HomeMy WebLinkAboutHolland - public comments for 6.30 meeting - Correspondence - 0 Prescott Street 6/30/2026 6/30/26,8:27 AM Town of North Andover Mail-Online Form Submittal:Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
N0iiq,N Al ' OVER
Massachusplf Terri MacNeil <tmacneil@northandoverma.gov>
Online Form Submittal: Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
1 message
noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 12:04 PM
Reply-To: noreply@civicplus.com
To: zoningemails@northandoverma.gov
Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
Your Name Jim Holland
Your Email jimcholland@gmail.com
Subject June 30 ZBA Meeting Comments
Message Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members:
Attached, please find my comments for the June 30 meeting.
Sincerely,
Jim Holland
Attachments
Files must be less than 2 MB.
Allowed file types: txt doe pdf docx jpg gif png.
Attachment Number 1 June 30 2026 ZBA comrrments.pdf
Attachment Number 2 Field not completed.
Attachment Number 3 Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly?\hevf it in your browser.
https://mail.goog le.com/mail/u/0/?ik=fObefc9b3b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1869257306306909408%7Cmsg-f:1869257306306909408&s... 1/1
Dear Members ofthe Zoning Board ofAppeals:
I am concerned the parking structure may require zoning relief that has not been clearly
identified on the waiver list. If the structure is not permitted as of right, the applicant should be
required to seek a specific waiver and justify the request on the record.
| disagree with the interpretation of the 3-phase 2823 Downtown Overlay Subdistrict A Historic
Mill Area framework. Uncertainty regarding tinning does not negate the representations about
the number of units, which was the primary indicator of project scale. The Manning Board's
review occurred in the context of those scale representations. The Board should consider
whether that review would have been the same had Phase III been described as 280 units and a
362 vehicle/five-story parking structure. The difference in scale is substantial and should require
specific waiver relief orequivalent review.
I do not believe the environmental and conservation review has been sufficient to date.There
has been one report from the applicant, responding to a wetland area the town discovered near
the garage. It was not peer reviewed and there are no reports about the full site. If the Board is
exercising conservation-related responsibilities in this proceeding, it should retain a qualified,
independent expert to review the full site.
No health impact report appears to have been provided, despite a plan to include a very large,
dense concentration of vehicles in a parking structure. The town should hire an independent
expert to advise on health considerations for nearby residents for this type of structure/siting.
If the Board is inclined to approve the application, it should impose specific, measurable, and
enforceable conditions related directly to the applicant's projections. The conditions should
include a process for periodic review of actual impacts and a mechanism for town cost recovery
from the applicant if the actual impacts exceed what has been projected.
Finally, this process should not be accelerated due to scheduling constraints. The public has not
had adequate time to review and comment on the final proposed waivers and draft conditions. |
respectfully request the Board keep the public hearing open and not close the record on this
40B application until the public has had a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on
the final waiver requests, final draft conditions, and supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jim Holland