HomeMy WebLinkAboutAndrew Sarnie - public comment - land vaulation - 6.8.26 - Correspondence - 0 Prescott Street 6/8/2026 6/8/26,8:35 AM Town of North Andover Mail-Public Record Submission: Related-Party Land Valuation and Pro Forma Requirements for Zero Presc...
Dov
NOK AN ' ER
gchu' Ad
Terri MacNeil<tmacneil@northandoverma.gov>
....,.,.,.,. ............. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. .....,.,.,.,. ......,.,...
Public Record Submission: Related-Party Land Valuation and Pro Forma
Requirements for Zero Prescott Street
1 message
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
Andrew Sarnie <asarnie@hotmail.com> Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 9:16 AM
To: "mlis@northandoverma.gov"<mlis@northandoverma.gov>, Terri MacNeil <tmacneil@northandoverma.gov>
Dear Chair Lis and Members of the Board,
I am writing to update my public comments for the official record ahead of the June 9th hearing, following
Town Counsel's recently posted legal analysis regarding the Avalon parcel segmentation.
While I respect Town Counsel's conclusion that prior segmentation does not contractually bind the current
project scale, this legal reality significantly elevates the Board's duty to scrutinize the project's current
baseline financials. If past agreements do not restrict the unit count, then the physical density must be
strictly justified by verified, independent economic data.
As shown in the developer's MassHousing application, the June 11, 2025 Purchase and Sale agreement for
this remaining 6.13-acre parking garage sliver lists a purchase price of$10,000,000. The contract explicitly
shows the transaction is directly between RCG North Andover Mills LLC (Seller) and East Mill Housing LLC
(Buyer). Because both entities operate under the same parent corporate umbrella (c/o RCG LLC), this
represents a clear, related-party transaction.
Under the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) Chapter 40B Guidelines, a self-
dealing land transfer price cannot be accepted at face value to calculate project costs or to declare a density
reduction "economically infeasible." The land value must legally be capped at its independent, "as-is"
appraised market value before the 40B permit is granted.
The record reveals that this $10,000,000 figure is heavily inflated based on the town's own administrative
history and the contract's internal language:
• When the developer previously segmented this parcel, they explicitly indicated to the town
that there were "no current plans" for this remaining parking garage section. A remnant piece
of land with no independent development path carries a low "as-is" baseline valuation.
• Section 1 of the June 2025 agreement notes that the land remains permanently subject to
easement rights for parking granted to AvalonBay, Inc. and RCG West Mill NA, LLC. Under
standard appraisal methodologies, land burdened by a permanent, multi-party parking
easement is worth a small fraction of the open market rate.
• Section 2.1 of the agreement explicitly states that the $10,000,000 price is based on "a
number of multifamily units deemed necessary by Buyer." This proves the price is a variable,
self-created figure that inflates alongside density. The applicant is using an internal transfer
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ik=fObefc9b3b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:l 867162974782535307%7Cmsg-f:1867162974782535307&s... 1/2
6/8/26,8:35 AM Town of North Andover Mail-Public Record Submission: Related-Party Land Valuation and Pro Forma Requirements for Zero Presc...
price to claim a high unit count is an economic necessity, when in reality, the high unit count
is driving the land price.
Carrying an unverified $10,000,000 land cost on the books artificially inflates development expenses by
millions, which the applicant is using to justify the absolute economic necessity of an intense 280-unit
design.
Now that Town Counsel has cleared the historical zoning question, the Board must address the financial
reality. I urge the Board to utilize its active Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) technical assistance
grant—which town records confirm was awarded specifically for this Zero Prescott Street review—to
execute a formal, independent pro forma review.
To that end, I respectfully inquire if a mutual extension has already been discussed or granted between the
Board and the applicant to extend the review window beyond the current June 30th deadline. If an
extension has not yet been executed, the presence of this unvetted related-party land transaction makes a
formal extension mathematically and procedurally necessary to complete the required due diligence.
Thank you again for your time, transparency, and consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sarnie
39 Prescott St
Purchase and Sale.pdf
5K
https://mai l.google.co m/mail/u/O/?i k=fObefc9b3b&view=pt&sea rch=a II&pe rmth id=th read-f:1867162974782535307%7Cmsg-f:1867162974782535307&s... 2/2