970) .
The Courts have often disturbed (annulled) deci-
sions of zoning boards when those decisions are found to
be based on legally untenable grounds, arbitrary, un-
reasonable, whimsical and/or capricious. See, for ex-
i
G r' -�a�s • ► in the Office of the Town
�t F• -R ;,, . Clerk.
fEB 2 09 M 883 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS EXHIBIT 4
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Date . • February 1., 1983
Petition No... 5-" 83 ... ._......
Date of Hearing.. January 10, 1983
Petition of . . . .ROLLINSCABLEVISION OF_ MASSACHUSETTS,. INC:..
{ prernises affected Land off 300 Chestnut Street known .as _"Mills Nill"
Referring to the above petition for axaAxthw>dr=lbemequireweid6zitbet. .review .of.a.
decision made by the Building Inspector and a determination that
the'. action. taken. .by. .the .Building .Inspector. i.n.his. .December..3,..19B2
correspondence is incorrect, and a determination that a 1958 variance
XUXXXapennibc permits .the.applicant. .to. .use .the. existing.140. .foot. communi-
cation tower and the tower site for its television equipment. -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... ..... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . ..... . ... .... .... ..... .....
After a public bearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . . DENX. . . . the
. . . . . . . . . . petition. . . . . . . . . .. ... bchetesbpccaatxext3,� ulld4rpg�c�tss�cact<otxCoxxe c
4%"r oc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . - -• •- - - - - -- . . . . . .. . . ... ....... ... ........�.....
� �fmr.�exzs�omcbiwrr�cb�e�evocarnckxt�msedcagocrdi�eta��gxoac�aaa:
Signed
Frank. Serio, Jr. , . Chairman
Richard J. Trepanier, Esq. , Clerk
Augusti.ne. .W.. Ni clkerspp. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTEST:
ATrue Copy Raymond -A.. .V�.venzio, . ,sq.. . . . . . . .
Walter F. .So.ule. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1
Board of Appeals
Town Clerk
Fx. 3
;;- in the Office of the .iowll
• Clerk
fEs 2 o9 PM 103 '' *4
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
February 1,, 1983
Rollins Cablevision
of Massachusetts, Inc.
Land off 300 Chestnut St.
Petition No. 6 - '83
:fir. Daniel Long, Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, Mass. 01845
Dear Mr. Long.-
. The
ong:. The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday evening, Jan-
uary 10., 1983 upon the application of Rollins Cablevision of Massa-
chusetts, Inc. The hearing was advertised in the North Andover _
Citizen on December •23 .and 30, 1982 and all abutters were notified
by regular =nail. The following members were present and voting:
Frank Serio, -Jr_, Chairman; Richard J. Trepanier, Esq. , Clerk;
3Lugust1ne-.'. Nickersonj Raymond A. Vivenzio, Esq.; and Maurice S_
Foulas.= -
y �
-�•�;r-• '? iV 2�..`; Asn! •p __ _
.aa
='he-33oard.,xendered-their decision at a Special meeting 'held on
.-7�Tuesaap'even2.ng;_Zanuary "18, -1983 with members Serio, TrepaTiier,
"Nickerson,-wivenziowand Foulas again present and voting.
.4... 1..
- The petitioner seeks a .Special Permit under Section 9, Paragraphs
9.l and 9 Qf the.Zoning By Zaw so as to permit the applicant to
:•.hosethe existing 140.400t,communication tower and the proposed
. :w utility building for its cable -television antennas and dishes on
the premises located et land off 300 Chestnut Street and known as
Mills Hill.
The pbtitioner testified through Attorney Richard G_ Asoian that
the proposed changes to the site are a larger building, the addition
of 3 dishes, and additional antennas. There is adequate screening
on the premises so the site as developed would not be offensive to
the neighborhood.
.r
A motion was made by Mr. Foulds and seconded by Mr. Nickerson to
deny the Special Permit. The motion failed to carry with members
Petition No. b - 483 DAWEL LUNG
Rollins Cablevision f 1� C:rRI:
Yo assachusetts Inc.
HOR -•
February 1. 1983 ?h k�;. OVER
Page 2 FE8 2 09 Pm 183
Foulds, Nickerson and Vivenzio voting in favor of the motion and
members Serio and Trepanier voting in opposition.
Therefore, the petition is denied, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40-A
and the Zoning By Law. of the Town of North Andover, Section 10,
Paragraph 10. 4. (2) .
i
Sincerely,
BOARD OF APPEALS
Frank Serio, Jr. ,
Chairman
FS/jw
a
`►.uaa4
�►► aORTy
i OA. 1 �r
ca"'O�r o
•
0:_+ ! CC
♦a. AM7n ,S �
i�S • t •
► S�CH0 yf
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
John J. Lyons, Town Clerk January 4, 1958
Town Building
North Andover, Mass.
