Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.5.21 Minutes ZBA 40B working - tlm 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 Scott Vandewalle MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Thursday, May 21, 2026 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. ZBA Members: Laura Craig-Comin (Vice Chair), Frank Killilea (Clerk), James Testa, Melissa Rutherford, Michael Lis (Chair) (on line), Alexandria Jacobs (online), Legal & Staff: Carolyn Murray (KP Law), Emmalee Israel (KP Law), and Andrew Shapiro (Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community & Economic Development Town of North Andover) Peer Reviewer: Michael Santos (VHB) Applicant Team: David Steinbergh (RCG LLC), Daniel LaCivita (Vanasse & Associates) Gavel given to: Laura Craig-Comin Pledge of Allegiance 2. Acceptance of Minutes from April 8, 2026 Meeting Frank Killilea makes a motion to accept the minutes from the April 8, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, James Testa seconded the motion; Unanimous vote to accept the minutes from the April 8, 2026 meeting. 3. Continued Hearing for 0 Prescott Street, North Andover, MA Parking Study and Traffic Review Daniel LaCivita (Vanasse & Associates) presented the findings of the parking demand study conducted in March 2026.  Available Parking: Within a 5-minute walk of the site, there are 1,139 total spaces. Depending on the time of day, 655 to 757 of these are unregulated or non-time-limited visitor spaces available to project residents.  Observed Peak Times: Weekday parking peaks at noon (office/lunch rush), leaving 200–300 spaces open. Friday parking peaks at 7:00 PM (restaurant rush), leaving fewer spaces open, though office lots near the project site remain largely empty.  Projected Demand: The project is expected to demand 250–300 spaces during peak daytime hours and up to 431 spaces (roughly 1.5 spaces per unit) at maximum.  Peer Review Alignment: Michael Santos from VHB confirmed that the applicant satisfactorily addressed all peer review comments. He noted that the existing garage sees very low usage (about 40 of 260 spaces), meaning existing users will not be significantly displaced.  Sutton Street & High Street Intersection: The intersection currently operates at a Level of Service (LOS) F (delays exceeding 50 seconds). The project's added traffic is considered minor, increasing the queue by only 1 to 2 vehicles. Revised Architectural and Site Plans Ed Bradford (TAT Architecture) presented major revisions to address feedback regarding the scale and proximity of the project to the neighborhood:  Increased Setback: The parking garage was shifted 30 feet to the east. This eliminates the previous 16.5-foot "pinch point" at 39 Prescott Street, ensuring a minimum 35-foot setback that complies with underlying zoning and removes the need for a waiver.  Programmatic Reductions: To accommodate the shift, the project was scaled down by 16 apartment units (now 280 units total) and 35 parking spaces (now 462 spaces total). The overall building footprint was reduced by roughly 3,000 square feet.  Massing and Step Backs: The top floors of the building wings facing Prescott Street were stepped back significantly (up to 30 feet) to mimic a 2.5-to-3-story profile from the street, tapering down from the taller interior sections.  Aesthetics: Juliet balconies were removed in favor of simple punched windows to better match the historical aesthetic of the existing mills. Review of Draft Conditions Special Counsel Carolyn Murray (KP Law) outlined the framework of the comprehensive permit draft decision:  Standard & Infrastructure Conditions: Includes pre-construction stakeholder coordination, truck routing, fire department compliance (ensuring driveway grades do not exceed 10%), storm water management, and long-term operations/maintenance tracking.  Post-Occupancy Monitoring: A mandatory traffic and parking study will be conducted at 75% occupancy. If traffic or parking exceeds projections by a set threshold 2 (typically 10%), the applicant must return to the board for mitigation discussions (e.g., turn restrictions, signage).  Local Preference: The board can allocate up to 70% of the affordable units for a "local preference" (North Andover residents, town employees, or families with local students) during the initial lottery. State law also permits a 10% set-aside for income-qualified veterans. Public Comment and Concerns  Jim Holland (43 Mount Vernon Street): Argued that comparable regional 40B developments feature buffers of hundreds of feet, not 35 feet. He requested speed and volume studies for Prescott Street and sought a remediation plan for potential asbestos during the demolition of the existing garage. He highlighted Prescott Street as particularly dangerous because one-third of its sidewalk is missing, making a traffic study a critical omission. Multi-story garages are rare in comparable towns. Holland argued that the garage over-sizes the building for the site and increases density issues. He noted a confirmed wetland near Route 125 on the Mass Mapper tool and asked if the newly discovered wetland behind the garage connects to it, requesting further review by environmental officials or the DPW.  