Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.3.24 Minutes ZBA 40B Town of North Andover APPIT011TV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Members Associate Member Michael T.Lis., Chair Matthew J. Ginsburg Laura Craig-Comin, Vice-Chair Zachary J.Hachey X Frank J.Killilea, Clerk Melissa Rutherford James M.Testa Zoning Enforcement Alexandria A.Jacobs Esq Officer « Jean Enright MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Time of Meeting: 7:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: North Andover Senior Center, 481 Sutton Street, North Andover, MA 01845 Signature: Terri MacNeil 1. Call to Order called at 7:00 p.m. ZBA Members: Michael Lis (Chair),Frank Killilea(Clerk), Laura Craig-Comin(Vice Chair), James Testa,Alexandria Jacobs (online), Melissa Rutherford(online) Legal & Staff: George Pucci (KP Law), Emmalee Israel (KP Law), Judi Barrett (Barrett Planning Group) and Andrew Schwartz (Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community & Economic Development Town of North Andover) Peer Reviewer: Janet Bernardo (Horsley Whitten Group) Applicant Team: David Steinbergh (RCG LLC), Ed Bradford(The Architectural Team, Inc.), Jiyoun Zieringer(The Architectural Team, Inc.) and Natalie Adams (Verdant) Gavel given to: Michael T. Lis Pledge of Allegiance 2. Laura Craig-Comin made a motion to accept the minutes from the February 25, 2026 meeting, Frank Killilea seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to accept the minutes from the February 25, 2026 meeting. Executive Summary The meeting focused primarily on the architectural and landscaping peer review of a proposed 300-unit, 40B housing development. The applicant presented revised designs intended to soften the visual impact of the large building on the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly the direct abutters on Prescott Street. The board and the public discussed building massing, landscaping buffers, infrastructure concerns, and the legal framework for reviewing the proj ect's financial viability. IIIUlUIYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIU/d/G/Ff4/N/U///4/U/NAIUlUl4ll/!//U/U/Ff4/U/U//l4/U/N11UlUlYIIIUINIV. Architectural Revisions & Massing To address concerns about the building's massive scale, the architectural team (TAT) introduced several design modifications: • Step-Backs vs. Setbacks: The primary strategy used to reduce perceived height was introducing "step-backs" on the upper floors. While the building's overall footprint (setback) remains about 16.5 feet from the nearest property line at its closest point, the top floors and the garage are now stepped back by roughly 18 feet. It gives the building a staggered appearance that appears less encroaching on neighboring plots, but does not change the actual setback. • Roof Design Options: The applicant presented two concepts for the side facing the neighborhood: o Option A:A modern, terraced approach using the step-backs. o Option B:A traditional, sloped roof meant to mimic local residential styles. (While it fits the neighborhood vernacular, some board members felt it looked bulkier than Option A). • Materiality: Following the peer reviewer's advice,the facade facing the historic mills will now feature a more continuous three-story brick base to better blend with the industrial aesthetic, while upper floors will use cement clapboard. • Mechanicals: Rooftop AC condensers will be placed toward the center of the roof and shielded by a 42-inch parapet wall,though the board requested further noise impact studies. Landscaping & Site Design The landscape architect detailed a plan focused on native, drought-tolerant plants and creating "campus connections." • Visual Buffers: The plan aims to preserve existing mature trees along the Prescott Street property lines.Where trees must be removed for grading or stormwater swales,new native evergreens and canopy trees will be planted to screen the building. • Fencing: A property-line fence is proposed to prevent pedestrians from cutting through private residential yards. • Lighting: The applicant is reworking the lighting plan to ensure zero light trespass onto neighboring properties,though abutters noted that the parking garage's interior safety lights will still be visible. Public Feedback & Concerns Michael Hakim, a retired landscape architect and planner representing his son (an abutting property owner at 55 Prescott), addressed the board regarding a proposed 40B development. While appreciative of the cordial atmosphere, he urged the board to look past minor details and address the proj ect's systemic issues. Key Points Raised: • Excessive Density: Hakim argues the proposed density of 48.3 units per acre is "tremendous overdevelopment," noting that most other 40B projects in North Andover are under 10 units per acre. He advocates for reducing the density to closer to 20 units per acre. • "Nipping and Tucking": He criticizes the current review process for focusing on minor tweaks and details rather than confronting the overall massiveness and scale of the project. • Request for Financial Transparency: Anticipating the developer's argument that reducing density would ruin the proj ect's profitability, Hakim urges the board to request a professionally certified pro forma. This would allow the board to verify the developer's financial claims and determine exactly how much the project can be scaled down. • Building Height and Visual Impact: To protect the view of the Prescott Street abutters, he recommends reducing the building from five stories to three. If that is not possible, he suggests lowering the building's overall elevation deeper into the ground, which would reduce the visual impact and naturally eliminate the lowest-level units (aligning with his goal to reduce overall density). Kelly Sarney 39 Prescott Street. The statement highlights significant concerns about the scale, safety, and privacy impacts of the proposed high-density project on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Project