HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-09 Abutter/Resident Comments DEF SUB JOHN CARROLL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION • SALES
Kathleen Bradley
Planning Board Director
North Andover , MA 01845 r April 8 , 1993
Re: Booth Street Proposal
S & S Builders , Proponent
Dear Kathleen :
I am a builder and I own lots on Saville Street and on Booth
Street as outlined on the attached map. Although I am in favor of
anyone constructing a portion of Booth Street, I ,have grave
concerns as to how S' & S Builders propose to end the extension . .
A . By T)assing over private land by temporary casement . I can
.-I eenvision lr'gal miss whe'i I attempt to extend Wallace Street
to access .my
13. If they do not construct the entire 90 degree turn at Br)o t h.:
and Wallace I may then '!')e subject to removing a portion of
their impro-lements and t n have to go I-)ac Jk 50 to 100 f (;�..t::
to pick u I? tree (,.nd of the. roadway . This a
urjfai-r burden.
C . The catch basin they have proposed for the middle of the road
will change the existing grade to a great extent, restrict my
access to one lot and adversely impact my rights of ownership .
I have offered all my lots (individually or together) to S
& S Builders at far less than assessed value. In no way have T
been uncooperative in the effort to develop this area. In fact,
I submitted a plan to construct the entire length of Booth Street
a relatively short time ago. . ( The filing was denied due to a minor
portion of wetlands to be crossed at the bottom of the hill, with
no feasible alternative) .
In short, I believe that developing- the areaalpiecemeall is the-
only way to go due to the extensive number of owners . However,
each proposal. can not infringe on the bonafide rights of the rest .
Very truly yours,
John H.
1501 MAIN STREET, SUITE 15, TEWKSBURY, MASSACHUSETTS 01876 (508) 85 1-48-51
,JAN 1 6 2001
NORTH AN[) V(-l'
Xb.Heidi Griffin PLANNING DEP TMENI'
Town Planner
North Andover, MA January 11, 2003-
Re: Application for approval of one lot difinitive subdivision know-n as
Wallace Street: Juba Applicant.
Dear Ms. Griffin,
As an abutter and future developer of my lot(s), I have several
concerns regarding the above referenced application. I may not be able
to attend the public hearing but it is my hope that this letter may
help voice my concerns to the board.
I believe that 'Pown determination that because the
applicant's lot is "grandfathered", only 50' of the public way needs to
be Paved, is grossly flawed. Throughout Massachusetts, communities
commonly and consistently require that roadways be constructed to the
FURTHEST LOT LINE and for good reason. Anything less overburdens the
owners further down the road when their time comes for development. At
an absolute minimum the town must require what curent zoning requires,
in this case, 125' of frontage. Town Counsel. is clearly misinterpreting
this as many "grandfathered" lots have only 50' of frontage to begin
with, not the 300V frontage of this lot.
This board has already allowed a previous developer to construct a
severely sloped driveway built on and infringing upon Wallace Street
(corner of Wallace and Booth) . The removal of said driveway to construct
Wallace Street properly will now, almost certainly, render the owner's
garage unusable to vehicles. Now the current applicant proposes to, ill
effect, block the entire street (Wallace) with the construction of a
100' driveway on Wallace. How am I to access my lot at all in the
future? (Access via Booth St. is already prohibited due to expanding
wetlands) .
A decision to favor the applicant will not only completely
restrict access to my property but will reduce and minimize its value to
such an extent as to cause it to be nearly worthless.
It is my hope that the board will also consider water and sewer
extension on the public way. Water extension should be mandatory for the
length of the road to be required. Any sewer line placed in Saville St
should be sized properly and node accessible to others that will also
require sewer access in the same direction in the future.
In closing, I believe that the planning board has the duty and
obligation to uphold and protect the property/development rights of all.
owners in its decision making. An approval of any plan requiring such
mininal development efforts as this will greatly infringe upon my
property rights and will ultimately cause grave financial hardship to
myself as well as other owners.
Thank you for your consideration.
SiLnceyel Y,
1ohn Carroll, 1501 Main St
Tewksbury, MA
h
Gilliam J. Sullivan, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals of North Andover
.........
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01.84.E
October 6, 1999
Re, Juba, Booth Street Lot
public hearing regarding undersized lot/lack of frontage
Dear Chairman Sullivan,
I am an abutter (land owner) to the above referenced lot and will
not be able to attend the public hearing. I hope, however, that this
letter will serve to voice my concerns.
