HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Lots 2,3,4,5 So BradfordL_
Legal Notice
TOWN OF
NORTH ANDOVER
' BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE
May 21, 1985
Notice is hereby given that the
Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,
North Andover, on Monday
evening, the 10th day of June
1985, at 7:30 o'cloc to all par, -
ties interested in the appeal of
COOLIDGE CONST UCTION
CO., INC requesting Special
Permit under Section 4, Par.
4.133 of the Zoning Law so
as to permit the construction of
three (3) dwellings and refur-
bishing of an existing dwelling
within 100 feet of a tributary
Lake Cochichewick on the
Premises, located at the east
side of So. Bradford known as
Lots 2,3,4, and 5 So. Bradford
St..
By Order of the Board of Ap-
peals.
Frank Serio, Jr.
Publish 'N.A. Citizen: CMaym23
and 30, 1985 f19
- Legal Notice
TOWN OF
NORTH ANDOVER ,
BOARD OF -APPEALS
NOTICE
o• No
. N. .
�SSACH�15�
May 21, 1985
Notice is hereby given that the
Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building,
North Andover, on Monday
vcning, the 10th day of June
1985, at 7:30 o'clock, to all par-
ues interested in the appeal of
COOLIDGE CONSTRUCTION J
CO., INC. requesting a Special
Permit under Section 4, Par.
4.133 01 the Zoning By Law so
as to permit the construction of
three (3) dwellings and refur-
bishing of an existing dwelling,
within 100 feet of a tributary to
Lake Cochichewick on the.
premises, located at the east
side of So. Bradford known as
Lots 2,3,4, and 5 So. Bradford
St..
By Order of the Board of Ap-
peals.
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
Publish N.A. Citizen: May 23
and 30, 1985 f19
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
TT!1Rn7!vI"
May 21 . 19.85
` Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeals will give a
hearing at the Town Building, North Andover, on... Monday
... evening ..... the !.O th day of ........ Jun
19.8 5 , at .7.: 3d?clock, to all parties interested in tl. : appeal of
.... .... CQOLI.Q E, _CONSTRUCTION CO.I 1C.
requesting a xatiola�otc$�acxxxxxxx.xxxxxx! -,$dam
cct;4l...Special Permit under Section
4.,..Par...4 . 13 3. of. the.. Zo.n.ingBy Law so as to
permit . the. .cons truct.ion.:of. three (3) dwellings
and . refu.rbishing, of. an,.e.xistin.g , dwelling
...within .1.0.0 feet of a tributary to Lake Coch-
lchewi,ck .... .
on the prenuses, located at....the. e.ast..si.de..o.f . $.o,..Bradford
kn.own .as..Lo.ts..2,..3,..4,..and..5. S,o., Bradford St.
By Order of the Board of Appeals
By: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman
Publish-: Citizen: May 23 and 30, 1985
Send bill to: Coolidge Construction
401 Andover St.
No. Andover, MA )1845
0
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
r 0
March �, y98�
Zoning Board of Appeals
North Andover Town Hall
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Coolidge Construction
v. North Andover Board of Appeals, Planning Board
Dear Members of the Board of Appeals:
(617) 451-0750
I am pleased to inform you that the plaintiffs in the above
case have agreed to withdraw their motion for partial summary
judgment. This withdrawal was made in deference to our on-going
efforts to settle this litigation which began in 1985.
This matter relates to applications made for special permits
under the Town's Watershed By -Law for Lot B, Great Pond Road and
695 Bradford Street. You may recall that these applications were
made around the time when the Zoning By -Laws governing
construction in the Watershed District were being amended by Town
i4eeting. One of the results of these changes was that
jurisdiction over special permits in the Watershed District
shifted from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Before the zoning change was voted, the plaintiffs had filed
an application for a special permit with the Planning Board. In
light of the zoning change, the Board did not act on the
application.
The plaintiffs then filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals,
which application was subsequently denied. The plaintiffs then
brought suit against both boards.
Based on my discussions with Scott Stocking and, more
recently, Karen Nelson, it is my understanding that both boards
M
t '
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P. C.
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 6, 1989
Page 2
are prepared to settle this matter. The Planning Board recently
discussed the suit and decided that, since it had never acted on
the application, it should refer the matter to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
I understand that you will be discussing this case at your
March 16, 1989 meeting at which time you will explore the
possibility of settlement. Counsel for plaintiffs has agreed to
delay prosecution of their suit while the Town considers
settlement.
Please let me know if I can provide you with any information
to help you in discussing this case.
