HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-04 Planning Board Minutes Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
Gen ina Wilkens
Eitan Goldberg, Chair Cliristopherl�oskores,
Peter'Boynton
�4: .
John Simons Assoc.
Sean Kevlahan
I
Tuesday June 422024 a, 70.ni., 120 Main Street— Town Hall, North Andover, MA 0.1845
1 Presennt/Plantiin Board: E. Goldberg, J. Simons, P. Boynton S. Kevlahan, G. Wilkens, C. Koskores,Assoc.
2 Absent:
3 Staff Present: J. Enright
4
5 E. Goldberg, Chairman: The Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,June 4, 2024,was called to order at 7 p.m.
6
7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
8 189 Willow Street,Vincent J. Grasso: Application for a Site Plan Review and Corridor Development District I Special
9 Permits under Article 8 Supplementary Regulations, Part 3 Site Plan Review,Article 16 Corridor Development District, and
10 Article 10 Administration(195-10.7)of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. The Applicant proposes construction of a 6,777
11 SF single story building with 20 parking spaces,associated driveway,utilities and associated improvements.The project is
12 located within the Corridor Development District 1 (CDD1)Zoning District.
13 J.Enright: The March 28,2024 Project Update memo which was reviewed at the April 2,2024 Planning Board meeting is in
14 your packet.At that mecting the applicant committed to providing a status update tonight. I am told the project update memo
15 was mailed to abutters following the April 2,2024 meeting&prior to tonight's meeting. No questions or comments were
16 received from the abutters since that mailing.The milestone dates noted in that memo seem to have shifted by a week or two
17 out,but the hearing date is still scheduled for July 11,2024,
18 Stephanie Kiefer, Smolak&Vaughan,Applicant Atty.:Provided wetlands update. As the petitioner,we filed our pre-file
19 direct testinnony;within the coining month,the Dept. and Commission will file theirs. A rebuttal and hearing are scheduled
20 for July 11,2024. Additionally,there's an outstanding request for a superseding order of the Department and the
21 Commission's subsequent action and there is a Superior Court appeal that remains pending;there are no dates for either. Tine
22 applicant has pursued its appellate rights.The ball is in the court of the DEP and SSC and on behalf of the Commission in
23 terms of filing its administrative record with the court. Relative to matters before you, in the prior letter we submitted,we said
24 we'd provide a stormwater response by June 13",we are working on that.Eric Lane is here and will provide an update on
25 that. We anticipate feedback from that response,so we are requesting to return to the Board in July.
26 E. Goldberg: Wlnen is the soonest the Planning Board may be able to do something?
27 S. Kiefer: Once the hearing goes forward July 11'it at the OADR, if we win,the DEP will review it under the State regulations;
28 the Commission would have forfeited its jurisdiction under the local bylaw for failing to have acted within the time period
29 with which to have held the hearing.
30 E. Goldberg:The DEP then becomes the controlling entity v.local regulations;reviewing under State regulations. If you lose,
31 what happens if they find it was acted on appropriately at the local level?
32 S.Kiefer: The OADR is relative to the dismissal of the superseding request relative to the fact that the Commission hadn't
33 opened a public hearing within 20 days. With regard to the subsequent appeals, the Commission,while the matter was still on
34 appeal at the DEP,nonetheless held a public hearing and issued a denial.Those actions have been appealed by a second
35 request for superseding order as well as the Superior Court appeal.
36 E. Goldberg: If you lose,you're into the other appeals. If you win the hearing in July-which won't be decided until DEP
37 completes review of that(Sept. Oct.Nov.),we're not doing anything with this until next year. Expressed lie is struggling with
38 keeping the public hearing open when the Board cannot do anything on it, it's unfair to the members of the public.
39 J. Simons: Questioned the logic for keeping the hearing open.
40 E. Goldberg: From the perspective of the applicant, they were required to file for the public hearing with the Planning Board
41 as a pre-requisite to apply with the Conservation Commission.
42 J.Enright:The Conservation Commission's hearing is no longer open, they denied it and the applicant has appealed to
43 Superior Court.
44 J. Simons: From either side,why keep it open, there's no benefit or liability on either side.
45 S. Kiefer: The concern is we need to have an application before you to advance to the Connnission. My suggestion would be
46 similar to last time where if we continue this for several months,we'll re-notice the abutters and provide an update at that
47 time.It's not our intent to waste your time;we want to avoid problems by not having this process remain open.
