From the Andover Patch:
“Taylor Cove Project Awaits DEP as Site Activity Spikes; Neighbors to the Taylor Cove project are waiting to hear how the state will rule on the project’s appeal” by Brendan Lewis

http://andover.patch.com/articles/taylor-cove-project-awaits-dep-as-site-activity-spikes?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

From the Andover Townsman:
“Officials: flood maps must pass; Residents must see for themselves if they are now in flood area” by Dustin Luca
http://www.andovertownsman.com/local/x733697215/Officials-flood-maps-must-pass

Both are relevant to the Ballardvale neighborhood and, in particular, to River Street.

It appears that no one from the neighborhood was aware of the previous sessions, although abutters were allegedly notified.

A conservation agent for Andover stressed that it is very important for interested parties to attend this session.

The stated purpose of the continued hearing is “commencing the engineering peer review as revised in two phases; staff to draft a proposal for the environmental peer review; and verification on the status of Victoria Place Subdivision (DEP File #090-0792) by DEP that the Permit Extension Act applies.”

After the meeting, the opponents reported that the Commission had seemed set to deny the request when the developer’s team acted surprised, saying that, since they hadn’t moved the road an inch (which some theorize accounts for the awkward placement of the Taylor Cove condo buildings), the original permit should still apply. “Acted” being the operative word, as the ZBA members had clearly stated during their deliberations, attended by the developer, that they believed the Cons Comm would recognize that Taylor Cove was vastly different from Victoria Place and therefore deny the extension.

The developer asked for a continuation to provide time to seek legal counsel, and it was granted. Tonight the hearing continues. The meeting opens at 7:45, and there are five items to be heard ahead of Victoria Place/Taylor Cove. Each agenda item is limited to 15 minutes maximum, so our agenda item might not come up until 9:00, but there’s no way to know for sure, and some items are expected to take less than 15 minutes. To play it safe, opponents should arrive around 8:15.

Andover’s Town Counsel, Tom Urbelis, has stressed that it is important for opponents to attend the Cons Comm hearings, so please come to this critical meeting and be prepared to share your concerns about what the construction of 32 townhouse condominiums with garages and associated visitor parking, built on land sloping down to Shawsheen River tributary, with an outdated out-of-compliance drainage-basin plan, might do to the environment and our Andover neighborhood.

Meeting Details:

ANDOVER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
April 13, 2010 @ 7:45 P.M.
36 Bartlet Street
1st Floor Conference Room

CD&P Conference Room, 1st Floor, Town Offices, 36 Bartlet Street, Andover

7:00 Continued Deliberation of Taylor Cove (40B)
3803 – 0 + 86 River Street, 15R Charlotte Drive

Gloucester seeks to overturn Chapter 40B ruling on condo plan

Published: March 28, 2010 11:28 pm

By Richard Gaines, Staff Writer, Gloucester Daily Times

Dating to the 1970s, the city’s longest-running legal struggle — against a tag team of the state and a developer intent on using the state’s Chapter 40B affordable housing law to build condos on a filled salt marsh behind Good Harbor Beach — has gained new life…

[To read remainder of article, go to http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_087232817.html.]

The ZBA chairman has indicated that he hopes to wrap up the hearings with this meeting, so it may be residents’ last chance to express concerns about the proposed condo development.

Please make every effort to attend if you care about the outcome.

Charlotte Dr. resident Mick Mueck shared this article from the February 23 Land-Use Law Round-Up newsletter by Daniel C. Hill:

Appeals Court Weakens Protections from Retaliatory Lawsuits

The state Appeals Court today ruled that victims of retaliatory lawsuits cannot recoup their legal fees and expenses when the perpetrator voluntarily dismisses its suit before a court enters judgment for the victim.

The Court applied a strict interpretation of the so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute in ruling that attorney fee awards are only available if and when a judge makes a finding that the suit is indeed retaliatory. Connolly v. Sullivan, Appeals Ct. No. 09-P-597 (Feb. 23, 2010).

The plaintiff in that case, the former Massachusetts Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly, had sued an abutter for $5 million in damages for challenging an affordable housing project being promoted by Connolly in Wellesley. The abutter filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, but before the trial court ruled on the motion, Connolly voluntarily withdrew his claim.

The statute was enacted to prevent real estate developers from filing specious lawsuits against their detractors in order to intimidate or quell opposition to their projects. The statute awards the victims of such suits their attorneys fees when successful.

Today’s ruling is troublesome for victims, because it gives developers a parachute to avoid the fee-shifting consequences of filing such claims. Developers can now engage in the egregious conduct by filing the suit and forcing defendants to spend thousands on attorneys to draft the Special Motion to Dismiss.

The costs of preparing the Motion and presenting oral argument before the trial court could easily exceed $10,000, which victims will not be able to recover if the developer dismisses its suit before a judgment.

The state legislature could correct this ruling by amending the statute to preclude voluntary dismissals while a Special Motion to Dismiss is pending.

The meeting is an opportunity for residents to encourage the developer to do whatever possible to retain the natural aspects of the topography and plantings, and to promote the use of appropriate plants for screening purposes.