Very truly yours,
Joel B. Bard
JBB/nj
cc: Planning Board
Board of Selectmen
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO: Board of A-ooeals
rq ow
120 ; :'ain. 13treet
'ort! . Andover, 01845
Please take notice that on Tuesday, October ;5, 1985 pursuant
to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, section 17, Coolidge
Construction Co., Inc. and John F. McGarry, Trustee of Mill
Trust, commenced an action in the Superior Court, Essex County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, appealing the North Andover Board
of Appeals Order, dated September 24, 1985, on Petition No. 37-85
affecting Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 South Bradford Street, North
Andover, Massachusetts. A copy of the complaint commencing said
appeal is attached hereto.
The Plaintiffs
By their Attorney,
William C. Sheridan, Esq;.i.i.re
401 Andover Street
North Andover, MA 01845
(617)686-1111
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex,ss. Superior Court
No.
COOLIDGE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., )
AND JOHN F. MCGARRY, TRUSTEE OF )
OF MILL TRUST, )
Plaintiffs )
VS. ) COMPLAINT
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF NORTH )
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS, )
FRANCIS SERIO, ALFRED FRIZELLE, )
WILLIAM SULLIVAN, RAYMOND )
VIVENZIO, WALTER SOULE, AUGUSTINE)
NICKERSON, PLANNING BOARD FOR )
THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, )
MASSACHUSETTS, PAUL A. HETSTROM, )
MICHAEL P. ROBERTS, JOHN A. )
JAMES, JOHN J. BURKE, AND ERIC )
W. NITZSCHE, )
Defendants )
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, Coolidge Construction Co., Inc. is a
Massachusetts corporation having a principal place of business at
401 Andover Street, North Andover, Massachusetts.
2. The Plaintiff, John F. McGarry, is Trustee of the Mill
Trust, duly established under Massachusetts law and having a
principal place of business at 401 Andover Street, North Andover,
Massachusetts.
3. The Defendant, Board of Appeals, Town of North Andover,
Massachusetts is a body politic having a principal place of
business at 120 Main Street, North Andover, Massachusetts.
4. The Defendant, Francis Serio, is a natural person,
residing at 250 Hillside Road, North Andover, Massachusetts.
5. The Defendant, Alfred Frizelle, is a natural person,
residing at 131 Appleton Street, North Andover, Massachusetts.
6. The Defendant, William Sullivan, is a natural person,
residing at 405 Salem Street, North Andover, Massachusetts.
7. The Defendant, Raymond Vivenzio, is a natural person,
residing at 11 Appledore Lane, North Andover, Massachusetts.
8. The Defendant, Walter Soule, is a natural person,
residing at 70 Raleigh Tavern Lane, North Andover, Massachusetts.
9. The Defendant, Augustine Nickerson, is a natural person,
residing at 100 Moody Street, North Andover, Massachusetts.
10. The Defendant, Planning Board for the Town of North
Andover, Massachusetts is a body politic, having a principal
place of business at 120 Main Street, North Andover,
Massachusetts.
11. The Defendant, Paul A. Hetstrom, is a natural person,
residing at 30 Oakes Drive, North Andover, Massachusetts.
12. The Defendant, Michael P. Roberts, is a natural person,
residing at 479 Waverly Road, North Andover, Massachusetts.
13. The Defendant, John A. James, is a natural person,
residing at 132 Brentwood Circle, North Andover, Massachusetts.
14. The Defendant, John J. Burke. is a natural person,
residing at 65 Hillside Road, North Andover, Massachusetts.
15. The Defendant, Eric W. Nitszche, is a natural person,
residing at 1253 Salem Road, North Andover, Massachusetts.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
16. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the
allegations made in Paragraph 1 through 15 of this Complaint.
I
17. In March of 1985, Plaintiff John F. McGarry, Trustee of
Mill Trust, purchased a three (3) acre
-2-
undeveloped parcel of land known as Lot B Great Pond Road, North
Andover, Massachusetts hereinafter "the Premises" by deed
recorded at North Essex Registry of Deeds at Book 1941, Page
175. The parcel was to be developed by Coolidge Construction
Co., Inc. into a single family residence.
18.
18. On or about March 13, 1985, the Plaintiff submitted to
the Defendant, North Andover Planning'Board, and to its members,
Paul A. Hetstrom, Michael P. Roberts, John A. James, John J.
Burke and Eric W. Nitzsche, hereinafter the "Planning Board", a
request for a special permit under Section 4.133 (3)(d) of the
North Andover Zoning By -Laws. This request specifically sought
permission to construct the dwelling and the driveway therefor on
the Premises, within one hundred (100) feet to a tributary to
Lake Cochichewick.
19. Plaintiffs' request for a special permit was
necessitated by the fact that the shape of the lot made it
impossible to design the dwelling and the driveway without
crossing the one hundred (100) foot zone.
20. Despite these problems the Plaintiffs took all
conceivable safeguards to assure that the proposed construction
had a de minis impact on the Watershed District.