48 E. Goldberg: If we denied it without prejudice they could refile;we could close the public hearing and vote on denying the
49 application;I'm hearing you don't want to withdraw and yet we don't have enough information to approve it.
1
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
Gernrna Wilkens
Eitarr Goldberg, Chair . ,�,� �• ClrristaTlterlfaslrores,
Peter Boynton
John Simons Assoc.
Sean Kevlahan
Tuesday June 4, 2024 6a, 7 p.m., 120 Main Street— Town_Hall,North Andover,MA 0.1845
50 S.Kevlahan: Given the length of this process,even if re-noticed, it doesn't seem fair to the abutters.
51 J. Simons: Expressed broad concern;keeping a hearing open-ended this long is a matter of principle.
52 J. Enright: Hearing opened in December and was continued to 4/2/24.This is the first time back since 4/2/24. There was a
53 previous application that had a hearing opened and subsequently withdrawn without prejudice after many continuances.
54 S.Kiefer: Correct,the project was revised.This is unique,it's not a typical situation where the applicant isn't doing anything
55 because they don't want to;there's another process playing forward. We're trying to do our best before you and be honest
56 about timing,unfortunately,we can't alter the tuning of the other appeals.
57 J. Simons:What if we denied this?Would everything you are doing fall apart?Trying to understand why you're in a worse
58 situation if you don't withdraw without prejudice and return.Prefers not have a project on our agenda for such an extended
59 period of tune;that isn't common precedent.
60 S.Kiefer:The concern is that if we withdraw it and either of the other actions result in such that it gets remanded back to the
61 Commission,the Commission says,"you can't coupe before us because you didn't apply for your applications,or you did
62 apply,and voluntarily withdrew them".Does not want applicant in the position where it's alleged to abandon the process
63 where it didn't intend to.Timeline of the process is longer than anticipated.
64 S.Kevlahan:The local jurisdiction concluded for the Conservation Commission.You were issued a denial and are effectively
65 appealing outside of that jurisdiction.
66 S.Kiefer:There is a potential outcome from the Superior Court case where they say,"the Commission didn't have
67 jurisdiction to hold the hearing and didn't have jurisdiction to deny it,this has to be remanded back to the Commission to
68 have a proper hearing". When the Commission held that hearing the applicant had advised the Commission that this isn't
69 before you,this is at the DEP level;we're not appearing at this hearing and the Commission still held a hearing. From the
70 Superior Court level,one of the potential outcomes is for it to be remanded and at that point does the Commission say,"you
71 withdrew".
72 E. Goldberg: It's not your position that it should be remanded;you hold the position that they shouldn't have held the hearing
73 in the first place.This occurred because the filing happened on a date where Conservation couldn't hold a hearing within a
74 certain amount of time which seems to be the applicant's choice.You are in a difficult position as their advocate of having to
75 argue multiple things in multiple places based on the timing of how they filed things.
76 J. Simons: Suggests applicant refile in advance with the Planning Board,when the applicant knows there's going to be a
77 decision made.
78 E. Goldberg: The hearing is July I I", suggests this be placed on our agenda for a meeting after that July date where the
79 applicant provides responses and an update.If you can provide some legal basis that there is a cognizable harm for us not
80 keeping it open,we'll hear that.I'm inclined to suggest that it be withdrawn or for us to act on it.These things take anywhere
81 from 6 mos. to a year or longer and it is not fair to keep this open. If you find a case or precedent that states someone was out
82 of luck because they withdrew,that's meaningful,but I don't know if that exists. Barring any new information,I am inclined
83 to close the public hearing and vote or have a withdrawal.
84 S. Kiefer: It's reasonable to attend your late July meeting. We can return and state why we think legally we need to and
85 determine if we don't,then it would be a voluntary withdrawal on our behalf rather than a repetitive petition.
86 E. Goldberg: Suggested 8/13/24 meeting date which allows time for peer review comments.
87 J.Enright: Questioned if the next notice to abutters will be for the August 13,2024 meeting.
88 E. Goldber :Notice won't be necessary.We won't take testimony that evening;we'll either continue it on track or it will go
89 away.
90 (Continued to the August 13,2024 Planning Board meeting.)
91
92 Planning Board: Community Preservation Committee appointment for FY2025
93 E. Goldberg:Polled Board members for interest in serving on the CPC;none. John expressed continued interest in serving on
94 the CPC.
