Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1955-02-07 FEBRUARY 7, 1955: continued Mr. King and Mr. Pratt stated that it was not completely irrelevant. There was further discussion on this matter and Mr. Willisentered into a discussion with Attorney King relative to the taking of the land and Mr. King agreed that it was done under the provisions of Chapter 79, "eminent Domain" proceedings. Mr. Willis then stated that the taking b~ the county ~s done on behalf of the ~own of North Andover and he quoted sectio~ 6 of the statate "In the award of damages, su6h damages shall be paid by the body politic on behalf of the party of which the taking was made.,' Then quoting Section 39,"Whenever damages may be collected, the body politic may .agree, for its best interests.,, Mr. Willis then s~ated that if it is agreed that North Andover is liable, then only the selectmen, as the body politic of the ~o~n, has the .right ~o make land da.~age settlements. Mr. Willis stated that apparently the town is in need of legal coura~el and suggested that the board of selectmen notify the commisB~.oners that these settlements be decided in cour~ for the best interests of the ~own. Mr. Pratt informed the chairman that if he felt the commissioners were in error or were ~no~ Justified in our proceedings, then, if you wish us ~o do this, we will instruct our attorney ~o ~ight this case in Superior Court. ~¥e felt we were no~ doing the right thing if we took this ~o 'court but if this 'hoard of Selectmen wants to do this and gamble, then the ~own of North Andover wt~ have ~o pay expenses of the County Commissioners. That is clear cut and if the board questions our Judgment and wan~s our counsel to take this action, then the expense above and beyond is to be paid by the town. Mr. Willis then asked Mr. Finneran if he felt that an offer of $985 acceptable ~o the petitioner a year ago can stand as a fai'r offer when the commissioners figure is $3350 almost four times as much as a year ago and the petitioner was willing ~o acc~.6t at that time. Mr. King stated that $985 is correct and this figure was submitted, contingent o~ all offers submitted being accepted but only one petitioner would have accepted.' Ne said the offers made since are fair and were made on the assumption that each petitiloner c~ould accep~ or rejec~ the offer. Mr. Willis said tha~ one y~ar ago, Mr. Stefanowicz was willing mo accept $985 and on January 24, 1954 Mr. King submitted a letter and said that these settlements be accepted. Ne mendioned an offer of ai:lo~ with hO,O00 sq. ft. which Mr. Willis could buy for $1500 and in comparing these figures, he asked the co ~mmissioners if they could honestly say that this land is worth $3300. Mrl Prat~ said he had a copy of a letter from Mr. Stefanowicz dated 9/2/52 statin~~ that the total damage was $4300. · Mr. Kirk asked why a higher figure was @resented now than the one' submitted in J~nuary 1954. Mr. King mentioned that a meeting was held with the commissioners and the attorney for three of the abutters and they disagreed on the figure presented in January 1954~ Mr. pratt again pointed out that the County Commissioners are nctbbligated to the select- men· on the matter of settlement of damages but he wanted ~o point out that the in preparing their budget felt that if the To~n of North Andover could pay the damages, they would delete this item from their budget and when Mr. Hamaala found that the warran~ had been closed Mr. Pratt suggested that a special to~ meeting be held. Mr. Willis again inquired of ~r. Finneran if he felt that ~3300 can be justified. Mr. 1Finneran' stated tha~ he didn't think the original settlement could have been .made since the acceptance of same was 'conditional on ~the acceptance of the proposed individual suSs for the other five claimants and when they did no~ accept, the proposal was no longer valid. He mentioned that Mr. Stefanowicz,s original reques~ for damages was $4,330 and he felt~ that the Judgmant of the Commissioners shbuld be considered first. Mr. Kirk then replihd to the same question by Mr. Kirk amd his answer was that the settle- ment is ~oo high. Mr. Willis felt he hsd a slight advantage over his colleagues since he was a lawyer and the commissioners have been throwing o~:t remarks. He asked if it is safe ~o assume that this land was taken under· Emthsnt Domain, Chapter 79 and Mr. Pratt agreed tha~ it was. Mr. Willis said that the authority to settle is under chapter 79, section 3. If we are to agree that the town of North Andover is liable and if we relinquish ~o you, the righ~ to settle then we are responsible for damage and the only ones who can' settle. There was further-discussion on town counsel and the procedure in ~his case. Mr. King stated that the taking is for the benefit of the ~own and is taken by the County Commissioners on behalf of ~ne to~n. - Mr. Willis said he would like ~o suggest that ~his board go on record as appointing counsel to represent North' Andover in conjunction with Mr. King. Mr. Pratt said the mattar will be taken up by the County Commissioners, the County treasurer and their counsel in one week. Ne stated that the Selectmen were invited ~o come to the County Commissioners meeting but they didn't see fit to do so but they came ~o this meeting out of the goodness of their hearts. Mr. Kirk said he appreciated their presence in North Andover. The beard then d~cided that they ~ould appoint counsel to take care of this matter of land damages and to proceed to become a oar% to the suit. Mr. Finnerun m ado a motion ~o appoint Attorney Arthur A. Thomson to represent the ~own, Mr. Kirk a motion to appoint Attorney Arnold H. Salisbury. Mr. Willis said he would not be able ~o go along ~ith Mr. Finneran's motion as he felt that ~r. Thomson should disqualify himself because he represented the ~tefanowicz family in the pas~ and in as much as Attorney Cregg is representing the petitioner and he is in Mr. Thomson's office and the would have to go along with Mr. Kirk's motion. ~he mo~ion was seconded and unanimdusly voted ~o appoint Arnold H. Salisbury to represent the to~n in the mat~er of land damages on Great Pond Road and ~e ~ork in con- Junction with Mr. King, counsel for the Commissioners. FEBRUARY 7, 1955: ~ly meeting of the Board of Selectmen vas held at 7:30 P.