HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 2357 Turnpike Street 2357 TURNPIKE STREET
210q&A-0017-0000.0
/ 1 �
1
/I
f
.1
F
I
Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
C
C
C
C
C
C
C ^
Agenda
September 10, 2002 Public Hearing
CThe Meadows Comprehensive Permit Application
CResponses to Department Memos
C School Children
Fiscal Impact Analysis (revised)
C
C
o �
SEP 10 2002
�. BOARD OF APPEALS
i
1 P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
u
Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
a
c
c �
Responses to Department Memos
a
a
a
c
a
a
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
C
LjValley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
September 3, 2002
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
f North Andover, MA 01845
L; Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have reviewed the memorandum from the Health Department (attached) dated August 7, 2002 and
have the following comments and responses:
We are aware of the cease and desist orders issued for the property at 2357 Turnpike Street and the
Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission as a result.
With respect to Sandra Starr's comment that she and a staff member performed a site walk of the property
and "verified that almost all of the land not in wetlands has at one time or another received solid waste",
our Notice of Intent was filed with the Conservation Commission last week and shows that this is not the
acase. _
With the owner's permission, we are providing you with a copy of the Phase I environmental site
assessment, which you may refer to the Health Department for review. As you know, environmental site
a assessments beyond Phase I are usually completed at the request of the lending institution as a
component of financing approval.And,as I am sure you are aware,we are as concerned about the health
and safety of the residents of North Andover as you are.
Sincerely,
Y
Valley Realty Development, LLC
Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
aTUkp
cc: Sandra Starr, Health Department
Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Team Members
G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public Headngs\August 13,2002\health response.ltr
P.O.Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER f NORTy,�
~?`•'���o;.~ODA
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
27 CHARLES STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845
V ssac►+usE'�
Sandra Starr Telephone(978)688-9540
Public Health Director FAX(978)688-9542
�+
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 7, 2002
TO: Chairman,Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Sandra Starr,Public Health Dir -
RE: 2357 Turnpike Street—"The Meadows"40B Proposal
C As early as 1972 the Board of Health was aware of the dumping of solid waste on the
P g properly of 2357
Turnpike Street, which was owned by Theodore J. Meadows. In December of 1974 a cease and desist
order for dumping, stripping and/or removal, and stockpiling of loam was issued by the building inspector.
A second cease and desist order was issued in December 1974 by the Conservation Commission. Another
cease and desist order was issued by the Board of Health on May 2, 1975. Again in September of 1982 a
C cease and desist order was issued by the Board of Health for illegal dumping, and another in February
1986. My information suggests that a report by the Police Department on the illegal dumping activities at
this site in the eighties was created. I have not reviewed the document, but suggest that the Zoning Board
members might like to do so.
After a call from Board of Health member Gayton Osgood about trucks from Boston involved in illegal
dumping at this site in the eighties,I and a member of my staff,performed a site walk of the property. We .
verified that almost all of the land not in wetlands has at one time or another received solid waste. The
L1 Board of Health is concerned about the possible presence of hazardous waste. Since this project proposal
involves residential use,the Board of Health recommends that a Phase I environmental site assessment be
performed by a licensed site professional. It should include soil and water sampling for possible toxic
Li waste and the Phase I report submitted to the Board of Health for review prior to the issuance of any
approvals.
In addition, the Board is concerned about the stability or compaction of the underlying soil and the effect of
large foundations being placed on the fill(if this is being proposed), as well as the possibility that
components of the solid waste may in time migrate to the surface and cause a safety and/or health hazard.
It is recommended that the solid waste be removed, disposed of properly, and the site be restored using
clean fill that has been tested and so certified.
Please see attached documents concerning this site.
LJ
AUG s 2002
D
BOARD OF APPEALS
n
Li
Li Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
n
,J September 3, 2002
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
Li 27 Charles Street
�f North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
aDear Mr. Sullivan:
We have reviewed the memorandum from the Office of the Conservation Commission (attached) dated
U August 8, 2002 with out wetland consultant, Mark West of West Environmental, Inc., and have the
following comments and responses. In addition, we have filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation
Commission and provided you with a copy. Please keep in mind that the plans submitted with the
comprehensive permit application meet the requirements of Chapter 40B.
Wetland Resource Area Delineation: Mark West is conducting a site inspection with Julie Parrino to review
Cthe wetland boundaries.
Riverfront Area: There are no perennial streams on site.