By allowing the Jubas to construct anything less than a town
acceptable road to their furthest lot line certainly places an unfair
burden on me to brine a road past their lot. 'A' to my lot 'B' in the
future (please refer to the attached diagram) ,
I attended the public hearing in January 1995 when a potential buyer
of this same lot applied for this same variance. Their attorney
attempted to coerce the board to act favorably on this request by
stating publicly that "all the land beyond this lot is a wetland". This
is NOT THE CASE. My entire lot is an upland and I respectfully request
that this application be denied. A board member also questioned at that
time whether the 2BA had any authori-ty--to--waive road construction---
requirements (prior to the petitioner withdrawing their application).
I would like nothing more than to work with the petitioner to
resolve what have been outstanding issues for a long time. If any such
opportunity presents itself at the hearing please feel free to offer my
assistance.
Sincerely,
John Carroll
1.50). Maim Street, ##15
Tewksbury, MA 01.876
978-851.-4851.
RECISIVED
MAR 1 9 2001
NO 'I
Alison M. Lescarbeau, Chairperson �')\NNIPIJAOVER
North Andover Planning Board RTMINT
North Andover, MA March 15, 2001
Re: Application for approval of one lot definitive subdivision known. as
Wallace Street: Juba Applicant.
Dear Ms. Lescarbeau,
As an abutter and future developer of my lot(s) , I have several
concerns regarding the above referenced application. I attended the
initial public hearing and feel that uW concerns are being over 1.ooked.
The applicant is showing us via his proposed plan that an
approximate 280' road is REQUIRED for his develoyarnt proposal . Yet, he
wants to call 230' of it a "driveway". He also wants the town to OK
construction of it ON THE PUBLIC WAY. I cannot understand allowing this
when the board is fully aware that myself and another builder own lots
just passed this lot which are developable. Grading changes at the
intersection are now proposed that way make the street (Wallace)
undevelopable in the future by current standards!
Furthermore, I believe that Town Counsel 's determination that
because the applicant's lot is "grandfathered", only 50' of the public
way needs to be paved, is grossly flawed. Throughout Massachunetts,
comatunitie,-, comiionly and consistently require that roadways be
constructed to the FORTHEST LOT LINE and for good reason. Anything less
overburdens the owners further down the road when their time comes for
development. At an absolute minimum the town most require what current
zoning requires, in this case, 125' of frontage. Town Counsel is clearly
adsinterpreting this as many "grandfathered" lots have only 50' of
frontage to begin with, not the 300V frontage of this lot.
This board has already allowed a previous developer to construct a
severely sloped driveway built. on and infringing upon Wallace Street
(corner of Wallace and Booth) . The removal of said driveway to construct:
Wallace Street properly will now, almost certainly, render the owner's
garage unusable to vehicles. Now the current applicant proposes to, in
effect, block the entire street (Wallace) with the construction of a
230' driveway on Wallace. How am I to access my lot at all in the
future? (Access via Booth St. is already prohibited due to expanding
wetlands) .
A North Andover. Planning Board decision to favor the applicant
will not only completely restrict access to my property but will reduce
and minimize its value to such an extent as to cause it to be nearly
worthless.
It is my hope that the board will also consider water and sewer
exteDsion on the public way. Water extension should be MANDATORY for the
length of the road to be required. Further, any sewer line placed in
Saville St should be sized properly and made accessible to others that
will also require sewer access in the same direction in the future.
in closing, I believe that the planning board has the duty and
obligation to uphold and protect the property/developaunt rights of all
owners in its decision making. hn approval of any plan requiring such
minimal development efforts as this will greatly infringe upon my
property rights and will ultimately cause grave financial hardship to
myself as well as other: owners.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, ?
Uohn Carroll , 1501 Main t
Tewksbury, MA
RF-P-..r7.ivrz n.
MAR 2 0 2001
N011'111 ,4 r.q
h
PLANN ENT
Alison M. Lescarbeau, CbairpersGI-I
North Andover Planning Board
North Andover, MI-\ March 20, 2001.
Re: My letter to you dated March 15, 2001
Dear Ms. Lescarbeav,
Please accept uW apologies for a scaling error and the assertion
that the applicant shows a 280' road with 230' driveway. Each
im--�asure)-nent should be half (or 140' of roadway and 1.15' of driveway) ,
however, all other issues remain the same.
sincerely, -
,2bn Carroll
Alison M. Lescarbeau, Chairperson
North.Andover Planning Board
North Andover, MA March 15, 2001
Re: Application for approval of one lot definitive subdivision known as
Wallace Street: .Tuba Applicant.
Dear Ms. Lescarbeau,
As an abutter and future developer of my lot(s) , I have several
concerns regarding the above referenced application, I attended the
initial public hearing and feel that my concerns. are being overlooked.
