Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.20 Minutes ZBA 40B APPROVED Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Members Associate Member Michael T. Lis., Chair Matthew J. Ginsburg Laura Craig-Comin, Vice-Chair Zachary J. Hachey Frank J. Killilea, Clerk Melissa Rutherford James M. Testa Zoning Enforcement Officer Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq Paul G. Hutchins MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Thursday, November 20, 2025 Time of Meeting: 7:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: Town Hall, 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 Signature: Terri MacNeil 1. Call to Order called at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq. (virtual), Michael T. Lis, Frank J. Killilea, James M. Testa, Laura Craig-Comin, Melissa Rutherford (virtual) and Zachary J. Hachey (virtual) Staff Present: Terri MacNeil Gavel given to: Michael T. Lis Pledge of Allegiance 2. New Public Hearing Application of East Mill Housing, LLC, 0 Prescott Street, North Andover, MA (Map 0068, Lot 10) (M.G.L., c. 40B, §§20-23, or Chapter 40B) The Applicant is requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a Comprehensive Permit for the construction and operation of a proposed 296-unit rental residential community, to be known as Zero Prescott, along with parking, landscaping, open space and other improvements to be located on the Property. The Property is located within the Industrial S (I-S) and Residential 4 (R-4) underlying Zoning Districts, as well as within the Downtown Overlay District - Subdistrict A -- Historic Mill Area. Mike Lis - This 40B Comprehensive Permit application is different for the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Normally, the ZBA handles requests for variances or special permits with broad discretion. However, under 40B, if a town like North Andover has less than 10% designated affordable housing (below the "safe harbor" limit), developers can build apartments "by right" as long as 25% are affordable. We have limited discretion in this case. The ZBA is the "one-stop shop," meaning we handle all approvals (including planning, conservation, etc.). We have a six-month window to consider the proposal, covering areas like traffic and storm water, which can be extended only with an agreement (waiver) signed by both the applicant and the ZBA. Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of a meeting excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure that posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics the Chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at a meeting are to be listed on the Agenda. Note: Matters may be called out of order and not as they appear in the Agenda. Page 1 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is chaired by Michael Lis, with voting members Laura Craig- Comin (Vice Chair), Frank Killilea (Clerk), Alexandria Jacobs, and James Testa. Eligible associate members are Zachary Hachey and Melissa Rutherford. Staff assisting the board include Building Commissioner Paul Hutchins, Department Assistant Terri MacNeil, Director of Planning Jean Enright, and Town Counsel Christine O’Connor. Consultants are Judi Barrett (Barrett Planning Group), advising on process and structural elements, and Carolyn Murray and Emily Israel (KP Law), advising on legal matters. The agenda includes a discussion on the 40B process with Carolyn Murray, a 30-minute presentation by the applicant on their plan, and a presentation by Jean Enright on options for peer review of applicant-submitted studies (e.g., traffic, stormwater). After public comment, for which a signup sheet is available here, please submit written comments to Terri MacNeil at tmacneil@northandoverma.gov. We will not read comments submitted during today's meeting, but the board members will read them to inform future questions and discussions. We've already received and distributed several helpful comments. Finally, we will decide whether our next meeting will be in December or January. Carolyn Murray of KP Law - As special counsel for this 40B application, I'll supplement the Chair's outline. This is a comprehensive permit, meaning the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) issues all necessary local permits (e.g., street opening, earth removal), even those usually handled by other boards like the Board of Health, although there are no wetlands involved here. Unlike standard variances or special permits, the ZBA's standard for a 40B is whether there is a "valid local concern" defined as public health, public safety, or environmental factors (e.g., septic, wells, storm water, open space). Local rules applied to a 40B must be applied equally to all projects. Concerns such as impact on schools or the project being rental units are not valid local concerns for the ZBA to consider. The developer has already gone through a pre-screening with a subsidizing agency (here, MassHousing), which will ultimately review and approve the final plans. Another difference is the concept of waivers, which act like exceptions from local zoning bylaws necessary for the project. Developers must submit a list of waivers, which the ZBA must vote on, but is not obligated to grant. 