Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.4.8 Minutes ZBA 40B working - 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 Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq Officer Jean Enright MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 Time of Meeting: 7:30 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 7:30 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: 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: Mike Santos (VHB) and Janet Bernardo (Horsley Whitten Group) Applicant Team: David Steinbergh (RCG LLC), Phil Henry (Civil Design Group) Gavel given to: Michael T. Lis Pledge of Allegiance Civil and Stormwater Management The applicant presented a revised stormwater plan developed in coordination with the Department of Public Works (DPW).  Diversion Plan: A new 18-inch pipe will be installed to divert runoff away from the High Street bottleneck, sending it through the Avalon property to Sutton Pond.  Bottleneck Mitigation: This design aims to reduce flooding near "Jaime’s" and "Good Day Cafe" by bypassing existing drainage constraints.  Waivers: The applicant narrowed their request to two specific waivers: the use of High- Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe material and trunk line profiles.  Peer Review: Horsley Whitten and the DPW indicated support for these technical adjustments.  The SWPPP: Since the project involves over an acre of disturbance, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required.  Phases of Concern: Frank emphasizes that the project needs monitoring not just for the finished "built condition," but also for pre-construction, during construction, and post- construction.  The Problem: Typically, the Conservation Commission or a Conservation Agent monitors these logs and site controls. Since they aren't involved here, the board needed to clarify who fills that role.  Existing Consultants: Carolyn Murray and Judi Barrett clarify that a separate peer review process isn't necessary. The board’s current engineering consultant (Horsley Whitten) will handle the review of stormwater and civil engineering issues.  Standard Conditions: The board can impose "standard conditions" in the project decision to ensure compliance. These include: o Filing a Construction Management Plan and schedule. o A pre-construction meeting with town stakeholders (covering hours of operation, traffic routes, etc.). o A requirement for a registered professional engineer to certify that erosion/sediment controls are installed correctly.  DPW Supports proposed redirection of flow through the West Mill campus and ultimate discharge to the same watershed endpoint. Verification  Reporting: Instead of an "honor system," the applicant will be required to provide monthly reports to the town during construction to ensure sediment and erosion controls remain effective. Traffic and Transportation Michael Santos of VHB provided a peer review update on traffic studies.  Sensitivity Analysis: A study bumping project traffic by 30% showed no major new impacts on queuing or delays.  Pedestrian Safety: The applicant committed to installing a rectangular rapid flashing beacon at the High Street crosswalk to improve safety for future residents.  Shared Parking: A comprehensive parking study is still pending to determine how the project affects the existing shared parking throughout the mill complex. Departmental Feedback  Police/Fire: The garage will have secure FOB access, with provisions for emergency services. Two hydrants are proposed, though final placement requires Fire Department approval. Short-term closures of High Street will be necessary for utility pipe installation. Coordination with the Fire Department is required to ensure emergency access via Prescott Street is maintained.  Building Department: The building department proposed a work schedule of 7:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. (Mon–Fri) and 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (Sat), with no work permitted on Sundays. The applicant agreed to construction hours. o Truck Routes: To avoid heavy traffic in downtown areas, trucks must avoid Main Street and Water Street, utilizing Prescott Street to Route 125 instead. o Road Closures: No long-term closures are expected.  DPW: They have also scheduled a project for fiscal year 2028 to repave the road and extend/reconnect the sidewalk from Route 125 to High Street. This is part of a broader effort to fix "gaps" in the town's sidewalk connectivity.  Conservation Commission has declined jurisdiction. Summary: Because the Conservation Commission is not acting as the authority for this project, the Board will use its existing peer reviewers and specific permit conditions to ensure the developer adheres to stormwater and erosion standards through regular professional reporting. Site Design & Safety  Setbacks: There is ongoing discussion regarding adjusting rear setbacks to increase the distance between the development and abutting properties.  