21. However, the Planning Board failed to hold a public
hearing on Plaintiffs' Application within sixty-five (65) days of
its filing as mandated in Section 10.3 of the town of North
Andover Zoning By -Laws. In addition, it failed to render a final
decision on the Application. Rather, the Planning Board required
Plaintiffs to resubmit their application to the Board of Appeals
-3-
and to its members, Francis Serio, Alfred Frizelle, William
Sullivan, Raymond Vivenzio, Walter Soule, and Augustine
Nickerson, hereinafter the "Board of Appeals". On or about
September 24, 1985, more than six (6) months after the filing of
the Plaintiffs' application with the Planning Board, the Board of
Appeals filed its Notice of Decision with the Clerk for the Town
of North Andover denying Plaintiffs' Request for a special
permit. A copy of this Notice of Decision is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A".
22. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit the
Defendants have effectively made it impracticable or impossible
to construct a residential unit on the Premises, although zoning
for that lot essentially prohibits any other use, although the
Defendants have failed to specify any adverse effects that would
result from the construction requested within the one hundred
(100) foot zone, and although the Defendants failed to suggest to
Plaintiffs any safeguards that would reduce any adverse effects
to acceptable limits.
COUNT I
23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the
allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint.
24. The decision of the Board of Appeals to deny
Plaintiffs' request for a special permit was based upon matters
irrelevant to the proposed construction. The denial focused upon
the effects of the septic system. However, not only was this
septic system designed in accordance with State and local safety
regulations, but more importantly its construction was not even
before the Board of Appeals since it was located outside of
-4-
the one hundred (100) foot zone over which The Board of Appeals
had jurisdiction. Rather, approval or a disproval of the septic
system resided with other Town and State authorities.
25. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit,
the Defendants exceeded their authority by acting on legally
untenable grounds or in a manner which was either unreasonable,
whimsical, capricious or arbitrary.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following
relief:
a. That the Board of Appeals' decision to deny Plaintiffs'
request for a special permit be annulled;
b. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be
remanded to the Planning Board or appropriate authorities for
further consideration under specific directions by the Court;
c. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be granted
and that the matter be remanded to the Planning Board or
appropriate authority so as to allow them to impose reasonable
safeguards on the proposed construction, thereby reducing any
adverse impact on the Watershed District to acceptable limits;
and
d. Such other relief as justice and equity may require.
COUNT II
26. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the
allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this
Complaint.
27. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit,
the Board of Appeals has unlawfully taken Plaintiffs' property
without just compensation by exercising its zoning powers in such
-5-
a manner, and to such an extent, as to deprive the Plaintiffs'
land of all practicable value, leaving the Plaintiffs with only
the burden of paying taxes on it.
28. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit,
the Board of Appeals has thus violated Plaintiffs' rights under
the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the
United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, under
Article X, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act MGL Chapter 12,
Section 11I.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following
relief :
a. That the Board of Appeals' decision to deny Plaintiffs'
request for a special permit be annulled;
b. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be
remanded to the Planning Board or appropriate authority for
further consideration under specific directions by this Court;
c. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be granted
and that the matter be remanded to the Planning Board or
appropriate authorities so as to allow them to impose reasonable
safeguards on the proposed construction, thereby reducing any
adverse impact on the Watershed District to acceptable limits;
d. That this Court award Plaintiffs Two Hundred
Seventy-five Thousand ($275,000.00) Dollars as compensation for
the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants
interference with Plaintiffs' use of Lot B, Great Pond Road,
North Andover, Massachusetts and as compensation for the decrease
in the fair market value thereof;
e. That this Court award Plaintiffs the costs and
attorney's fees incurred in bringing this action; and
f. Such other relief as justice and equity may require.
COUNT I I I
29. Plaintiffs realleage and incorporate herein the
allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
30. Plaintiffs' submitted their plan of land for the
premises under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81P on or about July 6,
1984 and thus, under MGL Chapter 40A, Section 6 were entitled to
the uses allowed under applicable zoning law then in existence.
Prior to the submission, the Planning Board not only had
exclusive jurisdiction over special permits but, more
importantly, the Planning Board had universally approved special
permits where the environmental conditions and proposed
construction were identical to Plaintiffs'.
31. After the submission, the North Andover Zoning
ordinance and By-laws were revamped:.jurisdiction over the
special permits was shifted from the Planning Board to the Board
of Appeals and a moratorium on the issuance of building permits
within the North Andover Warershed District was instituted.
32 In violation of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 6 these
subsequent changes in zoning plan law were applied to the use of
Plaintiffs' land. Particularly, the Board
-7-
of Appeals rendered a decision on Plaintiffs' request for a
special permit and not the Planning Board. In addition, the
Zoning Board of Appeals applied a new standard of review to
Plaintiffs' request. Finally, in denying Plaintiff's request,
the Zoning Board of Appeals effectively applied the moratorium to
Plaintiffs' land, thus denying Plaintiffs the right to use their
land in the manner in which they were entitled under MGL Chapter
40A, Section 6.
33. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit, the
Defendants thus exceeded their authority by acting on legally
untenable grounds or in a manner which was either unreasonable,
whimsical, capricious or arbitrary.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following
relief :
a. That the Board of Appeals' decision to deny Plaintiffs'
request for a special permit be annulled;
b. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be
remanded to the Planning Board or appropriate authorities for
further consideration under specific directions by the Court;
c. That Plaintiffs' request for a special permit be granted
and that the matter be remanded to the Planning Board or
appropriate authority so as to allow them to impose reasonable
safeguards on the proposed construciton, thereby reducing any
adverse impact on the Watershed District to acceptable limits;
and
d. Such other relief as justice and equity may require.
COUNT IV
34. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the
allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint.
35. In direct violation of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 9, the
Defendants failed to take final action on Plaintiffs' Application
for a Special Permit within ninety-five (95) days after the time
mandated for a public hearing under Section 10.3 of the Town of
North Andover Zoning By -Laws.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
declare Plaintiffs' Request for a Special Permit constructively
approved.
COUNT V
36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the
allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through 35 of this
Complaint.
37. In denying Plaintiffs' request for a special permit,
the Defendants acted with gross negligence, in bad faith or with
malice.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be
entered against the Defendants for the costs incurred by the
Plaintiffs in bringing this action.
The Plaintiffs
By their Attorney
William C. Sheridan, Esquire
401 Andover Street
North Andover, MA 01845
(Tel) 617-686-1111
11
be filed
AnYappeal Shan a{ter the
^0l daY this Notice
Within (. o
, {
c,i �.the. �oWt►
dattihe L. 0iii,
Clerk.
of 1i;;ng of inis Notice
Office. of thQ -
ZoWR
in the.. .
CIerK� ... .....:<.��.
RECEIVED
o:•"`�'� DANIEL. LONG
''. "'"„r• .fie TOWN CLF -RK
4.,.**iaas :'• NORTH AhDOVER
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEP 06
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
Date .. September 2 4• �,9 $5,
Petition No...... UnQ5 . , ....... .
Date of Hearing. r,ug.us t .12., ;18 85
Petition of ... qpQjdge •Constzu.Qt�.on. Co ............. ..:.........................
Premises affected .. SQut .Bradford. St..,..Lpt. 2/3,/.4/5 ............ .......... .......
Special Permit
Referring to the above petition for a *K&� from the requirements of the .Section. 4. 133 (3) (d)
— -- -.................................................. .................................,,
so as to permit the. .cons truc tion . of . three . dwellings . on -the. •s i•te � • -in'. -addition
to the existing dwelling.
.......... ........ ....................... .... ...... ................. ...... ;..
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to . D£Ny...: the
Permig .....'........ X to i€�b3t dl XT iDi C ��x
XXYg>utcu............................:.......
The Board finds that
the proposed development and the delicate nature of the land within the no -
build area set forth in the ByLaw does not meet the requirements of Section
10.31 of the Zoning ByLaw. . Particularly because of the absence of sewage.
to the site and the site is not an appropriate location for the proposed
use, in light of its promimity to a tributary to the lake and the increase
of sewage to the site. The proposused would in the opinion of the Board
have an adverse affect on the neigh AY -Mood,
in that the Town has, in an
effort to stem the pollution of the lake, imposed a moratorium on building
(corit'i'riu'ed- ori' page '2),
.....................................
AZ'1'ES'T:
A 2kne copy
Tann Cierk Board of Appeals
Pdge 2 ( .
Coolidge Construction Co - South Bradford St.
around the lake. Although the moratorium does not affect this site, the
Board considers the mandate of the Town to be'compelling. 'In summary,
the petitioner fails to meet the standards enumerated in Section 1 of
the Zoning ByLaw, namely that the health and welfare of the inY abitants
of the Town must be considered. "
Signed: Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman
Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice Chairrn
Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk
Walter F. Soule
Ra mond A. Vivenzio
BOARD APPEA
/awt
0
P.
Sra� a�tie� oti�oe
-�001\
PN`�r�nr Ge 0{ �r
date e �{{�
MGR TM 1
_ ,JSACHUSS4
RECEIYED
DANIEL. L, NG
TOWN C,.R
NORTH APD -OVER
SEP 1q 1 06 PH '85
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk
Town Office Building
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Long:
September 24, 1985
Coolidge Construction Co.
South Bradford St., Lot,2/3/4/5
Petition #37-85 .
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday. August 12; '.
1985 upon the application of Coolidge Construction Co. The hearing
was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on May 23 and 30, 1985 and .
all abutters were notified by regular mail. The following members were
present and voting: Chairman Frank Serio, Jr., Vice Chairman Alfred E.