40B allows a developer to essentially override local zoning to the extent the ZBA grants waivers, potentially leading to significant deviations from normal requirements. Finally, a 40B only requires a simple majority vote of the ZBA, unlike the supermajority typically required for other applications. Judi Barrett joined the discussion but had nothing to add. Mike Lis asked about the six-month deadline for the process, specifically if unresolved peer reviews at that time would necessitate an extension. Carolyn Murray responded that the Board would likely request more time from the applicant, and the applicant might also request an extension, especially due to complex engineering and stormwater issues, and the upcoming holidays. She noted that 40B projects rarely finish within the 180-day regulatory limit. She explained the need to track both hearing continuances and the 180-day ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 2 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS deadline. If significant revisions are needed after a peer review, the applicant often agrees to extend the 180 days to ensure the Board isn't disadvantaged by the resulting delays. Board members are encouraged to utilize Ms. Murray and Ms. Barrett for questions, as they are knowledgeable resources available outside of meetings. Contact information will be provided. The full permit application, including plans and reports (traffic, stormwater), is available on the North Andover Zoning Board website. A binder with executive summaries is also available. Meetings are hybrid (in-person or online), but members who miss more than one meeting will not be eligible to vote, to ensure enough voting members. John Smolak of Smolak and Vaughn, representing the applicant, East Mill Housing, introduced the project team (David Steinbergh - RCG/East Mill Housing, Phil Henry - Civil Design Group, Ed Bradford & Jiyoun Zieringer - Architecture) and consultants not present (Jeffrey Dirk - Traffic, Natalie Adams - Landscape, Lynn Sweet - Affordable Housing). The presentation will provide a general overview of the Zero Prescott project, its evolution since RCG acquired East Mill in 2007, and its general characteristics. The application is complete and complies with Chapter 40B requirements. It includes a Project Eligibility Letter (issued September 16th) confirming eligibility for the federal home loan bank of Boston's New England Fund program (Mass Housing Administrator), site appropriateness, conceptual design, financial feasibility, and applicant control of the site. The applicant intends to address town comments received during the eligibility process. Filed materials include preliminary site plans (civil, architectural, landscaping, utility), unit tabulation, the eligibility letter, a preliminary list of requested waivers, and full traffic and stormwater reports. The applicant recently received helpful feedback at a town technical review committee meeting. David Steinbergh, Principal at RCG LLC and representing East Mill Housing LLC, detailed the background with a slide presentation plan (which is attached) for the 40B project. RCG LLC, a real estate company founded in 1982, has been involved with the East and West Mills since 2007. The site, formerly the Davis and Furber machine shops, was repurposed as a professional office campus in the 1980s. RCG began transforming the distressed property in 2007, introducing a mixed-use concept with housing under a Planned Development District. This shift aimed to diversify the community, reduce reliance on a singular workforce, and improve traffic and parking issues. Over time, RCG redeveloped the campus, including rezoning the area to the Mill Subdistrict A, and subdividing the West Mill side, which led to Avalon Bay adding 170 apartment units. They also permitted a subdivision on the East Mill side, which resulted in Avalon Bay adding 51 units. The current project focuses on Lot 3, a currently underutilized two-story parking garage and surface lot with over 700 spaces. The proposal is for a 6-acre site, featuring 296 residential apartments in three buildings (150 units, 146 units, and a 397-space garage), with 25% (74 units) restricted affordable at 80% AMI. The ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 3 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS buildings will be 4-5 stories, built into a steep grade. The design maintains the lot coverage at about 50%, with a slight increase in building footprint and a reduction in paved areas. Stormwater management will be upgraded to mitigate flooding risk. The site is clear of wetlands and the flood plain. A comprehensive traffic report concluded no significant impact on neighborhood traffic, with some offsite improvements recommended. The project utilizes a shared parking principle established under a special permit, acknowledging the existing parking garage is highly underutilized. It is argued that the current supply of over 1,000 spaces will remain adequate and the new housing is a beneficial use for the site, which was always intended for multifamily housing. The site is close to amenities and public transportation. RCG believes the design is contextual and that the project will help the town achieve long-term compliance with its 10% affordable housing goal, support the commercial health of the area, and align with the town's master plan for walkable, mixed-use community development. Ed Bradford, a principal with TAT architect, presented the site and architectural design for the project. The 6-acre site, located at the intersection of the historic mill district (south) and a smaller residential neighborhood (north), informed the design. The existing 2-acre garage is central. A natural