Kelley Sarney (39 Prescott Street): Is appreciative of the 35-foot setback, strongly opposes the overall height and density. She argues that a three-story limit along Prescott Street is needed, as the current design will block sunlight and air circulation, creating a "boxed-in" effect that will increase their utility bills. She noted that current trees impede driveway sightlines for eight months of the year and raised safety concerns regarding potential brush fires and parking garage trespassing. Kelley questioned why the developer (RCG) shifted from previous, smaller phase plans (such as 40 townhomes) to a massive Chapter 40B project. They urge a middle ground, suggesting a smaller unit count (e.g., reducing the proposal to fewer units) to lower construction and parking costs while still maintaining the 25% affordable housing threshold. Prescott Street suffers from rainwater erosion and cannot handle on-street parking. Extra parked cars would block sidewalks and impede emergency vehicles (fire trucks and ambulances), which already face local traffic delays. Kelley emphasized that while they recognize the town's need for housing, nearby residents should not bear the entire burden of a project that negatively impacts their property value, safety, and quality of life. o Kelley requested clarity on several outstanding details and urged the board not to rush the decision:  What is the exact distance from the revised building to the sidewalk?  What are the repercussions if the developer fails to follow the maintenance plan post-construction?  How will utility/telephone poles inside the planned parking lot be handled?  Has there been updated feedback from police and fire departments regarding the intersection since 2022?  Michael Ronayne (24 Prescott Street): Stated that squaring off the building to pull it away from 39 Prescott made it directly straight-on and more imposing to his property across the street. He felt a 16-unit reduction was insufficient to protect the 3 neighborhood's character, reducing the project to 16 units is not a true sacrifice and that no adjustments or setbacks have been made to alleviate the impact specifically on 24 Prescott Street. Michael noted that despite requesting the specific distance between his front door/sidewalk and the proposed development at the last two meetings, that data has still not been provided. He describes the proposed structure as "terrible," "towering," and completely out of character for the neighborhood, comparing its appearance to an "industrial complex" or a high school rather than a residential building. He urges the local board not to capitulate based on "assumptions" regarding state mandates, suggesting that the town should challenge the state to review the site and see how ridiculous the proposal is. Ultimately, the resident feels the developer's adjustments have only fixed a problem for one neighbor while making the project worse for his own property, resulting in an industrial-scale building that completely destroys the neighborhood's character.  Dan Hakim (55 Prescott Street): Dan strongly agrees with previous speakers and the board that the overall scale of the project is simply too big. While acknowledging that recent revisions are an improvement over original designs, he notes that minor "nipping and tucking" has failed to meaningfully reduce the building's overwhelming size. Noted that he relies on Prescott Street parking daily due to a narrow driveway and fears overflow parking from the new complex. He requested that property fencing be located closer to the new building rather than on the shared property line to preserve the existing wooded environment. He requests that the fence be high and opaque (solid) rather than see-through, in order to maintain privacy and block visual disruption between the new building and adjacent backyards. He also favored a flat, stepped-back roof design over a gabled roof to maximize sky visibility. Comments from Counsel  Zoning Board Limitation: Board members and counsel clarified that under state Chapter 40B rules, the board cannot explicitly object to density or enforce setbacks greater than the zoning-compliant 35 feet unless tied directly to a validated local concern.  Consequences of Denial: Counsel stated that denying a 40B project usually leads to an appeal through the state's Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), where municipalities historically have a very low success rate, and the town would lose its ability to enforce local conditions. Requests for the Next Meeting:  The applicant will provide the exact wall-to-wall distance from the new structure to 24 Prescott Street.  The applicant will submit a revised landscaping and tree preservation plan.  The architects will provide an alternative visual rendering of the Prescott view utilizing a flat, stepped-back roof design instead of a gable roof.  The board chair will consult the Select Board regarding the feasibility of instituting "resident-only" parking restrictions on Prescott Street. 4 Meeting Continuance: The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to June 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 5. Adjournment. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 5