Frizelle, Esq., Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk, Walter F. Soule and
Raymond A. Vivenzio.
The petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to Section 4.133(3)(d)
for construction of three dwellings on the site, in addition to the
existing dwelling. The site has two brooks and wetlands area which.
require that a special permit to construct within 100' of a tributary.
The petitioner's representative testified that the proposed development
will require theadditional approval of the Planning Board and the
Conservation Commission and then will require a variance fromthe Board*
of Appeals.
The board upon a motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Soulb votes
unanimously to DENY the special permit.
The board finds that the proposed development and the delicate nature of
the land within the no -build area set forth in the ByLaw does not meet the
requirements of Section 10.31 of the Zoning ByLaws. Particularly because
of the absence of sewage to the site and the site is not an appropriate
location for the proposed use in light of its proximity to a tributary
to the lake and the increase of sewage to the site. The proposed use would
in the opinion of the board have an adverse affect on the neighborhood,
in that the Town has, in an effort to stem the pollution of the lake,
imposed a moratorium on building around the lake. Although the moratorium
does not affect this site, the board considers the mandate of the Town
to be compelling.
(continued on Page 2)
_ r
' Page 2
Coolidge Construction Co. - South Bradford St. Lot 2/3/4/5
In, summary, the petitioner fails to meet the standards enumerated in Sect
'Section 1 of the Zoning ByLawf namely that the health and welfare of the,..
inhabitants of the Town must be considered.
Sincerely,
BOD OF APPEALS -
Frank Serio,.Jr.
r.
Chairman'
/aw t
April 15, 1985
Application for Special Permit
Coolidge Construction Co., Inc.
Addendum Sheet
Coolidge Construction Co., Inc.
401 Andover St.
North Andover, MA 01845
Paragraph 2(c)
Front
Feet Deep
Frontage
Area
Lot 2
Lot 2 154.0'
43,663
Ft2
Lot 3 50.0'
132,161
Ft2
Lot 4 152.15'
70,962
Ft2
Lot 5 200.0'
56,358
Ft2
Front
Feet Deep
Stories
Ht. in Ft.
Lot 2
40'
34'
2
<24
(Existing
Structure)
Lot 3
60'
30'
2
<24
Lot 4
60'
30'
2
<24
Lot 5
60'
30'
2
<24
n
Richard F. Kaminski & Associates, Inc.
12 April 1985
Assessor's Office
Town of North Andover
Town Hall
Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Sir:
Please certify the following abutters to the parcels shown on the
enclosed plan:
�Ll� �3,G2��C
Architects ❑ Engineers ❑ Sur eyy Land Planners
200 Sutton St., North Andover, MA 01845, (617) 687-1483
John S. and Arlene L. Mitchell
919 Great Pond Road
N. Andover, MA 01845
Louis C. and Dorothy N. Tartaglione
905 Great Pond Road
N. Andover, MA 01845
Robert S. and Pauline Ayer
1�
29 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA 01845
I
Frank H. and Dorothy Leslie
l
✓
891 Great Pond Road
N. Andover, MA 01845
,i
Anthony and Ilah Randazzo
865 Great Pond Road
N. Andover, MA 01845
S. J. J. Trust
P. 0. Box 302
�l
Lawrence, MA 01843
David P. and Carolyn Williams
99 Winter St.
N. Andover, MA 01845
�Ll� �3,G2��C
Architects ❑ Engineers ❑ Sur eyy Land Planners
200 Sutton St., North Andover, MA 01845, (617) 687-1483
List of Abuttors
April 12, 1985
Page 2
Joseph P. and Irene Langlois
135 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA
✓ John B. and Diane Carney
115 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA
George R. and Mary D. Walsh
95 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA
Francis W. and Patricia N. Pierce
85 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA
Clarence 4j1d Carlotta Spencer
102 S. Br dford St.
N. Andov r MA
Ernest P. and Irene LiPorto
49 Meadowview Rd.
N. Andover, MA
Brian and Karen Urguhart
86 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, MA
Lill a,rV L. Caron
35 Mtowview Rd.
N. , c Over, MA
�✓ Peter A. and Patricia J. Palmese
15 Meadowview Rd.
N. Andover, MA
John and t�MAary Kezarj ian
8 Highwoo� Way
N. Andov, MA
William H. and Eleanor J. Roberts
52 S. Bradford St.
N. Andover, Ma
George aXary
P. Minasian
20 HighwWay
N. AndovMA
Architects ❑ Engineers ❑ Surveyors ❑ Land Planners
200 Sutton St., North Andover, MA 01845, (617) 687-1483
List of Abuttors
April 12, 1985
Page 3
Ralph F. d Barbara J. Adams
30 Aighw d Way
N. Andov , MA
Ruth Ei tW i tier
28 S. Bre dford St.
N. Ando e�,. MA
David M a d Gay S. Tracy
933 Grea Pond Road
N. Ando r, MA
Very truly yours,
Richard F. Kaminski & Assoc., Inc.