Estimated Habitat:There are no Natural Heritage issues that we are aware of. Local vernal pool protection
has been incorporated in the plans.
100 Year Floodplain: Bordering Land Subject to Flooding is already r
p 9 1 g y p otected within the Bordering
ICVegetated9
-
Wetlands and is off-site.The estimated boundary ry of this resource will be identified on the plans
submitted with the NOI .
CI 25' No Disturbance Zone and 50' No Build Zone: All buildings '
d ngs are outside the 25 no disturb zone and the
impacts in these areas are minimized by use of retaining walls.
CJ Drainage Review: Snow stockpile areas will be shown on the plans.
Plan Scale: Plans submitted to the Conservation Commission will be at a scale of 1"=40'.
Limits of Work: Erosion control will be limits of work and will be shown on the plans.
Sincerely,
Valley Realty Development, LLC
Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
1 TUkp
Li
cc: Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Julie Parrino, ConCom
Team Members
('1 G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public HearingsWugust 13,2002\c oncom response.ltr
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
C
n ,
Town of North Andover
Office of the Conservation Department
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street �'°ss Ana
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �cKuss
Julie Pamn° Telephone(978)688-9530
Conservation Administrator Fax(978)688-9542
U
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2002
TO: North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator
CSUBJECT: PreliminaryReview of The he Meadows Condominiums under M.G.L. Chapter
40 B
Upon preliminary review of the submitted materials and plans proposed for the 270 condominium
units identified as "The Meadows", I offer the following comments:
C; wetland Resource Area Delineation
The project site contains a significant amount of wetland resource areas. The Conservation
Department has not yet reviewed or approved the wetland boundary limits as identified on the
subject plan. Changes to the boundary locations may have a significant impact on the proposed
project design. The applicant has not yet submitted a filing with the Conservation Department
and filial designs should not be approved until the wetland delineations have been reviewed by the
Conservatiop Department.
Riverfront Area
According to the USGS topographic map and the North Andover Riverfront Maps, perennial
streams have not been mapped on the project site.
Estimated Habitat
According to the Natural Heritage Atlas, estimated habitat of rare and endangered wetlands
wildlife or certified vernal pools are not located on the subject property. However, several.
L► isolated wetland areas have been identified on the site plan. It appears from the setbacks
identified on the plan that the applicant is attempting to meet the. local setbacks for vernal pools
from the isolated areas.
AtIAAL
d 1688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9330 HEALTH 688-9540_ PLANNING 688-9535
L. ARD OF APPEALS
100 Year Floodplain
Li According to the FIRM Map, Community Panel 250098 0012C, dated June 2, 1993, a Zone A`
(100 year floodplain) is identified along the borders of the Harold Parker Forest property located
to the rear (westerly direction) of.the project site. The Zone A does not have an identified
elevation and information on the 100 year floodplain elevation should be provided to determine if
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding exists on the project site.
25 No-Disturbance Zone and 50':No-Build Zone
Comprehensive permit fihngs.,under MGL- Chapter 40B are not subject to jurisdiction under the
Ell local Wetland Protection Bylaw, but are subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act
and Regulations, MGL Chapter 131, Section 40, 310 CMR 10.00-10.99. Under the North
Andover Wetland Protection Bylaw, the Conservation Commission strictly enforces a 25' No
-
E Disturbance Zone and.a 50' No-Build Zone. Prelimina review
ry of the site plans indicate the
applicant is attempting to meet the local setbacks, although not required, to the greatest extent
Cpossible The plans, as proposed, do not fully comply with the local setback-regulations.
Drainage Review
E.. thUponsubmssion of a filing with
e North Andover Conservation Commission, the applicant will'
be re'uu
q. ed to post escrow for outside engineering review. At this time; it is difficult to determine
if the proposed development complies with the DEP Stormwater Management Guidelines and
Policies. Compliance with the Stormwater Management Polices will require submittal of a detailed
-..Operation and Maintenance Plan
which should address maintenance of drainage structures. In
addition, snow stockpiling and or removal must be addressed. No review of the drainage design
has been conducted by the Conservation Commission and no comments are being offered at this
time.
Plan Scale
The Tans submitted ��— ' .
P at 50
are difficult to read and plans should be submitted at a
larger scale for clarity.
Limits of Work
The submitted plans do not display limits of proposed work nor do they display erosion control
C measures to be installed on the site.
Ell
C
U _ .