Y __ .._._.Thy a prl capt is showing us via his proposed plan that an
"approximat280_.'__,y_Q.ad is REQUIRED for his development proposal . Yet, he
/�/o wants to calf 30' ..of it a "driveway" , He also wants the town. to OK
---"construction of it ON THE PUBLIC WAY. I cannot understand allowing this
-� ` when the board is fully aware that myself and another builder own lots
just passed this lot which are developable. Grading changes at the
intersection are now proposed that may--make the street (Wallace)
undevelopable in the future by current standards!
Furthermore, I believe that Town Counsel 's determination that
because the applicant's lot is "grandfathered", only 50' of the public
way needs to be paved, is grossly -f-Iawed-FThroughout Massachusetts,
comunities cdninonly and consistently require that roadways be
constructed to the FURTHEST LOT LINE and for good reason. Anything less
overburdens the owners further down the road when their time comes for
development. At an absolute minimum the town must require what current
zoning requires, in this case, 1.25' .'of frontage, Town Counsel is clearly
misinterpreting this as many "grandfathered" lots have only 50' of
frontage to begin with, not the 300'+ frontage of this lot.
This board has already allowed a previous developer to construct a
severely sloped driveway built on and infringing upon Wallace Street
(corner of Wallace and Booth) . The removal of said driveway to construct
Wallace Street properly will now, almost certainly, render the owner's
garage unusable to vehicles. Now the current applicant proposes to, in
f�ect,` block the entire street (Wallace) with the construction of a
__..__ 36 ) driveway on Wallace, How am I to access my lot at all in the
` f-uture? (Access via Booth St. is already prohibited due to expanding
wetlands) .
A North Andover Planning Board decision to favor the applicant
will not only complete r restrict access to my. property but""wirl redUc
and minimize its value to such an Extent as to cause it to be nearly
worthless,
It is my hope that the board will also consider water and sewer
extension on the public way. Water extension should be MANDATORY for the
length of the road to be required, Further. , any sewer line placed in
Saville St should be sized properly and made accessible to others that
will also require sewer access in the same direction in the future.
In closing, I believe that the planning board has the duty and
obligation to uphold and protect the property/development rights of all
owners in its decision making, An approval of any plan requiring such
mini6l development efforts as this will greatly infringe upon my
l
i
From: Ken Ahern
231 Sutton St. 2F North Andover,MA
To: Alison M, Lescarbeau, Chairman MAR 6
01
North Andover Planning Board
27 Charles St. N. Andover, MA Nnf °'W�hlit'i4i 1�tNNINiq pF 87"MI N7
Re: Application by Stephen& Cheryl Juba
To improve Wallace St. at intersection
with Booth St. at Map 98D Lot 14 (subject lot)
Date: March 25,2001
Dear Ms. Lescarbeau
Please accept this letter as an attempt to clarify 3 issues in the above matter and as
these two issues pertain to other related issues. I will go in to more detail later in this
letter. The first issue is: the construction of the first 50 feet of Wallace at its intersection
with Booth St. in such a manner that the future extension of Wallace can be accomplished
at a grade not exceeding 10% (this is a vertical drop of 1 foot for each 8.33 feet carried
hodiontally). This goal is complicated by the fact that the driveway that serves the home
owned by MaryJo Cieslewski (Map 98C Lot 32) is situated in Wallace St in an ascending
plane, whereas the historically traveled plane of Wallace to Saville is a descending plane.
Please see attached plans,
The second issue is the extension of the water main along with the extension of the
roadway. The plan displayed by William Johnson at the February 6`1'and February 20"'
2001 Hearings depicted the 1"water service serving the subject lot, running under the
pavement in the linear dimension of Wallace. In fairness to the property owners further
down the roadway and to the extent the subject lot intends to use municipal water,the
water main should be extended the same distance as the improved surface roadway. This
extension of the water main with a 1" blow off will permit property owners further down
the roadway to extend the water main without digging up the newly installed pavement.
The third issue is,to the extent practical and reasonable; try to keep driveway/parking
areas out of the private easement used for common access.
Background Information
The subject property is on Plan#326313 in the Registered Land Dept. at the Essex North
District Registry of Deeds. The plan was drawn by Ernest W. Branch and dated Aug. 20,
1913. The subdivision has 284 lots, which tend to have 3,000 sq, ft. each and about 30
feet of frontage and 100 feet of depth. The subject property contains 6 of these lots. The
streets within the subdivision are named Innis, Wesley,Adrian, Booth and Saville and are
laid out in 40-foot widths. Although the registered plan depicts 4 entry/exit points, on the
ground, only one entry/exit point is constructed with a paved surface. That entry point is
at the intersection of Innis and Hillside. To reach the subject property by automobile, one
travels from Hillside to Innis St. (19 ft, paved width) to Wesley St. (15 ft. paved width at
its widest point)to Booth St. (22 ft, paved width). Adrian St, is paved 20 ft. wide and
Saville is paved for approximately 200 feet and ranges in width from 13ft. to I7ft.