/4oseph B. Cushing
JBC/ncr
cc: Atty. John McGarry
JBC86
Architects ❑ Engineers ❑ Surveyors ❑ Land Planners
200 Sutton St., North Andover, MA 01845, (617) 687-1483
NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT
120 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845
INSPECTOR OF BIIILDINos
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR
GAB INSPECTOR
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building
North Andover, Ma.
Gentlemen:
June 10, 1985
Re: Petition of Coolidge Construction,
rSo. Bradford Street
TSL. 888-8102
Although no application was made for a building permit,
I have personally walked the land in question and find that a
Special Permit is required for construction within 100 feet of a
tributary. The land in question appears to be a very sensitive
environmental area not too far from Lake Cochichewick. The
application does not supply any information regarding the environ=
mental impact upon Lake Cochichewick. There are no reports from
either the Board of Health or Conservation Commission.
I recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals take no
action until complete environmental reports are submitted by
professionals and other concerned town agencies.
Very truly yours,
CHARLES H. FOSTER
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
AND
ZONING OFFICER
CHF: of
. P.�A�hlh� BOR80
TOWN OF NORTH ANUOVE't
MASSACHUSETTS
MEMOMNDUM
TO: Frank Serio, Chairman, Bd. of Appeals
FROM: Michael Roberts, Chairman
DATE: June 10, 1985
SUBJ: Watershed District Special Permits
Based on.Town Counsel's letter dated May 8, 1985, a building permit
and special permit had to be approved by March,1985), (the date of the
first moratorium legal notice) in order for the Pl-nning Board to
maintain its jurisdiction under Sction 4.133(d).
Therefore, the purpose of this memo is to take the opportunity to
comment on each application, now before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
B. Angus Realty Trust
This plan was reviewed by the Planning dd. at several public
meetings. The new proposal is 'to remove the, existing store
and construct a larger retail complex. Drainage is being
directed away from Lake Cochichewick by regrading the site, in
addition to tying into the new sewer line.
After considerable review and input from other departments, we
recommend that the applicant modify the plans by removing that
portion of the building within 350 feet of the Lake and
enlarging the building elsewhere. The applicant can
accomodate this change on the plan.
C.& D. Daher & Sobel: Great Pond Rd.
The Planning Bd. approved a common drivewa,- for these two lots
to provide access to Lot #14 Great Pond Rd. The approval was
based on several conditions listed in the recision (a copy of
which was forwarded to your Board). If the applicant strictly
adheres to the Planning Board's decision, ae recommend that
your hoard approve the special_ permit provided the applicant
completes the driveway construction by Septmeber 1,1985.
A 1%
1
Watershed District Special ;permits
Page Two
1
E.
F.
Coolidge Construction: Great Pond Rd.
The history of this parcel dates back to a June 1984
Preliminary Subdivision Plan disapproved showing 3 lots. A
definitive plan was resubmitted showing 2 lots on a
cul-de-sac. We had previously advised the applicant that due
to the environmental sensitivity of the parcel, one lot would
be the most feasible, thus eliminating the road construction
and crossing of a tributary to the Lake. 9n June 3, 1985, the
Planning Bd. accepted the applicant's request to withdraw the
subdivision without prejudice.
We would recommend that there be no decitiion made on this
special permit until the Conservation Comwl.ssion has reviewed
and provided the necessary input on the i:ipact on both the
wetlands and Lake.
Coolidge Construction �.
The proposed new house and common driveway constriction on
lots 2-5 on plan show considerable construction activity on a
7 acre parcel of land located entirely in the Watershed
District.
It is this type of development that should be scrutinized by
the Board of Health (for both the septic and well proposal)
and the Conservation Commission concerning he impact on
wetlands. The driveway, house locations and septic systems
should be staked and we recommend a joint site visit to view
the proposed construction impact.
Lastly, the applicant must go before the Fanning Board for a
special permit to construct a common driveway.
G. Coolidge Construction: Dale Street
Would you kindly provide our office with a plan to review in
order to make the appropriate recommends-ic1s.
We would appreciate notification of any .forthcoming applications
and plans for construction by special permit in the Watershed
District. We realize that your Board has been inundated with these
requests, and would like to offer any assistance in processing or
reviewing these plans as you see needed.
Thank you.
/kp t
J \
Date
J9 05..
Petition No.....:37
Date of Healing. ?,,ugus.t .12.,
Petition of
.....................
Premises affected ,B ...................
.ra.dfo.rd. St..
Lot. 2/3/4/-S
Referring to Special Permit
the above petition for
a }irk At'61 from therequirements of the
-Section. 4.1-33'(3)'(d�
..........................