El Valle Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
C September 3 2002
p ,
E
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Cl Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
E. We have reviewed the memorandum from Lt. Andrew Melnikas, Fire Department (attached), dated July
a19, 2002.
1. Fire Alarm and Sprinkler System will be installed in all buildings and the call system will be as
required by the Fire Department.
a2. In the Upper Meadows (garden style buildings), vehicular access is provided around all sides of
three of the four residential buildings; the fourth has access around three sides. The community building
E, has access around four sides.All buildings in both the Upper and Lower Meadows will be fully sprinklered.
3. A three acre parcel of land should be set-aside on site for possible future use as a public safety
building either by fire or police:We regret that due to physical site constraints and our project development
plans, there are no three acre sites at The Meadows which would be available for sale or donation to the
Town of North Andover for a future public safety building.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Valley Realty Development, LLC
C -
EThomas D. Laudani, Manager
TUkp
cc: Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Lt.Andrew Melnikas, Fire Dept.
ETeam Members
CG:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public Hearings\August 13,2002\fire response.Itr
El
EP.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
North Andover
Department
Merm
To: Board of Appeals
Frown Lt.Andrew Melnikas
CC:
Date: July 19,2002
R« Meadows Condominiums
' The North Andover Fire Department has reviewed the plans for this project•and has the following
recommendations:
Il
1. Fire alarm and sprinkler system to be installed in all buildings,master connected to the department
2. Access to be maintained around all buildings
3. A three acre parcel of property be set aside on site for possible future use as a pubric safety building,
either fire or police
Please call should there be any questions
AL
Ej Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
E
a
Lj
September 3, 2002
C
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
EDear Mr. Sullivan:
E We have reviewed the memorandum from Richard F.Stanley, Chief of Police(attached)dated August 12,
2002.
Should Chief Stanley have any concerns in the future, we would be happy to address them.
CThank you.
r? Sincerely,
LI Valley Realty Development, LLC
Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
ETUkp
cc: Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Richard Stanley, Chief of Police
CTeam Members
G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public Headngs\August 13,2002\police response.Itr
n
u
n
L
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
r
Z-4111 RECEIVED
X=
POLICE -- AUG 1 2002
A
�
�� �� ��_ — _ .,., _ :�-- Community Development
= = and Services
D E P A R T M E N T
n
L I "Community Partnership"
rl
n To: Heidi Grim, Community Development Director
i
Ld
From: Richard M. Stanley, Chief of Police
RE: The Meadows
Date: August 12, 2002
Please be advised we have reviewed the plans for the Meadows proposed
residential development as well as'the accompanying traffic unpact and access study.
1 ; At this time we have no public safety concerns with this proposed project.
sr
1 �
0 .
C'
D O 566 MAIN STREET,NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845-4099
CAUG 14 2002 Telephone:978-683-3168 • Fax:978-681-1172
BOARD OF APPEALS
CValley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
M
L September 10, 2002
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
` j Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
M
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have reviewed the memorandum from the Division of Public Works (attached) dated August 5, 2002
Cand have the following comments and responses.
1. Off-site utilities are not shown on the plan - There are no municipal utilities located in Turnpike
Street at the location of The Meadows site. Water and sewer will be extended,from Palomino Drive and
L, natural gas will come from Middleton.With respect to providing design plans and details for the proposed
utility connections, it is premature to ask for these since the plans which are required to be filed with the
Comprehensive Permit application are preliminary in nature.
U
2. 12"water main-We have received correspondence(attached)from Tim Willett,Water and Sewer
r Superintendent, stating that water pressure and hydrant flow rates in this area exceed recommended
I guidelines.
3. Design of sewer pump station - This is also premature at this stage; it is normally presented for
review at the time construction drawings are done, which is in anticipation of a building permit.
4. Engineered plans-Engineered plans are also premature at this stage.The plans which have been
submitted are sufficient for inclusion with the Comprehensive Permit application.However,we have revised
L+ the plans and included additional information for submission with the Notice of Intent to the Conservation
Commission and will make a set available to the DPW.
5. Scale_The 50 scale plans were submitted with the Comprehensive Permit application. The plans
submitted with the NOI application are at 1"=40'. Plans at a larger scale will not be submitted at this time.
L; Sincerely,
Valley Realty Development, LLC
C -�
EThomas D. Laudani, Manager
TUkp
Ecc: Robert E. Beshara, PE/DPW
Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Team Members
G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public Hearings\August 13,2002\DPW response.Itr
v
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
n
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS
384 OSGOOD STREET
NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845-2909
n J. WILLIAM HMURCIAK,DIRECTOR,P.E.