1
Although many portions of these subdivision roadways are unpaved, there has been a
"historical use" of these traveled ways. As evidenced by the abandoned 16ft. x 32ft.
foundation on the subject lot and a standing wooden structure on Map 98D Lot 4 Saville
St., the area had a more active use in the past. These lots may have been used as
recreational "camp" lots. These non paved"traveled ways"tend to be 14— 16 feet in
width, These"traveled ways"are private roads/easements shared with other property
owners who have a present or future use as a means of access to their property. For
example, should one property owner put a fence in an easement to obstruct travel, this
would be considered an"overburden" on the easement. The aggrieved property owner
could lawfully take the fence down in order to gain access. The point of this letter is to
encourage the present applicant not to improve Wallace in such a manner that said
improvement will need to be largely "undone" at a hardship to the property owners
further down Wallace to Saville and the future occupants of the subject lot.
In the past, the roadway at the intersection of Booth and Wallace at Station 0+00 was
probably elevation 264.5 —since the paving of Booth, it is approximately el, 265.4; At
Station 0+50, on the right edge of the roadway, it is el.266.19; At Station 1+00, on the
right side of the roadway, it is el. 265.07. This is a grade decline of 2.24% from 0+50 to
1+00. The elevation on the right side of the roadway at 1+50 is el. 261.0. This is a grade
decline of 2.14%. The elevation on the right side of the roadway at Station 2+00, which is
the intersection of Saville St. with Wallace, is el, 252.4.This is a grade decline of 17.2%.
Turning right on Saville the road remains relatively flat.
Suggestions
For the overall plan of the area, I offer these suggestions.
1. The present applicant is going to install the road up to 0+50 on Wallace St.
2. This segment actually will amount to about 24 feet of additional pavement due to
the prior installation of the cut de sac on Booth St.
3. The water main in Booth St. shall be extended to Station 0+52 with an end plug
and 1"blow off, The 1" water service for the subject lot can come off this
segment.
4. The additional roadway being extended herein for the subject lot may be installed
at only 16 foot wide in this segment and installed on the right side of Wallace to
avoid the Cieslewski's driveway. Future extension of Wallace to Saville shall
return to the 22-foot wide and centered roadway, preferred by the Planning Board,
as quickly as is practicable in avoiding the Cieslewski's driveway. The slope
between the Cieslewski's driveway and the new roadway can be at a 1:1 ratio
with 6" stone riprap. Despite this action, the Cieslewski's driveway way still may
need to be"cheated" 2-3 feet to the left.
5. The proposed elevation of the roadway at Station 0+50 shall be planned at el.
266.0.
6. The proposed elevation of the roadway at Station 1+00 shall be planned at
el.263.0, (a 6%decline from 0+50)
7. The proposed elevation of the roadway at Station 1+50 shall be planned at el.
258.0. (a 10%decline from 1+00)
i
8. The proposed elevation of the roadway at Station 2+00 shall be planned at 253.0.
(a 10%decline from 1+50)The elevation of Saville that fronts the subject lot shall
hold about flat at el, 253.0
9, The applicant will not be responsible, per se, to install any roadway beyond
station 0+50, yet the applicant shall grade and landscape the subject lot to
accommodate these roadway elevations to be installed in the future in order to
allay future erosion problems or sight distance problems.
10. The parking and driveway for the subject lot shall not be intended to be in the
Wallace or Saville roadway.
11, Change the"Exist C.B," on the original plan to depict a rim elevation that is
consistent with the other elevation datum on the plan and move its location about
35 feet northward to reflect its more accurate location,
Please accept the above comments as points of discussion in your considerationlas
the Board arrives at a decision. Of course the Board is free to make its own
determination among other alternatives not mentioned here pursuant to the best
overall plan for this area. Had this subdivision had one developer and Planning Board
oversight in more recent times, the elevations of some of the roadways would have
been quite different. Namely, as one example, the high point elevation of Wesley
would have been 15 20 feet lower to accommodate its connection to Chestnut St.,
Booth St. and Saville St. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further
assistance,
Res tfully Yours,
Ken Ahern
CC: Phil Christiansen
Bill Johnson
Mary Jo Cieslewski
John Carroll