~. with all members presenm. Weekly~llls and payrolls were approved. GREAT POND ROAD- LAND DAMAGE -COUNTY C O~E~SSIONE.~S: County Commissioners C. F. Nelson Pratt and Arthur A. Thompson and County Engineer John O. Harmada with their counsel Elwyn King me% with the Selectmen to discuss the land damage claims which had been brought to the attention of this board by a letter from Elwyn King re: cases to be settled as follows:William J. & Genevieve Byrne, Charles D. & Margaret Sullivan, John F. }~guire, Richard J. Haphey~ Stanley S~efanowicz and Margare Burke. Mr. King me% with the board on January 31, 1955 and discussed this matter with the board. Mr. Willis received a phone call'on January 28, asking if ~he %o~n would be prepared %o call a special mown meeting to raise the money to pay these claims(Appro~.$5033) or if the town would prefer that the County Co~nissioners put it in their b~dge% and pay the claims and then re-assess the town of North Andover. Mr. Willis was extremely disturbed atNr. King's let%er of January22, 1955 and also a% Mr. Harmanla's phone 'call and the matter became so involved for Mr. Harmaala that Mr. Willis was referred ~o Mr. Pratt. After some discussion Mr. Willis asked two questions of Mr. Pratt: 1. Under what authority the County Commissioners were making this offer of settlement and he replied that they had the authority and his~statement was that the Town of' North Andover has nothing to do with this matter after the County .Commissioners .have set a figure except mGet up the dough". Mr. Willis had a slight tepdency %o get his dander up and felt that if the ~o~n is obligated to pay for damages on this stretch of road they certainly have something to say. Mr. Pratt, according to ~r. Willis, was unable to meet with the board on Janu~ri.31 end Mr. Thompson was no~ available but he agreed to meet with the board on February 7, 1955'. There has been considerable correspondence and Mr. Willis read the various .letters. He stated that we dealt with the matter briefly with Mr. King and learned that ~&r. King did no~ represent the town but had been appointed by the County .., Commissioners to represent them. The board p6inted out that settlements pre~ented by Mr. King gave them considerable concern and he asked Mr. King to get the answers %o three questions: 1. Wna% authority have the County Co~issionsrs to make these takings? 2. If they have the authority, under what authority do they assess damages? .,~ 3. Assuming both are so, under what authority do they ma~e the Town of North Andover liable? Mr. Willis said he felt that we were accomplishing something by sitting down tpg~er to discuss this matter. Mr. Pratt wanted to definitely state that the Commissioners arehez'eas an act of- coUrtesy and that there is nothing in the Act which req=trss them to be here. T~.ey are here because theyare interested in County Affairs and they are happy to help in Public Relations. Mr. Pratt stated that under Chapter 35, section 20, the. commissioners and the coun%ytreasurer shs21 be Joined in all legal proceedings brought against the county. Inder Chapter 90, the county %a~es the land and claims for damages' are made against the county. He said they have full' authority to g~ in~ a huddle with the County Treasurer to appoint a person as counsel. It is an inviolate ~hle of this board to appoint Town Counsel where there is one, but North Andover,not having a to~n counsel in 1952, and with Mr. King representing the town as moderator, they selected Mr. King. At the conference held in Sale~, Attorney O,Sullivan represented Byrnes, and Maguire, and C411ahan represented Marion Byrnes bu~ he was no~ present; Cregg represented.Haphey and StefanoWicz but he was no~ present. The Commissioners took th~ figures as submitted and it was brought out that if the wall was replaced by the commissioners, the cost would be less and a better settlement could be made. Mr. King ~ud Enginse.v Hamaala wodked out the arrangement and they found that we had saved $700. In answer to a question, by Mrl Willis as %owho submitted the fig~zres, Mr. Pratt stated that Mr. King prese~nted them in writing to see if they were satisfactory and. the County Commissioners agreed thst it was O.K. The commissioners felt that this was a reasonable and proper settlemeht' and this opinion was shared by the County Treasurer, the engineer, attorney Kind and the commissioners. The bid price on the contract between Martin Nailer and the. Selectmen was $1.40 per linearrfoot in Nay of 1~53 and after deducting the contrac~ price for moving the walls back to the new line 'from the proposed %~tal settlemen~ the figure was two cenms less per sq. foot of land taken. Mr. Willis felt tha~ the $1.hO per linear foot price was unreal in that the $ype~ of walls ~o be replaced were of different dimensions and in the instance of the ~tefanowicz land, most of it was swamp land, and was of no greater value than a fractinnof one per cent. Mr. King s~ated that some of the land parcels were assessed for $200 per acre and others at $.O3per ftwhile others ~ere assessed at $50 and $75 per acre. Mr. Pratt stated that in their decree the Town of North Andover was ordered to .nam eleven persons the sum of $1.00 each and that six parties refused, the $1.00 settle- ment and brought legs2 action ~o recover damages. Mr. Willis pointed out that $1.40 ~inear foot was the bid. price entered into on the contract with Mallet but this does not refer to ~he wall at this point. Ne inquired if it wasn't true that this is billed on a unit price and also that a contractor may bid lo~ and pick up on another item. He felt this was completely irrelevent with the situation.