LJ f �tORTF�
Robert E. Beshara, P.E. a? •`,'��� < Telephone (978) 685-0950
f g Fax(978) 688-9573
�, Director o Engineerin
' ��SS^CHUSEt�
MEMORANDUM
71 DATE. August S, 2002
TO: Bill Sullivan, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM. Robert E. Beshara, PE
CDirector of Engineering
CC: W. Hmurciak, Director of Public Works
n T. Willett, Superintendent Water and Sewer
M. Rees, Town Manager
H. Grim, Director of Community Development
CRE: Site Plan Review
The Meadows Condominiums
Plans Dated June 10, 2002
The Division of Public Works has reviewed the subjectplans dated 06110102. The following summarizes our
concerns:
1. Off-site utilities are not shown on the submitted plans for us to review. Water and sewer utilities from
the development terminate in Route 114 without any indication they will connect to the Town's
system. Please request the applicant to provide design plans,profiles, and details of the proposed
utility connections from the site to the Town's existing systems.
E2. The existing 12"water main in Route 114 will need to be extended to the development site.. Please
request the Applicant to provide,for the Division of Public Works review and approval, calculations of
C; water pressure and flow to assure that their design will provide adequate domestic service. These
calculations are also required by the Fire Department to determine adequate fire protection flow for
the development.
3. Please request the Applicant to provide,for the Division of Public Works review and approval, design
g
calculations,plans, elevations and details of the proposed sewer pump station, and design calculations
to assure adequacy of the existing sewer system to handle the.additional proposed flows.
C 8.05_ D
Ol Site Plan Review AUG b 2002
C
BOARD OF APPEALS
M Page 2
08/05/02
r► 4. The submitted plans show a schematic layout of drainage,sewer, and water within the proposed site.
Please request the Applicant to provide engineered plans,profiles and details,preferably at 40-scale,
supplemented in congested areas if necessary with 20-scale plans,for all on-site utilities and drainage.
r7
Li 5. Submitted plans show existing topography at a 50-scale. Copies of these plans received by the Division
of Public Works are not legible.Please request the Applicant to submit legible copies.
n -
t__,'
n
u
n
I
C
n .
�i
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C8-05-02 Site Plan Review
C .
n
Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
n
September 10, 2002
M
u
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
n
Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
U
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
lj We have reviewed the memorandum from Clay Mitchell, the Town Planner (attached) dated August 8,
2002 and have the following comments and responses:
r�
Preliminary development plans are all that is required for submission with a comprehensive permit
application, and are, by definition, lacking the depth of detail that the Planning Department is accustomed
to receiving with typical subdivision or special permit applications. Roadway design and profiles will not be
provided at this time, nor will any of the other specific details mentioned, such as parking lot construction,
signage, etc. However, we are in the process of revising the plans to accommodate as many of Mr.
Mitchell's other comments and requests as possible, within the limits of preliminary plans.
i
L' We did submit a traffic study with the comprehensive permit application and assume that you will have it
r, reviewed by an outside consultant. Drainage and stormwater plans and details have been submitted to the
! Conservation Commission with the Notice of Intent and we assume that they will provide you with
L' comments on such.Recreational facilities are included in the two on-site community buildings, in addition
to the typical "back yard" recreational areas.
EWe have reviewed the master plan document presented at the May 2000 Town Meeting. Throughout the
document, there are recommendations regarding affordable housing and the development of Route 114.
C Since we are proposing to build affordable housing on a site that is nearly 75%zoned residential and 25%
industrial,we believe that we are in conformance with the stated goals of the master plan which has been
presented to us.
CSincerely,
Valley Realty Development, LLC nT
LJ Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
TUkp
cc: Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Clay Mitchell, Planning Dept.
Team Members
EG:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp. Permit\Public Hearings\August 13,2002\plg dept.ltr
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
C
Town of North Andover t NORT►,
Office of the Planning Department to�?
�
- P
Community Development and Services Division
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 9SS•CH
C gCHU`�
Clay Mitchell Telephone (978)688-9535
Interim Town Planner Fax(978)688-9542
August 8, 2002
CZoning Board of Appeals
Town of North Andover
CRe: The Meadows—Comprehensive Permit
Dear Honorable Board,
The following comments, related to the above-mentioned project, entad the extent of the Planning
Department's review with the current package of information. Based.upon this review I offer the
following:
General:
The plans are difficult to read.