Road Grades: The Fire Department requires that road grades connecting parking areas do not exceed 10%. Steinbergh noted that the current design should comfortably meet this requirement.  Fire Hydrants: The Fire Department expressed concern that the single proposed hydrant may be insufficient. The final number and placement of hydrants remain subject to their approval. Public Concerns  Abutter Impact: Neighbors expressed significant concerns regarding the building's height and its proximity (less than 17 feet) to property lines. One resident proposed reducing the project to three stories and 170 units as a compromise. Robin Morgasen, 174 High Street  Traffic Volume and Data Integrity: o Morgasen questioned the projection that the project would only add 25 cars to the High and Sutton Street area, calling the figure unrealistic for a 300-unit build. o She noted that previous projections for the nearby Avalon development were reportedly off by 30%, suggesting current estimates may be similarly flawed.  Traffic Patterns & Road Restrictions: o Morgasen expressed concern that restricting truck or resident traffic on streets like Prescott or Main would funnel all congestion onto High Street. o She specifically requested that if any "exit-only" driveways are implemented, they should not be restricted to right-turns only, as this would further burden High Street.  The "Post-Occupancy" Study: o Morgasen questioned the value of conducting a traffic study after the project is built. o Mike Lis clarified that while remedies are limited once a building exists, the data helps the town verify the accuracy of developer predictions and informs decisions on future waivers or applications.  Water and Sewer Impact: o Morgasen asked if the impact on the town's water supply had been addressed. Lis confirmed that water and sewer are the subjects of the next scheduled peer review.  Cumulative Impact: o Morgasen argued that the neighborhood is already "overpopulated" due to existing developments like Avalon. She described the new project as a "white elephant" that presents a massive negative impact the town is currently "skirting around." Clarifications from the Board/Applicant  David Steinbergh clarified that the "restricted movements" discussed by the traffic consultants (VHB) were largely internal to the site and not intended to restrict turns directly onto High Street.  Laura (likely a board member or consultant) clarified the site's layout, noting there is effectively only one main "in and out" point onto High Street shared by this project and Avalon. Jim Holland, 43 Mount Vernon Street Expressed strong opposition to the project, citing several key issues:  Scale and Siting: He argued the building is excessively large for the neighborhood and unnecessarily close to existing homes (less than 17 feet from an abutter) despite the site having six acres available.  Infrastructure & Safety: He highlighted "fragile infrastructure," specifically noting that Prescott Street lacks shoulders and has missing sidewalks, creating hazards for pedestrians.  Traffic & Emergency Services: He requested raw speed data (beyond averages) for Prescott Street and asked for data on how frequently emergency vehicles from the nearby fire station use that route.  Environmental Safety: He requested independent asbestos testing for the garage demolition and soil testing for the site, given its industrial history.  Transparency: He questioned the developer's experience with projects of this size and asked for details on construction traffic (concrete loads and disposal locations).  He asked if this plan might be able to be refiled as a Local Initiative Program. Board Response (Mike Lis)  Procedural Limits: Lis clarified that the project cannot be refiled as a "Local Initiative Program" (friendly 40B) because a standard 40B application is already in progress.  Site Visit: The Board announced a scheduled site visit to observe the area firsthand, though no public testimony will be taken during that walk-through.  Data Requests: Lis requested a "histogram of speed recordings" from the developer to better understand traffic outliers and agreed to look into the availability of emergency trip counts. Developer Response (David Steinbergh)  Experience: Steinbergh acknowledged this would be his largest unit-count project personally, but stated the company has 40 years of experience with comparable urban infill projects.  Environmental Compliance: He stated that extensive environmental testing has already been conducted. He noted that soil and concrete disposal are strictly regulated and require testing by licensed third parties before removal.  Traffic Data: He agreed to provide raw traffic data, noting it may already be in the initial report’s backup.  Logistics: He could not yet confirm the specific disposal sites (such as Holt Road) for construction debris. Kelley Sarney. 39 Prescott Street Kelley presented a detailed counter-proposal aimed at reducing the project's scale while still helping the town meet its affordable housing goals:  Scale Reduction: Proposed reducing the project from the original 296 units down to 170 units.  