Dear Sir:
DECISION
The Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on Monday evening,
December 9, 1957 on the application of Massachusetts Institute of
Technology requesting a variation of the Zoning Ordinance so as to
permit the erection of a certain radar tower for antenna test measure-
ments, to a height in excess of that permitted by Section 8 of said
Zoning By-Law entitled "Building Heights Permitted", on Mill's Hill,
off 300 Chestnut Street, North Andover. _
This Public Hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Evening Tribune
on November 27, 1957 and the abutters were duly notified.
The members present and voting on this application were: Donald F.
Smith, Chairman; Daniel O'Leary, Henry E. Lund, Nicholas F. Nicetta and
John J. Willis, Associate Member.
14r. Nicetta made the motion to GRANT the variance, seconded by Mr.
Willis and voted unanimously by the Board for the following reasons:
It appears to the Board that this tower is a necessary adjunct to
the transmitting tower located on Boston Hill, for which tower the Board
of Appeals has previously granted a variance under date of January 281
1957.
It appears that there are no buildings in the near vicinity so that
there would be no danger to surrounding structures. It further appears
that no transmitting is contemplated from this tower, but the tower is to
be used solely to test and measure signals to be sent from the radar tower
on Boston Hill.
It also appears that the erection of this tower is important in the
interests of our national defense. The Board therefore GRULUS the
variance applied for provided that the tower and appurtenances be con-
structed substantially in conformity with the plan submitted and on file
_ 2 _
January 4, 1958
with the Board of Appeals, and the Board further directs that the
Building Inspector issue the necessary building permit in accordance
with this decision.
Sincerely.
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF APPEALS
Donald F. Smith, Chairman
Daniel OtLeary
Henry E. Lund
Nicholas F. Nicetta
John J. Willis, Associate Member
i
DF S:ad
A ' 185u • ' -
TOWN OF NCR i H ANDOVER I
MASSACHUSETTS
� ------ � - fir. •
BOARD OF APPEALS
'.
NOTICE OF DECISION EXHIBIT 1
Date--Fa>,r---' ir'?0.�Y°5.2
Petition -No.
-- - - Date of Hearing--:: ty-28�
Petition of-1%as:;Pch,�s-tts -T, P-stitute of Tech-�oloy
Premises affected Boston 11111. North A -lover, Mass. —
Referring to the above petition for a variation from the requirements of the
_-��' •r_La�.�F the Totm of lyor`,,
h Andover--llassnc,�usetts
1
so as to permit-the-.-
x spdar tor reseAr
�h—nd ex nom-'r,,e tal
*rar�,osP {�, n�e�E*ht in excess of that permitted by Section 8 of said Zonis
Ry-T-814s entitled "T3ui1ding Height Permi.tted."
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to GWJN r _the
V PSbIM
and hereby authorize the Building Inspector to issue a
permit to_ Kas5achuse.tts Institute of Technol-
for the construction of the above work, based upon the following rorditionc:
I
Signed:
h21nh I•'inck C'zaii-�•an
_Alfr-ed i9eelin,--Socr-e_tau- -
ivicn,:las ';icet•ta
Board of 4 ppr:als
Rece � e-d "0, Town Clerk : '
o�
, A
D'at TOWd-*C9 '`_LRQRTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
DA= i -E. hOARD OF APPEALS +s••..,.� �.,
Ti me . - O's,;E�I;4OVER
Not e : If is ap i cation must be typewritten
APPLICATION F0001 MOTE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant John E. Carter/Raymond B: Agler Address 300 Chestnut St.
o. . n over,
Ma. 0184-5
1 . Application is hereby made
N/A
(a ) ro7' -&-vaT-ranr-e-fi --------fia7ragT-aTh-
���-
N/A
(bti-ur--------i�,Tfa�-rTph---------of--the-
-Petr-i-r�-g--B�Laaa� .
( c) As a party aggrieved , for review of a decision made by the Building
Inspector or other authority .
tower
2 . ( a) Premises affected are land X and -rtrii-d+rrgf-s7-� X numbered
off 300 Chestnut St. Street , known as "Mills Hill"
N�A
(b) reit-i-yes-zrffe, ed-are- rt-o-pet -w-i I�-d~ro-�tage-e-n--1
-Se ---}--fit- ---}--west--(---�-�fi
-St re e t;-a rrcF-icrrown-a-s -Pdro St-re et
( c) Premises affected are in Zoning District R-3 and the premises
affected have an area of 3.75 acres -s7crar-e--fent and frontage of
125 feet . on Chestnut St.
