The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-07-14 Correspondence ohn agieees ala R 0 C a a t e S afeh� � EeeEs f 6 Rio. a � n S # r1e1 A140Yer, KassaC 0 S e I t S 01110 12 47 060fi pla � �rers ,July 1, 1986 Toun of North Andover Planning Board 120 Main Strcc:t North Andover, HA 0045 fie. Site Development Plan € f .� K R. Todd (Applicant)4 Proposed Warehouse nR Parcel fit Piaui of Land for ARC 13us Company, Turnpike Street, 1,onh Andover Dear Planning Board Members: This intter is a fornal request Hr a Vrariance. from Off Street Parking regulations, Section 8, 8. 1 , page 64, of the current Zoning, By Laws of the Town of North Andover, which requires one (1) parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area in wsre�sotfra.ig,/wtl+ iesaiiTsgf ditri.i4ot.a.►xg use. The proposed use for the building as delineated on the Site Devel.opmenL Plan (attached) is cold sturnge Based on the fact that dead stnraga is rarely habi.ted, we request a waivar from the one space pr..r 1,000 s.f. require- ment. The peultioner eRtimates Kat apprnximstaly 10 cars per day will use the facility; thus we show parking for 16 spaces on thu Site Develupment Plan. We also request a waiver aE this time from Section WOO, Snuion 2, Definitions, of the Town of North Andover By Laws, whieb provides that each driveway shall service ISO more thap One lot. The petitioner requests that arse driveway (currently serving the ABC Bus parcel) be shared by the proposed warehouse building. The reasun for this request is chat the proposed warehou8e (dead storage) building would generate very limited traffic to Ke site. We feel that Lhese requests are in conformance with nud advantageous for the hest use ;and development of this parenT , all of which is taken into considermion at the Site Plan Neview. Should .you have any qungtion s, or require were infurmaKon for review of these requests, please der not hesitate Co call us. Very truly yours, n C Iahan , OHN CALLAHAN ASSOCIATES JJG:st 0 11. aKahan s s o c i a t e s a r c h i I a c 161 N a. Rai n S I r o e I A u d o v e r, R a s s a c h u s e i i s 0 18 1 U 8 1 ? 475 U 6 a 6 a a n i r March 24 , 1936 Town of North Andover ,, Planning Board 120 MAQ Street North Aridaver, ,18,45 Rt: Applications for Special Permit of Mr . John Todd, Lowell , MA Commercial Rt . 114 (Owned by ABC Bus Company) Members of the Planning Board: The intent of this letter is request a Withdrawal Without Prejudice for two Applications for Special Permit-scheduTH-56-he Eeard ,on the March 24, 1986 Planning Board Meeting., One Special Permit was for Sits Plan apprqval as required in an In- dustrial District for a building having more than 10 porking spaces and the second was. for the petitioner to be allowed ingress/egress; to his proposed site from a private roadway. We wish to be able to resubmit than applications to be heard at a. layer Planning Board heariqg, should Mr, Todd so desire . Thank you for approval . Very truly yours ,AM J. . ilahan n UN CALLAHAN ASSOCIATES JJC : st ...........11111............ copy : Mr. John Todd 'np E QJ OilSAFE "IN"SOU NO MINI STORAGE 15 WINDWARD �,�IOAD, LOWELL, MASSACHUSE17TS, 01852! ((317), 459-431ru July 7 , 1987 Karen H. P . Nelson, Director Division of Planning and Community Devclopment Town Hall North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Dear Ms . NAlson: Pursuant to the decisions of the Planning Byrd of the Town Dui North Andover at their meeting hold last evening , July 6 , 1987 , said decision having allowed the withdrawal without prejudice of both petitions for Special Permits previously submitted by me , I am directing this correspondence to you corroborating in writing my request for said withdrawal. Siacerely, John B. Todd JBT :mm cc : Attorney Burton Kleinfeld Roal HIM DeveWpors and Sturage 31pecialn't"5 lor CoRIWIW'njal, IrIclivs[rial, i I, PAOLA IEifaFcr'bM1NkhJC'Ni :a,TER:STREET BOSTON+ 02,116, tlkl V F31JIRTON".iH. KL N m6JFiM:L,Lr July 20 , 1987' Domenic J . Scalise , Esq. Shaheen ,Peter G. North Andover , MA 01845 RE: Safe ' N ' Sound Mini Storty, Dear Messrs. Scalise and Shaheen ,- t feel that recent events pertaining to my client ' s (John B. Tod b/a SAFE W SOUNDMINT STORAGE COS . ) attempts t obtain permits from the Town of North Andover for the construction of a mini warshou5e facility on Rte. 114 should be brought to your attention as legal counsel for the Town . My client appeared before the Forth Andover Conservation Commission (N ) our April 22 , 1987 , request inq an Order of Conditions . During his presentation to the NACC it was 5penifically pointed out that all statutory requirements had been met and that impact on wetlands had been minimized . The A stated that regardless of whether or not all requirements had been met they had the prerogative of denying the request , regardless of the nature of the impact of the proposed project. °1heyin fact have done so . ( See attached decision) . in acnordance with statutory provisions , this denial has been appealed to the DEQE and , based upon the reasons for the denial ( which do not pertain to the issues , but rather to prior happenstance) , i processed to fruition , will undoubt8dly he overturned , However , in order to conform to the wi5hes of the NAC:'C'., req rdle s of their applicability or r as na len s,s, client is in the proce5s of redesigning the projerpt so that the main "bone of contention" -- the brook -- will not be affected in any way. M nic J. Scalise , E8q . Peter G. Shaheen, Esq. July 20 , 1987 Page Two In the meantirne , my client has applied to the North Andover Planning Board ( NAPB) for a special permit to use one driveway for two lots , as Previously requested in our joint discussions . In the course of so doing , the administrative rl�qui,re:aents of the Board precipitated a memorandum from the NACC to the NAPB which causes me great concern , is indicative of an NACC attitude , and I au99e8t , needs to he addresed at tkjis time