Scale and Location • Address Discrepancy: Questions why the project is addressed as "0 Prescott Street" when it lacks an entrance or driveway on that street. • Misleading Density: Points out that while the project claims to place 300 units and 400 parking spaces on 6 acres, the actual footprint feels squeezed onto just 2.11 acres, creating an overly urban density for a town setting. • Garage Relocation: Suggests moving the parking garage to the West Mill campus (behind 50 High Street) to free up space and limit parking strictly to the new development's residents. • Invasive Sightlines: Strongly opposes the proposed outdoor terraces and building proximity, which would provide a direct, unobstructed view into her second-floor bedrooms. She notes that the "mature trees" cited in the peer review to provide buffering are actually dead or leaning. • Feeling "Encapsulated": Suggests redesigning the wing closest to her property so it faces down Prescott Street, rather than looming directly over her property line. • Light Pollution: Expresses concern about bright lights from the new building and the parking garage shining directly into her home. • Radon Gas: Worries that soil disruption from construction will elevate radon levels on her property. She asks if the developer will cover the costs of re-mitigating her home if this occurs. • Fire Hazards: Raises concerns about potential fires caused by the proximity of the tall building, brushing, or solar panel heat reflection melting her siding. She specifically asks if the parking garage will be equipped with sprinkler systems. • Traffic Safety: Highlights a high volume of"near misses" at the intersection of Elm,High, and Water Streets, requesting flashing lights or stop signs to improve safety. • Historic Appropriateness: Requests clarification on the "Downtown Overlay Subdistrict A" zoning, arguing the design should better reflect the historic mill area and respect nearby residences. • Design Preferences: States a preference for "Design B," especially if the height can be reduced to two or three stories from her vantage point. • Inaccurate Plans: Notes that the developer's current plans do not accurately reflect her property, missing a newly added addition and garage. • Direct Abutter Impacts: She also expressed specific concerns regarding loss of privacy (due to the new upper-floor terraces), potential radon gas disturbance, snow removal responsibilities, and the sheer proximity of the parking garage to their property. Requests to the Board • Reduce the Size: Formally requests a reduction in both the number of units and the overall height of the building. • Site Visit: Invites Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) members to physically stand in her yard to fully grasp the extreme proximity of the proposed project to her property line. • Transparency: Requests to see the full, un-summarized responses submitted by the town regarding the project. Jim Holland 43 Mount Vernon Street He expressed strong concerns about the proj ect's impact on local infrastructure, safety, and the environment, urging the board to demand independent assessments and greater financial transparency from the developer. • Pedestrian Safety & Traffic: Prescott Street is currently hazardous for pedestrians. Sidewalks are in severe disrepair, do not extend the full length of the street, and are historically left uncleared of snow during the winter. o Pedestrians are forced to walk in the street to reach Route 125 and the high school. o Traffic and speeding have already increased due to recent nearby developments (East/West Mill and Avalon apartments). Adding 300 units and 400+vehicles will severely worsen these dangerous conditions. o He requested independent studies on his raised concerns,particularly prioritizing a pedestrian safety assessment for Prescott Street. • Infrastructure Degradation: The surface of Prescott Street is heavily damaged,partially due to heavy trucks from previous apartment construction. o He expressed disappointment that the current developer is not offering to help repair the road, which cannot support further heavy construction traffic. • Health & Contamination Risks: Because the proposed site is on or near a former industrial area, there are fears that demolition and construction will release harmful contaminants into the air and onto neighboring residential properties. • Environmental Impact: Building on the hill above the existing wetland habitat poses a high risk of damaging runoff. o This wetland, home to cranes and other wildlife, has already been disturbed by previous developments, and neighbors want it protected. • Project Size: He asked if the board has actively requested that the developer reduce the footprint of the project. • Financial Transparency:Noting that the developer claims the project needs to be a certain size to be "viable," he asked for an audited look at the developer's financial break-even point to determine exactly how many units are actually required for profitability. Legal & Procedural Next Steps • Financial Pro-Forma: In response to calls to shrink the project, legal counsel clarified the 40B regulations. The ZBA cannot arbitrarily ask the developer to reduce the unit count just to see if it remains profitable. The board must first request a specific modification tied to a legitimate local concern (e.g., "reduce the northwest corner by one story to mitigate visual impact on the abutter"). If the developer refuses, claiming it makes the project uneconomic, the board can then demand a financial pro-forma audit. • Timeline: The statutory 6-month deadline for the 40B process is May 19, 2026. However, the ZBA chair noted they will not finish in time and will seek a mutual waiver to extend the process, likely on a month-to-month basis starting through the end of June. • Next Meeting: Scheduled for April 8th at 7:30 PM at the Senior Center. The agenda will cover traffic, civil engineering, stormwater peer reviews, and feedback from North Andover town departments.