........... ..
go as to permit
.tbe..coris
tru c t i On Of - th' lee d
to the existing dwelling. on. the.
........
...... ..... -si-'e,."in
-addi
o
... t
................
After a public hearing given 0
n the above date, the Pbard of Appeals voted to .
DENY.. the
.5Pq 9i a 1. Re
............
...........
t
the Propose The Board finds tha
u d development and the delicate nature of the land within the no---''.
t
build area se forth in the BYLaw does not meet the requirements of Section'
10.31 of the Zoning ByLaw.- Particularly because of the absence of sewage--:'
to the site and the site is not an appropriate location for the Proposed
use
in light Of its promimity to a tributary' to the lake and the increase
of sewage to the site. The prop?se usa would in the opn o
have an adverse affect on the neigh f the Board.
Igh fftrWood, in that the
effort to stem the pollution of the lake Town has- an
in
Imposed a moratorium
g
...... rium on building
-inued on
9
........................... i' .
............... ...... .
..................
a True
COPY
................... ...................
..................
T0.waC1-,k 44
Board of Appeals
'tjo
%
RECEIVED
hall be f ,led
I.- Aft 7"
DANIEL LONG
TOWN cuu
Cal•
Any app after the
days
Q�r j
ActjU5,
NORTH ANDOVER
Witn �7 of this
r
j 0j
TOWN OF NORT' 'ANDOVER
H
'SEP 24 106 '85.
MASSACHUSETTS
in
BOARD OF APPEALS
Of filing at thisotice
NOTICE OF DECISION
In the Off ice. of thQ Sown
Date
J9 05..
Petition No.....:37
Date of Healing. ?,,ugus.t .12.,
Petition of
.....................
Premises affected ,B ...................
.ra.dfo.rd. St..
Lot. 2/3/4/-S
Referring to Special Permit
the above petition for
a }irk At'61 from therequirements of the
-Section. 4.1-33'(3)'(d�
..........................
........... ..
go as to permit
.tbe..coris
tru c t i On Of - th' lee d
to the existing dwelling. on. the.
........
...... ..... -si-'e,."in
-addi
o
... t
................
After a public hearing given 0
n the above date, the Pbard of Appeals voted to .
DENY.. the
.5Pq 9i a 1. Re
............
...........
t
the Propose The Board finds tha
u d development and the delicate nature of the land within the no---''.
t
build area se forth in the BYLaw does not meet the requirements of Section'
10.31 of the Zoning ByLaw.- Particularly because of the absence of sewage--:'
to the site and the site is not an appropriate location for the Proposed
use
in light Of its promimity to a tributary' to the lake and the increase
of sewage to the site. The prop?se usa would in the opn o
have an adverse affect on the neigh f the Board.
Igh fftrWood, in that the
effort to stem the pollution of the lake Town has- an
in
Imposed a moratorium
g
...... rium on building
-inued on
9
........................... i' .
............... ...... .
..................
a True
COPY
................... ...................
..................
T0.waC1-,k 44
Board of Appeals
0
- , „°R,p RECEIIIFD
DANIEL LCjiG
TOWN C; ERK
i
NORTH APDOVER
;•�:,....��� SEP Z I os PM'85
eat sh
?L
� NO�ce
app of aayS�+1�5 �0.�1� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
0,� ire MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
September 24, 1985
Coolidge Construction Co.
Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk
South' Bradford St., Lot 2/3/4/5
Town Office Building Petition #37-85
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Long:
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday -.August - 12•x •: ,
1985 upon the -application of Coolidge Construction Co: The hearing ,
was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on May 23 and 30, 1985 and
all abutters were notified by regular mail. The following members were
present and voting: Chairman Frank Ser.iol. Jr., Vice Chairman Alfred E.
Frizelle, Esq., Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk., Walter F. -Soule and
Raymond A. Vivenzio.
The petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to Section 4.133 (3) (d)
-for construction of three dwellings on the site, in addition to the
existing dwelling. The site has two brooks' and wetlands area which' -_
require that a special permit to construct within 100', of a tributa
ry
The petitioner's representative testified that the proposed development �`
will require the additional approval of the Planning Board and the
Conservation Commission and then will require a variance from the Board
of Appeals.
The board upon a motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sould_•votes
unanimously to .DENY the.'special permit. _
The board finds that the proposed development and the delicate nature of.—
the land within the no -build area set forth in the ByLaw does not meet the
requirements of Section 10.31 of the Zoning ByLaws. Particularly because
of the absence of sewage to the site and the site is not an appropriate -
location for the proposed use in light of its proximity to a tributary
to the lake and the increase of sewage to the site. The proposed use would
in the opinion of the board have 'an' adverse affect on the neighborhood.,
in that the Town has, in an effort' to stem the pollution of the lake,
imposed a moratorium on building around the lake. Although the moratorium
does not affect this site, the`board considers the mandate of the Torn
to be compelling. F
(continued on Page 2)
101
r P°'
HORTH
`.4+
F p
34CHUS�t
RECEIYFD
DANIEL. LOI•iG
TOWN
NORTH ANDOVER
SEP Zq 1 06 pM 85
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
r
w ..