so as to preclude any unnecessary Euture problems. A bit of background may be, in order . The DPW of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandated to ABC BUS Co . the present_ location of the driveway. By sa doing , it wa8 required that wetlands and streams he Significantly impacted . The NA CC was forced by the mandate of the Commonwealth into issuing an order of conditions allowing for the construction of the drib way , even though it was against their Principals and better judgment: . Because of these oir ur sR a Ices , the NACCr is adamant in their contentions that the brook which runs parallel to Rte. 114 and adjacent vegetated wetlands not he altered its any way. My client has proposed that the existing 30 ' driveway with its associated aooeleraLion and deceleration lanes bo utilized by both the proposed SAFE ' N ' SOUND storage operation and tihe ARC Bus Co . BY so doing , the brook will not be crossed again , but rathor , a drainage ditch cOnstrUcted by IBC while building . the driveway would be culverted and crossed allowing access to the property. The memorandum from the NACC to the NAPB , which I have enclased , is inaccurate and inappropriate , as follows 1. The proposal for the use of one drive for two lots has not been presented to the, NACC per se , but rather, a pr,opoSal was presented under. file #242-403 which Pertained primarily With the alteration of the course of the brooks . No discussions have been had with the NACC as to the rationale for using the existing drive rather than crossing th ? brook and constructing additional curb cuts and egress and entrance points onto Rte . 114. i menic J. Scalise , Esq . Peter C. Shaheen , Esq. July 20 , 1987 Page Three 2. The common driveway is already in place and has been .for some period of time. Our propoSal to construct a thirty foot long entrance perpendicular to the existing drive will naturally require some fill , but it has been carefully engineered so as to be that access location which has tht 3 least amount of topographical change and fill requirements . 3 . There most assuredly and absol tritely is compelling Justification for this . In simple terms , my client must have access to the property. The conclusion drawn raises the question . What would the ACC recommend? As you are aware , the regulations governing the actions of conservation oommisszons are very explicit in that they state that access to a piece of property cannot be denied even though said access may require transition over or Lhrough a designated wetland . The NACC has made it cleat that they do not want an acce�.-�3 point which would cause an impact on the brook . They have now stated that they are objecting to the crossing of a man-made drainage ditch , effectively denying my client access to the property. I submit that in light of the uecent Supreme Court decision , denial of access to a piece of property by a rouni.cipal agency constitutes a taking by the municipality with resultant land damages and appropriate compensation to the landowner . As you know from our prior c-onversations , my client does not want to involve himself with litigation against the Town of North Andover and/or its agents and employees . On the contrary, mar client i,5 , aDd has been for two years , diligently endeavoring to cooperate with the `own and its by-laws , regulations , and the personal feelings and requirements of its various Board members . T ask that you gentlemen , in your capacity as counsel to the Town of North Andover , communicate with 14ACC and its administrative directors as well as any other applicable boards or agencies as to the applicability of the various lawe and governing regulations . I believe that we are dealing with intelligent personriol and that Lf properly inforracd , thoy will act in a, manner such as to avoid future legal. complications. Domenic J. Scalise , Esq. Peter G. Shaheen , Esq . - July 20 . 1987 Page Four la anticipation of your continued Cooperation and assistaacr . I remain Sincerely, Burton R. £lein£eld RHK/crs CC ; Mr . Paul Sharon , Town Manager 120 Main Street North Andover , MA OIS45 Karen S. P. Nelson , Director Division of Cummunity Planning a Development 120 Main Street North Andover , MA 01845 John B . Todd , Chief Executive Officer Safe ' N ' Sound mini Storage Cos . Attorney Charles E. westcott We ' N ` Sound mini Storage cos . MUIR HIH TOWN 01iNURTH ANDOVER 120 Main Street . North Andover . MA. 01845 6R 75 #.> ofa� , 7 � � Ct I0: Board of Selectmen FROM: Erich W. Nitzscbe , Chairman SUBJECT: .PENDING LITIGATIONITODD VS . PIae@ING BOARD Dais: October 9 , 1986 The Planning Board is in receipt of a complaint filed by Mr. Jobe Toad (develogef) against the Planning Board. It iS necessary to direct Town Counsel to take whatever action is required to support and defend the Planning Board and Town ' s position. We would like to be closely involved and kept abreast of any required court pppea£ances or judgements rendered o9 this ease . Lastly-, membq£ Paul Eedstt0m requestb to view the answer Town Couna@1 intGht# td file on the lawsuit . Kindly inform the Town Planner of any required meeting related to the case. Thank you. . EN: ns . cc: Town Counsel E Y f 1 f ° �Nchard FAssociate, January , 1988 r . Feuer Htrr North Andover Planning Board 128 Main St. N. Andover,, 01845 Attn : r° . Scott stocking : Safe IN' Sound MiniStorage Gentlemen: We were informed this morning,, the Planning Board meeting discuss h r ug , Safe IN' Sound n Storage facility n Norte Andover . Our client is unavailable at this time to attend this, meeting. We have not received his direction on the project. and do not have the authority to respond the Planning Board.. With all dine respect, we wouldsuggest that the Board grant a continuance ofthis matter to the next, available meeting. Very truly yours, rich rd F. Kaminsk & Assoc. , Inc. A Chef En nu GJP/nc.r GJF2135 ,rchit(,.xts U Entilne rs fj ; urr e rr:. n Cerra Planners,