HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Records Submission - Andrew Sarnie - 5.30.26 - financial vetting - Correspondence - 0 Prescott Street 6/1/2026 6/1/26,8:37 AM Town of North Andover Mail-Online Form Submittal:Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
Massachualks Terri MacNeil <tmacneil@northandoverma.gov>
Online Form Submittal: Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
1 message
noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sat, May 30, 2026 at 9:59 PM
Reply-To: noreply@civicplus.com
To: zoningemails@northandoverma.gov
Contact the Zoning Board of Appeals
Your Name Andrew Sarnie
Your Email asarnie@hotnmmail.r.,.orrn
Subject Public Record Submission
Message Public Record Submission: Procedural Inquiry Regarding
Financial Vetting and Pending Requests for Zero Prescott
Street
Please see attached for the record. Thank You
Attachments
Files must be less than 2 MB.
Allowed file types: txt doe pdf docx jpg gif pug.
Attachment Number 1 Public Record SUbrnission.. Procedural Inquiry Regarding
Financial Vc thing and Pending [-�,e luests for Zero Prescott
Street.pol`
Attachment Number 2 Field not completed.
Attachment Number 3 Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly?View it in ycwr browser,
https://mai1.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f0befc9b3b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866667387145550947%7Cmsg-f:1866667387145550947&s... 1/1
Dear Chair and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
I am writing to formally submit my thoughts for the public record ahead of the June 9,
2026, hearing for the Zero Prescott Street Comprehensive Permit application. My goal
is to ensure the record accurately reflects the discussion surrounding the project's scale,
financial review, and the procedural commitments made by the Board.
As the Board approaches the conclusion of the public hearing process, I would like to
clarify the timeline regarding the independent financial pro forma review, which is a
standard component used to evaluate 40B projects:
• In earlier public hearings, when community members requested a reduction in
the project's scale to better align with the neighborhood, the developer's counsel
noted that a pro forma review typically occurs later in the process.
• Subsequently, public requests for a density reduction were deferred based on the
understanding that a smaller project might not be economically viable for the
applicant. However, an independent financial review was not commissioned to
verify these parameters.
• It was further noted by the Chair and counsel at recent sessions that a pro forma
review cannot be utilized by the Board as a mechanism to model alternative,
downsized project variations, and that the town essentially has a single
opportunity to evaluate the applicant's submitted financial data.
• Previously, I submitted a formal email inquiry to the ZBA Chair regarding the
necessity of a financial review, specifically highlighting how this developer has
already generated significant profit from the town permitting other pieces of this
parcel. At the April 29th hearing, the Chair stated this inquiry was being reviewed
by Town Counsel. At the May 21st hearing, the Chair stated that this specific item
was being pushed to the next meeting for a response.
® At the most recent session, Town Counsel indicated that there may no longer be
sufficient time to initiate and complete an independent pro forma review before
the anticipated June 30th closing deadline.
From a public participation perspective, this sequence creates a severe procedural
challenge. The community was encouraged to wait for the appropriate window for
financial vetting, and my specific questions regarding the developer's historical parcel
profits were explicitly deferred on May 21 st to the upcoming June 9th meeting.
While Chapter 40B restricts a ZBA from actively using a pro forma to co-design
alternative project sizes, bypassing a third-party financial review entirely leaves the
Board without the baseline data necessary to evaluate the developer's current claims of
financial infeasibility, to vet the true land acquisition costs, or to ensure future statutory
profit-cap compliance. Relying exclusively on developer-funded peer reviews, without
balancing them with an independent financial assessment, leaves a critical gap in the
board's due diligence.
I respectfully request that this communication be entered into the official written record
for the Zero Prescott Street file and distributed to all board members prior to the June
9th meeting.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sarnie
39 Prescott St