September 24, 1985
Coolidge Construction Co.
Mr. Daniel Long, Town Clerk South'Bradford St., Lot,2/3/4/5
Town Office Building Petition #37-85
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mr. Long:
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Monday,, August 12;
1985 upon the application of Coolidge Construction Co. The hearing
was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on May 23 and 30, 1985,and
all abutters were notified by regular mail. The following members were
present and voting: Chairman Frank Serio, Jr., Vice Chairman Alfred E.
Frizelle, Esq., Augustine W. Nickerson( Clerk., Walter F. Soule and
-- Raymond A. Vivenzio.
The petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to Section 4.133(3)(d)
for construction of three dwellings on the site, in addition to the
existing dwelling. The site has two brooks and wetlands area which,
require that a special permit to construct within 100' of a tributary.
The petitioner's representative testified that the proposed development
will require the additional approval of the Planning Board and the
Conservation Commission and then will require a variance fromthe Board
of Appeals.
The board upon a motion by Mr. Frizelle and seconded by Mr. Sould;votes
unanimously to DENY the special permit.
The board finds that the proposed development and the delicate nature of
the land within the no -build area set forth in the ByLaw does not meet the
requirements of Section 10.31 of the Zoning ByLaws. Particularly because
of the absence of sewage to the site and the site is not an appropriate
location for the proposed use in light of its proximity to a tributary
to the lake and the increase of sewage to the site. The proposed use would.
in the opinion of the board have an adverse affect on the neighborhood,
in that the Town has, in an effort to stem the pollution of the lake, '
imposed a moratorium on building around the lake. Although the moratorium
does not affect this site, the board considers the mandate of the Town
to be compelling.
(continued on Page 2)
0
Page, 2
Coolidge Construction Co. - South Bradford St. Lot 2/3/4/5
In,summary, the petitioner fails to meet the standards enumerated in Sectic
Section 1 of the Zoning ByLaw, namely that the health and welfare of the
inhabitants of the Town must be considered.
Sincerely,
BO D, OF APPEALS ,
Frank Serio, Jr.
Chairman
/awt
4.
shall after
. jiled
Nny 3PP the
'41thin ot this Notice
;Gown
Ot the
in the,
Of i"'Ing of tIljs
Notice
in the
I office. Pt twe-J-001
CIe_rK
APAILM
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD Of APPEALS
NOTICE OF DECISION
RECEIVED
DANIEL LONG
TOWN CLERK
NORTI-I ANDOVER
SEP Z 06
Date $5..
Petition No ..... 37nU ............
Date of Hearing. P.uqust .12., 71985
Petition of ... qpQj.i.dg!q. ..................................
Premises affected ;q Q Pth. R r a.d f ox d. S t..,. . L.0 t. 2/.3./.4/5 ............................
Special Permit
Referring to the above petition for aXXffM1Mfrom the requirements of the -Section..4.1.3 3 (3) (d)
.......... I ................................................................................
so the..construction.of.thr'ee -dw-ellings.on. the. -sitn
G�,. •i.'- -addition
to
the existing dwelling.
.........................................................................................
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Board of Appeals voted to
DENY. - .the'
...Special. Pexmjg...............
.......................................... ...................................
The Board finds that
the proposed development and the delicate nature of the land within the no
build area set forth in the ByLaw does not meet the requirements of Section
10.31 of the Zoning ByLaw. Particularly because of the absence of sewage.'
the site and the site is not an appropriate location for the proposed
use, in light of its promimity to a tributary to the lake and the increase
of sewage to the site. The propose used would in the opinion of the Board
have an adverse affect on the MrWood, in that the Town has, in an
effort to stem the pollution of the lake, 7
i posed a moratorium on building
...........
(66ritin a'6-2) ...
fiudd* *6
.................... I ............... .........
............ ...................
..................
Board of Appeals
Page .2
Coolidge*Construction Co.- South.Bradford St.
around the lake. Although the moratorium does not affect this site, the
Board considers the mandate of the Town to be compelling. In summary,
the petitioner fails to meet the standards enumerated in Section l of
the Zoning ByLaw, namely that the health and welfare of the inhabitants
of the Town must be considered.
Signed: Frank Serio, Jr. Chairman
Alfred E. Frizelle, Vice Chairman
Augustine W. Nickerson, Clerk, ;
Walter F. Soule
Ra mond A. Vivenzio
.BOARD GrF APPEAIF
/awt