3. Ownetship
-(a) Jame and address of owner ( if joint ownership , give all names ) :
John E. Carter. & Raymond B. Agler, 300 Chestnut St. , No. Andover, MA
�I3�79 Herbert & Joan Hatem
Date of purchase Previous- Owner. Joseph V. Mahoney
(b) If applicant is not owner , check his interest in the premises :
Prospective Purchaser Lesee Other (explain)
4. N�Tz�-6f-pY'Qporect-bu-i-}di-rrg : #tet;
( a ) Approximate date of erection :
( b) Occupancy or use of each floor :
(c) Type of construction;
5 . Size of existing building : 10 feet front ; 12 feet deep ;
Hei ght : 1 stories ; aPPrfeet . Tower height: 140 feet.
(a) Approximate date of-erection : 1958
(b ) Occupancy or use of each floor : Utility building houses electronic
equipment; standard electronic communication equipment is attached to the tower.
(o) Type of construction : eel radio tower
6. Has there been a previous appeal , under zoning , on these premises ? Yes
If so , when? January 4, 1958 (Variance granted at that time) ,
7. Description of relief sought on this petition (a) A determination that the action
taken by the Inspector of Buildings in his December 3, 1982 correspondence is incorrect
-and (b) that the 1958 Variance permits the Applicant to use the existing 10' commun-
ica ions tower an e ower site for cable television equipment.
8. Deed recorded i n ' the Registry of Deeds in Book 1366 Page 556 or
Land"Co-urt Certificate No. N/A Book Page
V
i
The principal points upon which I base my application are as follows :
(Must be stated in detail )
The Applicant's proposed use of the existing 140 ft. communications tower is permitted
under the terms of the January 4, 1958 decision of the Board of Appeals which granted
an unconditional variance for the construction of said tower. The use of electronic
communications equipment, on the tower and within the tower site is permitted under
the terms of the Variance. Applicant seeks to safely use the property in the same
manner and to the same extent as this Board allowed and approved for Benjamin Farnum
in this Board's decision of July 23, 1982 Petition # 22-82) . Our ability to safely
use our property under the terms of the 1958 Variance seems to be somewhat in ques-
tion as a result. .of this Boardl.s ruling dated February 1., .1983 Petition # 5-83 on
;the petition of Rollins Cablevision of Mass. , Inc.
I agre to pagy for advertising in newspaper and incidental expenses*
Petitioner ' s Signature
Sec. 1 APPLICA ION FORM
E applicat ' n for action by the Board shall be made on a form
approve a Board. Ifies-e_Jorms shall be furnished ' by the clerk-
upon request . Any communication purporting to be an application
shall be treated as. mere notice of intention to seek relief until
such time as it is made on the official application form. All in-
formation called for by the form .shall be furnished by the .applicant
in the manner therein prescribed.
Every application shall be submitted with a list of "Parties in
Interest" which list shall include the petitioner, abutters , owners
of -1 and -directly opposite --on any publ i-c or private street or- way ,
and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property
, line-of--the peti_ti one-r as--they appear .on_ the most recent -ap-pl i cabl e.
tax--list , notwithstanding that the land -of any such owner is located
in another city or town , the Planning Board of the city or town, and
the Planning Board of every abutting city or town .
* Every application shall be submitted with an application charge cost
in the amount of $25 .00 . In addition , the petitioner shall be respon-
sible for any and all *costs involved in bringing the petition before
the Board. Such costs -shall include mailing and publication , but
are not necessarily limited to these .
LIST OF PARTIES - IN INTEREST
Name Address
SEE ATTACHED SHffTT
(Use additional sheets if necessary)
LIST OF ABUTTERS
v Address
Name
Dewi Realty Trust 130 Lisa Lane
North Andover, MA 01845
Gilbert 0. Rea V11 4A
300 Chestnut Street
Greenwood Associates
North Andover, MA 01845
ter—R. Ryer,
-�'3pStnllt r��
Maria Jean Woodford 386 Chestnut Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Henry & Kathleen M. Hamel 374 Chestnut Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Thomas D. & June E. Finocchiaro 364 Chestnut StreetNorth Andover, MA 01845
2 Blueberry Hill Lane
L North Andover, MA 01845
21 Evergreen Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
Paul V. Davis 108 Brookings Street
Medford, MA 02155
Thomas G. & Margaret E. Bentley
Bu l",le- 425 Chestnut Street
_i Peter J. & Karen K. fie' North Andover, MA 02155
X
yJiljiaD=iL�r 43 5 chestnut Street
North--Andover,*DIA 01845
y,4 5Chestnut Street
X 3ame�F c &_Beverry welly North Andover, MA 01845
94 Blueberry Hill Lane
John &-Frances,-JTsuneuskY North Andover, MA 01845
X
John T:._&-JohnnieLLT-Burnett 84 Blueberry Hill Lane
Nom Andover, MA 01845-
74 Blueberry Hill Lane
North Andover, MA 01845 Z/�/
� r