Height & Footprint: Requested a maximum height of three stories (down from five) and asked that the building not extend past the current parking garage wall.  Affordability: Suggested maintaining a 25% affordable rate (43 units), which would bring the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) to 9.5%, nearing the 10% "safe harbor" goal.  Financial & Logistical Data: Sarney provided a breakdown of unit mixes (studios, 1, 2, and 3-bedrooms) and estimated monthly rental revenues to argue for the viability of a smaller project.  Safety Concerns: Raised questions regarding fire/ambulance access to the parking garage and the structural support for "elevated wings" in the design. Developer & Board Response  Financial Viability: Chairman Mike Lis expressed skepticism that a 40% reduction in size would be financially viable for the developer.  Visual Impact: The Board agreed with Sarney’s request for 3D renderings and multiple street-view perspectives to better understand the project's visual impact on Prescott Street.  Potential Compromise: While the developer is unlikely to cut the project by 40%, Lis indicated a specific sensitivity to the building "wing" closest to the Sarney property. He suggested exploring moving that section back or removing a single floor from that specific area to mitigate the impact.  Emergency Access: Steinbergh clarified that while fire trucks would not enter the open- air garage due to clearance issues, they would have FOB access and the ability to fight fires from the perimeter using built-in sprinkler systems. Carla English, 93 Prescott Street Is challenging the notion that a smaller version of a proposed development project would be financially "unviable." Here is a summary of her key arguments: Key Arguments  Financial Viability: English disputes the claim that the project wouldn't be profitable if scaled back. She points out that the proposal includes a revenue of $449,000 per month, which totals $5.3 million annually—an amount she considers more than sufficient to sustain a project.  Cost vs. Scale: she argues that shrinking the size of a project naturally leads to lower construction costs, suggesting the developer's overhead would decrease alongside the size.  The "Fairness" Compromise: She proposes a middle ground: the developer should keep the promised number of low-income units but reduce the overall physical footprint of the building to make it smaller and more appropriate for the area.  Skepticism of Developer Claims: She explicitly states she "doesn't buy" the argument that the current massive scale is the only way to make the project work financially. The Bottom Line: Carla English is advocating for a smaller building, arguing that $5.3 million in annual revenue provides plenty of room to reduce the project's size without sacrificing the necessary affordable housing components. Michael Ronayne, 24 Prescott Street Raises concerns regarding the scale and financial justification of the proposed 40B development. Key Points  Proximity Concerns: He asks for a specific measurement of how far the building will be from his front yard, emphasizing that this distance is a critical detail for the neighbors.  Scale vs. Viability: Ronayne challenges the idea that the project must be large to be financially viable. He argues that a smaller building would result in lower construction costs and suggests that a single project doesn't need to solve the entire "40B low-income housing issue" alone.  Profit Caps: He references the statutory profit limits for 40B developers, assuming the current proposal is likely pushing the upper limits of that cap. Core Argument The speaker is advocating for a reduction in project size, questioning the developer's financial necessity for such a large building while highlighting the physical impact on immediate abutters. Action Items  Applicant: o Provide the completed parking study and the expanded traffic analysis for the High Street/Sutton Street intersection. o Generate 3D renderings from multiple perspectives along Prescott Street to visualize neighborhood impact. o Coordinate fire hydrant placement and emergency vehicle maneuvering with the Fire Department. o Stake out the corners of the proposed building for the upcoming site visit.  Zoning Board/Staff: o Upload recent departmental letters and memos to the town’s 40B website. o Follow up on the 2025 Cochichewick Brook Floodplain Management Report to ensure all data is accounted for in the stormwater review. o Finalize a waiver to extend the hearing deadline beyond May. Key Decisions  Meeting Continuance: The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to April 29, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.  Site Visit: The board scheduled a site visit to observe property stakes and the proximity of the proposed building to abutting homes.  Minutes: Approval of the March 24th meeting minutes was postponed to allow for edits.