buffer in the northeast corner will be retained. The proposed site plan includes two residential buildings (Building 1: 150 units, Building 2: 146 units) flanking a central, five-level, 397-space garage. An additional 100 surface parking spaces are to the south. The total floor area is slightly larger than the existing garage. The U-shaped residential buildings incorporate central courtyards as amenities. To break down the scale, the courtyards open east and west, making the structure appear as two separate buildings when viewed from the Prescott Street neighborhood. All activity—including vehicular access, service traffic, and the main entries/lobbies (three red triangles on the slide presentation)—is concentrated on the south side, facing the mill district, to keep the residential neighborhood side quiet. The ground floor plan shows amenity space (peach/beige on the slide presentation) on the south side: 5,200 sq ft (Bldg 1, includes leasing) and 2,600 sq ft (Bldg 2). These amenities connect through to the central courtyards. Dwelling units (blue shades on the slide presentation) are organized with a central loaded corridor, ranging from studios to three-bedrooms. The design is a "wrap configuration," with the apartment homes disguising the central pre-cast concrete garage, allowing for convenient resident parking aligned with residential floors. Existing conditions and precedents—including the East Mill garage, Prescott Street homes, Avalon Bay apartments, and historic mills—informed the architectural approach. Renderings show a dual approach. On the mill-facing south side (five stories), masonry (brick) is used at end caps and entries to relate to the mill architecture, while clapboard is used in between to introduce a residential texture and break up the massing. A new pedestrian connection to High Street is planned. ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 4 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS On the Prescott Street side (neighborhood edge), the building is set into the existing topography, making it four stories tall on that exposure. To further reduce scale, the architecture uses more residential materials (clapboard, not brick), varied colors, and an additional step back in the wing facing Prescott, aligning the apparent height with the existing homes. Cross-sections illustrate how the buildings are set into the hill. On the north/residential side, the lowest floor is buried, reducing the exposure by one story. An adjacent home's higher elevation also lessens the project's apparent height. At 24 Prescott, where the adjacent home is lower, an additional step-back in the roofline is incorporated to align the building's height with the street and existing homes. Mike Lis opened the floor for questions. Frank Killilea asked if the garage was open-air and if lights would shine onto Prescott Street houses. Ed Bradford confirmed it was open-air and explained they planned to use a spandrel panel to block headlights. He added the upper portion would also be open for ventilation, meeting building code. Frank Killilea asked for the orientation facing Prescott houses. Mike Lis specified it faces houses like 39 Prescott, while Jim Testa thought it might be angled more toward the trees in the back corner. David Steinbergh asked for the relevant slide (Slide 18 on the slide presentation) for context. Jim Testa noted the garage is five levels high, but not directly facing the houses; it's more angled toward the trees on the west side. Laura Craig-Comin pointed out that one house would have no tree buffer. She also sought confirmation that the new building's back edge is 16 feet further than the current garage footprint, or 16.5 feet and 12 feet off the property line, as David Steinbergh suggested. David Steinbergh - The proposed building extends past the existing garage footprint, with the closest corner being 16.5 feet from the setback line, adding about 25 feet closer to the line and four stories in height. The apartment building will be all-electric, using heat pumps. The developers are avoiding gas for supplemental heat, prioritizing a forward-looking, all-electric approach, and the plan includes zones for solar PV on the roof, making it "solar ready." While not aiming for passive house design, the goal is to be environmentally friendly and they believe sufficient power exists to support an all-electric building with added solar. Laura Craig-Comin asked if the courtyards serve any infrastructural or utilitarian roles, such as drainage or trash collection, or if they are purely for resident amenity. David Steinbergh clarified that trash is handled in the garage building with chutes and a compactor, keeping it out of residential areas. The courtyards are amenity spaces but also incorporate storm water mitigation, primarily in Building One's courtyard, which Phil Henry, the site engineer, can detail. More open space aids in storm water management. ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 5 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Jim Testa - Will the stormwater upgrade, planned near or north of the Avalon building, also address the mill's past flooding issues? David Steinbergh - The entire site is uphill from the mill. Currently, the garage footprint drains into a swale between the two parking levels, connecting to pipes that lead downstream. Upgrading the stormwater system will slow the flow, diverting it from the single discharge point that causes pressure during heavy storms. The flood involved other factors and offsite infrastructure issues, many of which are already resolved. This new building, replacing the garage, offers an opportunity to improve flow, capturing runoff from the neighborhood before it enters the pipes. Laura Craig-Comin - So, this upgrade will slow the water flow using retention tanks and allowing for ground infiltration? Mike Lis - When designing this, did you consider underground parking? David Steinbergh - We studied it but preferred not to excavate the hill further. The new building's base matches the existing garage base. We were concerned about the impact on the hillside and groundwater. Also, we felt this design, with a wrapped garage allowing direct floor access, was better than creating issues associated with underground parking encountered in other projects. Mike Lis - previews key discussion points for the proposal, focusing first on neighbors, particularly 39 Prescott Street, due to the building's proximity (25 ft closer) and height (four stories up), raising concerns about headlights and general impact. Second, he emphasizes stormwater improvements, noting the area's severe flooding history and the need to substantially improve runoff despite the area already being heavily paved. Third, traffic is a major concern, highlighted by community feedback. While the report suggests minimal intersection delay increases, it projects a 15% rise in overall flow; Mike wants to discuss the implications and compare predictions to actual traffic from the Avalon construction. Finally, he stresses parking, noting the elimination of about 200 spaces and the lack of ample on-street parking. He wants to scrutinize the shared space prediction and its viability, especially during holidays or adverse weather, where even a 10% problem rate is significant. These are the immediate concerns, though not a comprehensive list. Alexandria Jacobs - expressed significant concern about stormwater, citing issues with a previous development (Avalon) despite initial reports. She wants more than "bare minimum" storm runoff measures, fearing continued negative impact on local businesses and homes. Laura Craig-Comin - questioned the best approach for presenting her numerous concerns, asking if the discussion should address design first before other points. Mike Lis - clarified that the current discussion is not to finalize the design, but to allow applicants to hear critical early feedback that might require more in-depth research before a later design session. Laura Craig-Comin - added land clearance and subsequent landscaping to the critical points list, noting it affects stormwater and neighbors. She is concerned about the removal of all trees near the property line, creating an abrupt, steep wall with no vertical buffer against the neighbor. She asked ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 6 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS about the plan for existing trees and whether substantial tree clearance was factored into the stormwater analysis. Mike Lis - concluded, thanking the applicant and announcing the move to peer reviews, emphasizing to the public that this was just the "setting the table" for future, in-depth discussions. He then asked Ms. Enright to discuss the peer review plan. Planning Director Jean Enright outlined the Planning Board's typical peer review process. Stormwater: Horsley Whitten is routinely used for stormwater peer review, comparing the design against the Mass Stormwater Handbook and town bylaws. This is done for almost all projects. Civil: TEC was the civil peer review consultant but is currently unavailable. Hancock Associates, who previously served in this role before stepping away (due to being the project engineer for Princeton Properties permitted in 2016), is now providing civil review for a project on Osgood Street and is a current option. The civil review focuses on general elements and adherence to local zoning and site plan requirements, comparing the project to existing bylaws and noting deviations. Traffic: TEC is also unavailable for traffic review. VHB is currently acting as the peer review consultant for the Osgood Street redevelopment and is familiar with the area, having conducted the traffic monitoring study for the nearby Avalon development. Water/Sewer: DPW Water/Sewer Manager Tim Willett requested water and sewer design peer review for this site, as was done for Amazon and Princeton Properties. He recommends using Woodard and Curran. The Planning Board has not typically hired consultants for landscaping or architectural review. However, the project is in the Downtown Overlay Historic Mill Area Subdistrict A, which has a bylaw covering landscaping requirements, design guidelines (building orientation, articulation, transition and height, density, scale), and site and design standards (access, parking, noise, light). The civil review would check for adherence to this bylaw. John Smolak - questioned having Horsley Whitten perform both civil and stormwater review, noting their experience in other municipalities, but North Andover has not used them for civil review. Mike Lis - asks about the advantage of one consultant (Horsley Whitten) handling both civil and stormwater peer review. Jean Enright explains the attorney's view is that it's more efficient, but notes that Horsley Whitten would use separate internal divisions for traffic/civil and stormwater. Frank Killilea clarifies that stormwater is part of civil design, so civil engineers are capable of reviewing it. Laura Craig-Comin - asks if the peer review includes comparing the proposed study's results with previous studies of similar local developments. Jean Enright confirms that in a traffic peer review, consultants often request other local traffic studies. She notes VHB, a potential reviewer, already reviewed the Avalon development's traffic study. ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 7 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Laura Craig-Comin - follows up, asking if comparing predicted vs. actual traffic impacts is part of the standard peer review or a separate request. Jean Enright - explains that for this type of project, the Planning Board almost always conditions a follow-up monitoring study one year after occupancy to compare predictions with actual results, citing the upcoming Amazon facility study presentation as an example. Frank Killilea - suggests checking the predicted vs. actual traffic for the Avalon study. Jean Enright - confirms two Avalon studies were done (one and two years out) and she will send them to Terri to include in the meeting packet. Mike Lis - suggests having the study author or a board member present those results. Mike Lis - then asks about the logistics of the Board conversing with the peer reviewer, concerned about Open Meeting Law violations and the number of meetings. He asks if a point person (like the chair) typically converses with the reviewers to plan the peer review scope. Jean Enright - responds that the board as a whole can review proposals. While the Chair could be delegated to fine-tune the scope with her, the proposal itself will lay out the scope and meeting attendance (typically one meeting). She adds there is always interaction between the peer reviewer and the applicant, and she asks to be copied on all planning-related communications. Mike Lis - asked if the process for peer review is hands-off until the consultant presents their findings to the board. Jean Enright confirmed this, explaining the process involves the consultant writing a peer review letter, the applicant responding, and then both presenting to the board. Frank Killilea asked if the board could review the scope of work before it's finalized to suggest modifications. Jean Enright stated that is up to the board's direction. Frank Killilea and Laura Craig- Comin emphasized the need to understand the proposed scope upfront to avoid delays and mismatched expectations. Mike Lis noted the need to avoid that situation and asked Jean Enright if she currently had the scopes of work. Jean Enright replied that a couple of weeks ago, she solicited proposals and has received ones for stormwater and traffic, with the traffic proposal just arriving an hour before the meeting. She is still waiting for the civil proposal. She again asked the board how they wished to proceed with reviewing and approving the scopes. Mike Lis presented two options to the board: 1. Approve offline: The board delegates approval to him, but members still provide feedback on the scope. This would allow for a quicker start to the 4-week traffic review, keeping the 180-day clock moving to schedule a substantive meeting in late January. 2. Publicly review: Hold another public meeting in two or three weeks to review and discuss the proposals. Mike felt this was less desirable due to the need for speed. ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 8 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Laura Craig-Comin - questioned if there was a simple, legal way to give feedback or ask questions about proposals without violating open meeting laws. Mike Lis then deferred to legal counsel. Carolyn Murray -clarified that the scope of work is limited, as the consultants are performing peer reviews. They are not conducting their own studies but are instead reviewing the applicant's work (e.g., checking if the traffic study used the correct intersections, methodologies, and land use codes). However, tweaking the scope to include meeting attendance is acceptable. The consultants' report will be the primary document. The peer review consultant will assess if the methods were reasonable and professional, often recommending additional analysis (e.g., looking at more intersections or different timing for traffic studies). They will not conduct independent studies, relying instead on the primary data. The peer reviewer may suggest a different methodology, and the developer decides whether to incorporate that change. The town doing an independent study is separate from peer review and would be unusual and paid for by the town, not the developer (who funds the peer review). The board is considering whether to hire an architectural and landscaping peer reviewer, given recent comments. Judi Barrett offered to provide names to Jean Enright for this. John Smolak suggested two things regarding the consultants identified by Jean Enright. First, to see the scope of work to share with their professionals; and second, to consider using Horsley Whitten for both civil and stormwater review, arguing it would be more efficient due to economies of scale and consistent review within one company. Mike Lis questioned the difference between one and two consultants, noting that heterogeneity might be beneficial, but acknowledged the point about consistency and efficiency. Frank Killilea and Laura Craig-Comin supported John Smolak's point, highlighting the strong link between site design and