Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.4.29 Minutes ZBA 40B approved - tlm 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: Wednesday, April 29, 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. Members Present: Michael T. Lis, Frank J. Killilea (on line), Alexandria A. Jacobs (on line), Laura Craig-Comin, James M. Testa, Melissa Rutherford and Zachary J. Hachey Legal & Staff: Carolyn Murray (KP Law), Emmalee Israel (KP Law), Judi Barrett (Barrett Planning Group) and Andrew Shapiro (Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community & Economic Development Town of North Andover) Peer Reviewer: Ken Carlson (Woodard & Curran) and Nicole Lewis (Weston & Sampson) Applicant Team: David Steinbergh (RCG LLC), Phil Henry (Civil Design Group), Daniel C. LaCivita (Traffic Engineer - VAI) and Attorney John Smolak Staff Present: Terri MacNeil Gavel given to: Michael T. Lis, Chair Pledge of Allegiance 2. Acceptance of Minutes from March 24, Meeting James Testa makes a motion to accept the minutes from the March 24, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Laura Craig-Comin seconded the motion; Unanimous vote to accept the minutes from the March 24, 2026 meeting. 3. New Public Hearing of 65 Berkeley Road Melissa Rutherford as acting Clerk, reads the public notice into the record. Chris Crump (CWC Design): Representing the homeowners (the Davisons). 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 6 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The applicant seeks relief of a side setback variance from 15 feet to 11 feet, which is a relief of 4 feet to build a 900-square-foot ADU for the homeowners' aging parents. Key design features mentioned include:  Integration: Roughly half of the ADU footprint is being repurposed from the existing house to minimize the extension into the yard.  Low Profile: The structure is single-story with a roofline that slopes down toward the neighbor’s side to minimize visual impact.  Privacy: Only one small window is planned for the wall facing the neighbor, and a 6-foot privacy fence already exists between the lots. Public Concerns & Abutter Testimony Lynn Jackobek, owns 57 and 105 Berkeley Road, the neighbor most affected by the setback, expressed several concerns:  Notification: She claimed she did not receive the official registered notice for the meeting.  Property Value & Proximity: She felt 11 feet was too close and feared it would negatively impact her property value.  Drainage: She noted historical flooding and wetland issues in the area.  Construction Nuisance: She voiced concerns about the placement of a dumpster during construction. Applicant Response: Chris Crump clarified that they moved the plan back from an initial 6-foot request to 4 feet to be less impactful. He noted that the neighbor’s garage is near the property line, meaning there is still roughly 26 feet between the two actual structures. Regarding drainage, he stated they would install gravel infiltration pits to manage runoff. Board Deliberation & Decision The Board members ultimately sided with the applicant, noting several points:  Minimal Impact: The members felt the 4-foot difference was not "measurably impactful" given the existing fence and the fact that the neighbor’s abutting structure is a garage, not a living space.  Efficient Design: They praised the applicant for incorporating part of the existing house rather than building an entirely new footprint.  Topography: The sloped roof design was seen as a thoughtful way to prevent a "looming" wall effect. Final Action: Melissa Rutherford made a motion to grant the variance incorporating revised design plans by CCW design, consisting of nine pages dated February 24, 2026. The motion was seconded by James Testa. The motion passed unanimously. ZBA Minutes for April 29, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4. Continued Public Hearing of 0 Prescott Street Infrastructure & Environmental Updates  Water & Sewer: Peer reviewers confirmed that the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity for the proposed 296 units. Significant redesign (a 50% increase in demand) would be required to trigger further review.  Wetlands: A potential wetland was discovered behind the facility garage. Initial soil tests suggest it is under 1,000 square feet, which would make it non-jurisdictional under local bylaws, though final verification from the Conservation Agent is pending. Traffic & Safety Concerns  Capacity: The traffic sensitivity study (assuming a 30% increase in volume) showed that most intersections would maintain acceptable service levels, though vehicle queuing might increase slightly.  