95 MOTION:P.Boynton made a motion to nominate J. Simons to the Community Preservation Committee for FY2025. S.
96 Kevlahan seconded the motion.The vote was 5-0,unanimous in favor.
97
98 DISCUSSION ITEMS
2
Town of North Andover
PLANNING BOARD �
Eitan Goldberg, Chair ��»� Gemnaa Willtesrs
Peter Boynton
CCtristopher Kosltores,
John Simons Assoc.
i
Sean .Kevlahan
I
Tuesday Jane 4, 2024_[a_7 p.str,, 120 Main Street— Town Hall,North Andover, HA 01845
99 Housing Production Plait,Ian Burns,Merrimack Valley Planning Commission: Planning Board vote to adopt 2024
100 Housing Production Plan.
101 J. Enright: The final HPP draft is in your meeting packet. MVPC is prepared to respond to questions/requests from the last
102 meeting.The draft was presented to the Select Board 6/3/24.It is anticipated that they will vote to adopt the plan at their
103 6/17/24 meeting.
104 Ian Burns,MVPC: Gained positive feedback at the Select Board meeting;will review their requests.Reviewed Population
105 Projections,additions and updates since last Planning Board meeting. Census data from 1990 &2000 was added to the chart
106 which includes 1990-2050. Discussed the peak period for numerous subdivisions in town(late 80's-2000),
107 1.Burns: In reviewing the age of the housing stock,the largest decade is between 1980-1990 & 1990-1999 when 10%of your
108 housing stock was built. Addressed current population numbers and data discrepancies between decennial census data versus
109 American Community Census(ACS)numbers. Looked at ACS data 2022 showing estimated population of 30,847, a
110 reduction fi•om Census 2020;attributed to different estimates from Census Bureau,with 50 being their margin of error.Noted
111 option to amend the discussion in the narrative paragraph noted in red; a stable growing population is reflected.
112 J. Simons: Over the last 10 years there's been a substantial increase in the number of housing units,mostly multi-family.The
113 net result is the population is not rising but the housing units are,which means the number of people per housing unit is
114 decreasing. Can we get the population by single-family house v.multi-family and compare the number of units to see if the
115 pattern of number of people per unit is primarily with single-family housing or with multi-family housing?
116 1. Burns: Believes that is available from the Census Bureau;hasn't pulled that data for this area. There is population by type
117 of unit rental v. ownership,but that would break down as single-family detached v. attached dwellings.
118 E. Goldberg: I thought we saw a number that showed the number of people per dwelling unit was decreasing.
119 I.Burns: We've seen that in other communities;we had a snapshot but it wasn't a trend.The number of individuals hi housing
120 units is small compared to the size of those housing units. Will add this number and discuss it in the population section.
121 E. G aldbe€_g: Is the driving factor that people want to live more on their own in smaller groups, or is it that that's the available
122 housing and where they're choosing to live; it's good data to have to study the trend.Are we moving away from families in
123 single-family homes toward mixed group of types of dwellings and more with less people?
124 1. Burns: Questioned whether the Board prefers those results before voting on approving the Plan, or if the Board will approve
125 this on the condition that kind of information be added; it would be completed by the time the Select Board votes.
126 E. Goldberg: Stated it doesn't change the Plan,but it's good data to have.
127 1. Burns:The Select Board requested updated School Enrollment data to reflect recent years(reflects a decrease), adding in
128 private schools and adding in comparative data with MA population trends&age distribution trends(Chapter 2)which is
129 close to North Andover's growth;this will be updated prior to Select Board approval.Reviewed Strategies t-8 briefly,
130 E. Goldberg: Discussed potential working group for potential ADU's attached/detached, rented/owned. Would like to address
131 all questions early on prior to Town Meeting. Most people like the idea,but there are many details to be defined. Prefers to
132 have a working group vet questions,concerns and comments.We are aiming for a consensus.
133 J. Simons: Questioned]now many there are today. Suggested there is more than people think. It works because if somebody
134 was abusing it, it would be known and they would be leaned on. Believes there will be problems if the situation is overly
135 prescribed and things that were never wanted would be allowed. Described the situation that occurred in the early 2000s when
136 developers came in and built 8K SF duplexes. Neighbors were outraged.