drainage, and the risk of uncoordinated peer reviews if handled separately. Mr. Smolak then asked the Board to simply consider a scope for both options. Mike Lis agreed to have Jean Enright get proposals from both Hancock and Horsley Whitten. The Board then discussed whether Mike Lis should be the person to make the final consultant decision to avoid delaying the process with another meeting, which they ultimately agreed he should do, with support from Jean Enright and Judi Barrett. Mike Lis was given the authority to select peer reviewers after a motion by Frank Killilea and a second by Laura Craig-Comin, with all voting "aye." Carolyn Murray reminded the board that the applicant has the right to challenge any selected reviewer based on qualifications or conflict of interest, noting that potential conflicts with architectural or landscape firms will require coordination with the applicant. Mike Lis agreed, noting that the scope of work, which Mr. Smolak requested, can be coordinated at the same time. Mr. Smolak agreed to provide the necessary information. Laura Craig-Comin and Frank Killilea were less concerned about qualifications since the firms have been used by the Planning Board before, ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 9 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS and Frank Killilea noted Mr. Smolak had already approved the other names, but conflict is a concern for architecture and landscape. Mike Lis and John Smolak discussed potential conflicts, agreeing that clarity on that issue is necessary. Mr. Smolak felt Attorney Murray had clarified the traffic study issue, suggesting traffic might be the next meeting's topic. Mr. Smolak noted that comparing their traffic study to others might be misleading due to different engineers, timing, and data. Mike Lis agreed on natural variance but stressed that a 40% variance needs explanation. Mike Lis then moved to public comment. He asked Mr. Killilea to manage the speaker list, aiming to go in order to avoid a "traffic jam" at the podium. Mike Lis encouraged anyone who wanted to speak but hadn't signed up to add their name, ensuring everyone who wanted to speak would be covered. Given the short list, they allocated five minutes per speaker, with a visible clock. Mike Lis urged speakers to be brief if repeating a previously made point, and to email any detailed information they couldn't cover. He also advised speakers to focus comments on aspects the board can influence, such as making the project better or fitting the community, rather than on the non-option of preventing the build entirely. Michael Ronayne, a resident of 24 Prescott Street, strongly opposes the proposed high-density housing across the street, citing serious concerns. He argues the scale and density will fundamentally alter the unique, historic character of Machine Shop Village, overshadowing older buildings and tainting the historic atmosphere. The development would strain infrastructure, dramatically increasing residents and vehicles, leading to congestion, noise, and transforming the calm neighborhood into a hectic, stressful one. For current residents, the enormous buildings would block sunlight, reduce privacy, replace open views and green space, and create an overcrowded, overbuilt feeling. Unlike existing set-back complexes, this development would be highly visible. Mr. Ronayne also fears the large, high-density rental complex would negatively impact property values. The construction phase itself would introduce heavy machinery, dust, debris, and noise, stripping away the current peace. Furthermore, the developer, RCG LLC, has an unfavorable reputation, with low ratings (2.6/5 on Apartment Ratings for East Mills, 2.9/5 on Google) for existing local properties. Tenants cite weak management responsiveness, noise penetration, parking issues, unreasonable fees, and poor build quality, suggesting these problems would be replicated on a larger scale. Mr. Ronayne states the development strikes at the heart of why he moved to the community, threatening his privacy, the value of downtown and wooded areas, and the area's quiet, peaceful character with urban density he specifically sought to avoid. He and his neighbors are extremely displeased, urging the board to prioritize current residents' interests over allowing a company with a poor reputation to transform the village. Helen Hutchings of 6 Walker Road, located directly next to the proposed development, expressed major concerns based on her experience with the Avalon construction, which was noisy and took ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 10 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS years. She also cited the ongoing impact of a past flood on her building. She worries about increased noise, traffic, and future flooding, asking specifically about plans for a mitigating wall. Mike Lis acknowledged her concerns would be addressed in the civil review. Michael Hakeem, representing his son and family who abut the site at 55 Prescott Street, raised concerns about preserving the integrity of the Prescott Street neighborhood. As a retired professional planner and landscape architect, he focused on the development's encroachment, its high urban-level density (nearly 50 units/acre), and building height. His main request is for increased setback from Prescott Street property lines. He is also concerned about visual intrusion and security/privacy due to trespassing, which he says already occurs through