Pedestrian Safety: The Board expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of children walking to school, noting a missing sidewalk on one-third of Prescott Street.  Post-Occupancy Monitoring: The Board is exploring conditions for a safety study at 75– 80% occupancy to measure actual crash rates and pedestrian impact, though the applicant's counsel cautioned against "blanket" mitigation requirements. Board Site’s Visit The site visit heavily influenced the Board’s stance on the building's physical footprint:  Northwest Wing: Chairman Lis and other members described the proximity to 39 Prescott Street as "invasive" and "uncomfortably close." The building is proposed to stand 45 feet tall, just feet from the property line.  Chairman Lis’ position is that a minimum requirement of pulling the building back 15 feet further from that corner.  Vice Chair Craig-Comin suggested the height be lowered in that section if a further setback is impossible.  John Smolak, attorney for the Applicant o Traffic Mitigation: Smolak pushes back against "post-permit" mitigation, arguing that their traffic engineers and the town’s independent peer reviewers have already agreed on sufficient safety measures. He suggests that further demands would exceed standard safety requirements. o Building Setbacks: A major point of contention. Smolak explicitly states that keeping the building at the existing setback is a "non-starter" and financially unfeasible. The Board counters that they have "strong feelings" about the building’s position. o Waivers & Compromise: The applicant is willing to reduce requested waivers and adjust the design to be more sensitive to the neighborhood, but Smolak warns that the applicant will not provide a "blank check" for a mitigation "wish list." ZBA Minutes for April 29, 2026 Page 3 of 6 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS  Board’s Perspective: Vice Chair Craig-Comin clarifies that the town isn't looking for a "cash grab" but rather exploring what is typical for unexpected project impacts. Chair Lis emphasizes that he is "polling for numbers" now to avoid "sandbagging" the developer with a rejection later. Public & Abutter Feedback Kelley Sarnie, 39 Prescott Street  Proximity and Setbacks: Resident strongly oppose waivers for height and setbacks. Kelley Sarnie noted that the parking garage and "Building 1" are only 15 feet from her property line, raising concerns about privacy, natural light, and property values.  Environmental Hazards: Potential exposure to carcinogens (VOCs and benzene) from concentrated vehicle exhaust in the garage, as well as heat retention from the partially enclosed structure.  Safety and Privacy: Fear that security cameras will record into private homes and that garage lighting will act as a "spotlight" on neighboring houses.  Water and Snow: Concerns that the garage will divert snow and runoff onto adjacent properties, potentially damaging structures or causing flooding (citing the 2006 "Mother’s Day flood").  Construction Impact: Residents requested vibration monitoring to protect their home foundations and pools, noting that past nearby construction caused significant shaking. Jim Holland – 43 Mount Vernon Street Project Scale and Fairness  Proportionality: Holland argues the building is too large for the neighborhood and that residents' proposals for a smaller project should be given as much weight as the technical "setbacks" currently being debated.  Disproportionate Burden: He contends that the neighborhood (and his immediate neighbors) is being forced to solve a town-wide housing problem that has built up over years, which he characterizes as a fundamental fairness issue. Infrastructure and Traffic  Infrastructure Deficits: He highlights a critical safety hazard: one-third of the sidewalk on Prescott Street is missing.  Traffic Volume: He questions the neighborhood’s ability to handle the increased traffic volume generated by a project of this size. Responsibility and Mitigation  Traffic Report Accuracy: Holland requests that the traffic report be updated to explicitly state the lack of sidewalks, arguing the current version does a "disservice to the public information."  Developer Accountability: He suggests the developer should provide community benefits to mitigate the project's impact. ZBA Minutes for April 29, 2026 Page 4 of 6 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS  The "Set Table" Principle: He concludes that the development should not be approved until a clear plan for infrastructure upgrades (like the sidewalk) is finalized and funded, stating that currently, no one is taking responsibility for these necessary improvements.  