137 E. Goldbe€ : There's a lot of interest and people who would like to do an ADU have avoided it because it's so restrictive and
138 they're following the rules. Others do it because they don't care and nobody says anything about it.There needs to be a way
139 to do it that works.
140 S.Kevlalian: We need to define the objectives.The first is to increase housing stock. Questioned,based on data,are we trying
141 to address an age demographic or other,hying arrive at design specifications addressing all generations.
142 C,Koskores: Stated that the ADU bill currently at the state level could supersede anything we do.
143 E.Goldberg; We had the MBTA&Housing Choice Law;they could say in every residential district you have to allow
144 ADU's of a certain size,or you are required to have certain districts address this.Community outreach would help us to see
145 what people want; for me, it's mostly about creating more housing choice options in the community.
146 P.Boynton:Agreed with community outreach and is interested hi brainstorming ideas,believes there is opportunity here.
147 We've done a lot with outreach over the years and the sooner we do this,the better. Shared his personal story of being in the
148 Coast Guard, moving frequently and how he benefited from an ADU bylaw years ago which accomplished amazing things for
3
Town o,f North Andover
PLANNING BOARD
Eitan Goldberg, Chair ..... Genuna Wilkens
Peter Boynton �� •. Christopher Koskores,
John Simons Assoc.
Sears Kevlahan
Tuesday June 4, 2024 a, 7 p.m., 120 Main Street— Towrt.Hall,North Andover, MA 01845
149 his family,helping to afford the house and raising the value when it came time to sell.Years ago,Bedford,MA rules for
150 ADU's were straightforward, limiting,built with the stipulation that you cannot tell from the street that there was an ADU in
151 order to minimize impact.
152 I.Burns: Shared feedback received during community engagement for HPP from a resident seeking an in-law apt.with
153 intellectually disabled adult child;trying to provide for a caregiver on-site and current family suite bylaw restricted the ability
154 to consider configurations allowing for that.
155 J.Enright: Questions getting into too much detail, specifying number of bedrooms,parking,special permit v.by-right,
156 managing the number of people, etc.while the Bill is being reviewed at the state level. The proposed Bill currently does not
157 require owner occupancy in either the accessory or primary unit.Most of the feedback received from residents to date has
158 included a desire to have one of the units owner occupied.
159 E. Goldberg:Is there a way to achieve some of the things Sean mentioned without getting into"how"we're going to do it?
160 What benefits do people see from it and what are the reasons for wanting an ADU to help its when the information is received
161 from the State or ultimately dies?
162 J. Enright:The conversation to get a sense of where people are coming from along with addressing facts and parameters the
163 state may require of us can continue.
164 S. Kevlahan: Having the data from our residents irrespective of what comes from the state,helps us further pursue tine
165 process;it offers purpose and gives us something to design for.
166 G. Wilkens:People who intend to build these are residents v. developers;ADU's were passed in Gloucester, 3 years ago.
167 Estimates one has been built per year.Obstacle people face is understanding a zoning ordinance,ambiguity with regard to
168 compliance issues,etc.Bylaw has to be simply crafted for people to use it.
169 C.Koskores:There's not going to be an automatic influx of ADU's;they take tune,money and involve a process.
170 E. Goldberg: This is not an iimnediate solution to a housing crisis or will it bring a lot of people into town.This is for people
171 with varying situations.This may apply to 2%of our population and make a significant difference in someone's life.
172 S.Kevlahan: There could be some valuable information collected regarding cases making a material difference. For example,
173 when asked the question,"If you were able to build an ADU why would you do it and what would be tire use for it in your
174 current situation?". We may receive answers pertaining to,"I want more of my family living nearby",or"I'm having
175 difficulty paying my property taxes and need an offset","My house is getting too expensive",valuable information we can
176 garner from.residents.
177 E. Goldberg:Asked the question whether there are any programs to help homeowners making this affordable and not cost
178 prohibitive such as starter home programs,ADU grants to be accessed,any Rinding availability,or is it too new?
179 I.Burns: Unaware of any.In states such as CA,there are companies that provide easy-assembly ADU's.As a homeowner you
180 purchase the pre-fab ADU and it gets delivered to your address and assembled on-site.Those companies are becoming more
181 prevalent in communities with ADU bylaws.
182 R.Boynton: It is important for us to articulate what this is and isn't for people who have no plans for an ADU on their
183 property,yet are concerned about it.Outreach will help us hear concerns that we hadn't considered and how we regulate or
184 address those concerns.