private properties to Prescott Street. Mr. Hakeem plans to provide more detailed comments at future hearings. He noted his comments are as a knowledgeable resident, not professional testimony, as his licenses have lapsed. Carla English of 93 Prescott Street spoke about the negative changes in her neighborhood over 20 years, largely due to high-density housing. She contrasted the proposed five-story, two-acre building with the set-back Avalon buildings, arguing the new project is grossly out of scale with Prescott Street's quaint character of single-family homes (13 on one side, 11 on the other, many small, one to one-and-a-half stories). The building's absurd scale, she argued, belongs on a major route like 114 or 125, not next to their small, quiet homes, some with large lots (like her own 3/4 acre). The project's lack of setback and buffering is "ridiculous" and is "destroying a neighborhood." Increased traffic, noise, and speeding cars are already prompting residents to consider moving. She acknowledged the need for affordable housing but stressed it should not be "at all costs." She concluded by asking what homeowners can do to petition the state housing board regarding the appropriateness of the development. Carolyn Murray - Well, if it's about this specific project, this is where you come and voice your concerns and see if there's a way that maybe the project can be shaped, mitigated. We'll see how this all unfolds. There is also a process that assuming if this board ultimately grants a comprehensive permit for this project, there is a mechanism for abutters to appeal to court. Kelley Sarnie 39 Prescott Street, an abutter most impacted by the proposed 40B development, thanked the Zoning Board and Mr. Steinbergh for meeting with them, noting his apparent willingness to work toward a mutually approved plan. She acknowledged Mr. Steinbergh’s business acumen for utilizing the 40B process, which bypasses typical town review. While not opposed to development, Ms. Sarnie objected to the size of 296 units over 6 acres (four stories from their view, five from the front), citing smaller local examples like Sutton Pond (188 units) and Avalon Bay (221 units over 9 acres). Ms. Sarnie questioned the town's dropping affordable housing percentage (7.99% per town staff in 2020), despite recent developments, suggesting the town was reactive, not proactive, in implementing the inclusionary bylaw. She stated this project is not necessary to meet the 10% quota. The primary concerns focused on the waivers, specifically for setbacks and height. Granting these waivers would place the building 16.5 feet from their property line, negatively impacting their ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 11 of 12 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS home's resale value and eliminating entitled green space. Additional concerns include a dangerous sight line from their driveway (worsened by the higher building), the proposed sidewalk, and safety issues related to the new parking garage, referencing past police calls to the current garage. Ms. Sarnie requested the board deny the waivers, consider their position as residents, and work toward a mutually attractive plan. Betsy Cote of 116 High Street, whose backyard abuts Avalon, detailed major traffic and safety concerns at the intersection of High and Sutton Streets, citing multiple near-accidents and cars speeding at 50 mph. She worries about adding 200 more cars and feels she won't be able to safely walk her grandchildren. She noted Avalon had provided fencing money, which she appreciated, but fears the new complex will be much worse and will directly impact her privacy, forcing her to keep curtains shut. At 72, she contemplates moving to Maine if the project is built. Mike Lis - responded to Paul Hutchins' question about public comments, stating he hadn't planned to read them but would speak with Andrew Shapiro about posting the letters on the website for everyone to read. He confirmed the board members would receive and consider them. Mike Lis announced that the hearing would continue, promising advanced notice of future dates and subjects on the website. He explained a December meeting was unlikely due to the unchosen peer reviewers and their unknown timeline. Carolyn Murray advised that to avoid re-advertising, they should continue the hearing to a "date certain." Mike Lis suggested and confirmed January 20th at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center with Terri MacNeil. Laura Craig-Comin questioned the date, noting it's the day after Martin Luther King weekend. The board members (Alexandria, Frank, and Melissa) confirmed the date, although Jim said he might have to cancel travel plans. Frank Killilea motioned to continue the hearing to January 20th, 2026, at 7 p.m., seconded by Laura Craig-Comin. The roll call was all ayes. Carolyn Murray asked for the topic to be set. Mike Lis confirmed the topic for January 20th would be the traffic review. Laura Craig-Comin made a motion to close public comment for this meeting and was seconded by Frank Killilea. The roll call was all ayes. 3. Adjournment: 9:30 P.M. Motion made by Laura Craig-Comin to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim Testa. A. Jacobs voted yes. M. Lis voted yes. F. Killilea voted yes. J. Testa voted yes, Laura Craig-Comin voted yes. The vote to adjourn is unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ZBA Minutes for November 20, 2025 40B Meeting Page 12 of 12