The Discrepancy: Jim Holland questioned why a volume and speed study was conducted for High Street but not for Prescott Street. Michael Hakim – Representing his son at 55 Prescott Street  Extreme Density: Michael Hakim pointed out that this project proposes 48.3 units per acre, which is significantly higher than other local high-density projects like Berry Farms (26.09) or Avalon (9.57).  Economic Feasibility: Hakim urged the board to demand a "pro-forma" to see if the project remains viable with fewer units. Michael Ronayne, 24 Prescott Street  Visual Impact & Height: Ronayne emphasizes that a 45-foot-high structure directly across the street will "engulf" the front of his house. He argues that the height is excessive and will fundamentally disrupt the character of the street.  Scale vs. Setbacks: He contends that while the developers mention matching setbacks of existing homes, the comparison is irrelevant because the proposed building's massive width is far greater than the typical 30-foot-wide houses in the area.  High Density: Ronayne points out that the project’s density (48 units per acre) is nearly double that of "The Farms" (a 40B project at 26 units per acre), calling the difference "drastic."  Neighborhood Character: o Family Environment: As a first-time homeowner looking to start a family, he feels the project is inappropriate for a residential family neighborhood. o Exclusivity: He notes that the developers confirmed the proposed playground would be for residents only, which he interprets as a sign that the project will not be a collaborative or integrated part of the community. Developer’s Rebuttals (David Steinbergh & Team)  Parking & Snow: RCG plans to phase construction to maintain parking for current tenants. Regarding snow, they agreed to a condition that snow will not be dumped onto neighboring properties, suggesting it could be moved to designated storage areas or melted.  Security: The developer stated they haven't designed the camera layout yet but are open to a condition that cameras cannot be aimed at private residences.  Traffic: The traffic consultant, Daniel LaCivita, argued that a speed study on Prescott Street wasn't necessary because all project traffic enters/exits via High Street. He maintained that sight lines remain safe.  The Rationale: Daniel explained that High Street was the priority because the project’s only driveway connects directly to it. Therefore, 100% of the site's traffic will impact High Street, making speed data essential for calculating safe "sight distances" (the visibility required for cars to pull out safely). ZBA Minutes for April 29, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Town of North Andover ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS  Safety Concerns: Vice Chair Craig-Comin raised a concern that the new building might obstruct the "sight lines" for drivers traveling down Prescott Street toward High Street, regardless of the driveway location.  The Defense: Daniel argued that the building is set back far enough (over 14.5 feet) that it shouldn't block visibility. He also noted that there is sufficient line-of-sight between the project driveway and existing mill driveways nearby. Legal Constraints & Next Steps  The Pro-Forma Rule: Special Counsel Carolyn Murray clarified that the Board cannot ask for a density reduction simply to see if it’s "economically feasible." They must first identify a specific health, safety, or environmental concern that justifies the reduction.  Timeline: The public hearing must close by June 30, 2026. The Board plans to review a specific Waiver List and a Draft List of Conditions in upcoming meetings.  However, the Board’s counsel (Carolyn Murray) clarified that under regulations that govern 40Bs in Massachusetts, a board cannot review a pro-forma to force a unit reduction unless a specific health or safety violation is first identified. Next Steps and Board Position The Board expressed empathy regarding the 15-foot buffer, acknowledging that such close proximity makes issues like snow removal and privacy much more acute. They discussed the possibility of:  Imposing specific conditions on snow management and camera orientation.  Requiring a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to address dust, noise, and truck routing.  Exploring vibration monitoring requirements if the project involves significant ground improvement or rock breaking. Next Meeting: Continued to May 21, 2026, at 7:00 PM at Town Hall, focusing on parking peer review and revised design studies. 5. Adjournment: 10:00 P.M. Motion made by Laura Craig-Comin to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by James Testa. The vote to adjourn is unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ZBA Minutes for April 29, 2026 Page 6 of 6