185 J. Simons: Is the overall strategy of the HPP that the population is going to grow by 2%by 2050 and we'll be about the same
186 and we're putting strategies in place to meet the needs of that population?You could create a model based on population
187 growth and spit out what you need. Is that where you're going with this or are you bringing in the affordability notion as a
188 primary element?
189 1.Burns: The plan builds to 2050;representing a 5-year plan to review what the housing stock and population are today and
190 where it's going. It's a vision for what the population will be in 2050 and how we anticipate those needs.This exercise
191 addresses affordability especially where you have inclusionary zoning requiring larger developments to have affordable units.
192 Affordability aspect is in subsidized housing, income restricted housing and under the general principle that as you have more
193 property on the market,you stabilize prices over time.We are tying to mitigate,stem the prices that are running out of
194 control and potentially worsening over time.
195 J. Simons:Does not believe the notion of making everything in the eastern part of the state affordable is possible. There is not
196 the land there was 50 years ago. It may be mitigated,but you can't solve the problem.
197 E. Goldberg:The strategies are about planning for the situation we're in now versus affordability. ADU's deal with
198 affordability at the margins. Based on data,we are focusing on the next 5 years.
4
Town of.Nor dt Andover
PLANNING BOARD
Eitan Goldberg, Chair �� Gemnrtr Wilkens
Peter BoyntonQ �s-,. • Christopher Ifaskares,
Assoc.
John Simons
Sean Il<evlaharr
Tuesday June 4, 2024 a, 7 P.m., 120 Main Street— Town Hall,North Andover,MA 01845
199 Kevin Dube,76 Boston Hill Road: Concerned for cost of liousing/single-family homes.New studio apartments pricey, costs
200 of single-family homes are significant. Couldn't afford to purchase the starter home he bought several years ago based on its
201 current value. Owner occupied ADU's is a great idea,warned that non-owner situations are open to predatory investors
202 renting them out,driving prices higher, lowering inventory. Survey is advisable;what housing type do you want,where live
203 now,where would life to live,where see yourselves in 10-years with corresponding age demographics. Septic systems in out-
204 country may present an issue; large percentage of town is on septic.
205 S. Kevlallan: Suggests homeowners be mindful of utilities;not having separate utility meters.
206
207 MOTION: S.Kevlahan made a motion to adopt the 2024 Housing Production Plan,as amended based oar the discussion this
208 evening. J. Simons seconded the motion.The vote was 5-0,unanimous in favor.
209
210 MEETING MINUTES: Approval of the May 7& 14,2024 meeting minutes.
211 MOTION: P,Boynton made a motion to accept the minutes for May 7& 14,2024. J. Simons seconded the motion.The vote
212 was 4-0,unanimous in favor.
213
214 ADJOURNMENT
215 MOTION: J. Simons made a motion to adjourn the meeting.The motion was seconded by P.Boynton,The vote was 5-0,
216 unanimous in favor. Meeting adjourned rr 8:19 p.m.
217
218 MEE"PING MATERIALS:Planning Board Meeting Agenda June 4,2024,DRAFT Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7&14,2024;
219 Staff Report:240604 Staff Report; 189 Willow Street,Vincent J.Grasso:Applicatioir:2023 11 06 Willow St A2.00 11x17,
220 2023_1 1 06 Willow St_First Floor Plan,Narrative and Applications,Site Plan,Conservation Commission OOC Denial:242-1881, 189
221 Willow Street OOC DENIAL,Department Review:NAFD Comments:231213 NAFD Comment,231214 NAPD Comments,231215
222 Applicant resp NA I)Comment,231215 Resp Swept Path_189 Willow_R6-Fire Access,230327 Health Comment,230327 NAPD
223 Comment,231115 DPW Operations Comment,231129 Building Dept. Comments,MassDEP.Appeal Dismissal...—A licant A eal:
224 231219 242-1881, 189 Willow Street--MassDEP Dismissal Letter,Appeal of DEP dismissal OADR Notice of Claim 1 4 2024 Final,
225 Project Update Letter:240328 Update Letter 189willow-PBupdate,Stormwater Review:2012 Flood Map,2023 Preliminary Flood Map,
226 240112 HW PeerRcview_189WillowStrect;Housing Production Plan,MVPC:6-4-24 Planning Board Presentation,NA 2024 Housing
227 Production Plan 5-29 Draft small.
5