E • My ability to review the site'for information regarding a number of issues including but
not limited to: stormwater impacts, slopes and contours,proposed cuts and fills, etc, is
severely curtailed by the inability to read the plans.
Ci • New plans should be submitted showing existing and proposed contours.
• New plans should be provided showing details of the roadway design and profiles.
• There are unlabeled circles shown throughout the plan set without indication in the
legend.
• Several.pages of the proposed conditions show trees growing throughh the parking
Eareas, in buildings and throughout' the site, these errors should be cleaned up to
provide for more readable plans.
• There several numbers and notations written over each other making theplan set
impossible to read.
• No setbacks are shown.
El
On-site Circulation and Traffic:
• There is no information indicating slopes, curbing, turning radii and drainage and all
other information normally required for such a site in order to determine the
functionality of the site.
E • There is no information showing the functionality of the site with respect to larger
moving vehicles, safety vehicles and solid waste disposal vehicles.
njBOAR O� S688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
LAUG 8
zooz
The Meadows 40B—Review 8/8/02
C Page 2 of 3
r' • Several of proposed garage sites indicate long access ways or insufficient turning radii
`J at nearby curbs to permit vehicle turnaround capabilities, particularly in garages
proximate to Buildings 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 22 (over 125 feet long), 23, 26, 27, etc.
• There are no designs shown for the lane designation of the entrance and exits to the
site.
CAdditional Comments
C • The traffic study should be reviewed by an outside consultant to insure its conclusions
are based upon sound engineering practices.
• A drainage study should be provided and reviewed by an outside consultant for
concurrence with the Town of North Andover requirements.
• No information is provided indicating compliance with ADA parking requirements.
• No information is provided showing estimated cuts and fills required for the
construction of the site.
• No limits to work are indicated on the site.
• No erosion and sediment control mechanisms on the site are shown.
• There is no indication of phasing on the plan set. If the entire site is to be built at
once, this should be indicated. If nota phasingPlan should be provided.
• Lighting locations or types are not provided in the plan set.
• No indication of solid waste facilities and their accessibility are indicated on.the site. .
• No information regarding water and sewer needs, facility ownership or maintenance
are indicated in the package.
• No information regarding fire suppression facilities is indicated in theP lan set.
• Signage information (location, design, height, materials, etc.) isnot shown in the plan
(� set.
L, • No details for drainage facilities are indicated.
g (Size, material, inverts, outlets, etc.).
• Roadway details are not indicated in the plan set.
[� • Parking lot construction details are not shown.
L� • Topography is flown and no ground control is provided.
• No benchmarks are indicated on the site.
• There are very little on-site recreational facilities provided on the site.
Master Plan
C • There is no indication of a review of the site's proposed use and consistency with the
Master Plan.
• This parcel is Industrial and has been targeted for inustrial use as part of a
comprehensive balanced growth plan to mix uses and prevent sprawl along the major
corridor.
r' • The application shows no indication of even a cursoury review of the Master Plan
Recommendations for the site or how the project can mitigate some of the conflicting
problems.
C�
The Meadows 40B—Review 8/8/02
Page 3 of 3
CConclusion
Overall, the plans are not sufficient to provide any form of review. I recommend more
information and more detailed information be submitted for a more valid review of the project.
I hope this assists you in your review of the project.
2epj
hell r
To
Ccc: Planning Board
Heidi Griffin
LJ
Li ..
u
cValleyRealty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
cSeptember 10, 2002
c
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have reviewed the memorandum from the Board of Selectmen (attached) dated August 9, 2002 and
have the following comments and responses:
C1. 21 E Study: We have engaged GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. to conduct a geotechnical survey of
The Meadows site.At the time their report is ready,we will have information for you on the environmental
(� status of the site.
L 2. Water/Sewer: Our geotechnical consultant, Steven Trettel of GZA, has confirmed with the
C Department of Public Works, that there is sufficient capacity in both the water and sewer system to
accommodate The Meadows. We will be extending the water and sewer lines along Route 114 from
Palomino Drive at our own expense to accommodate the requirements of The Meadows development.The
rsewer extension is still in design and will likely be a combination of force main and gravity sewer.
Our abilityto extend the sewer line to Sharpener's pener s Pond Road will depend on the type of sewer line
installed.
c3. Densi : The proposed density of The Meadows is approximately 17 units per acre; we disagree
that this is high.
COur Fiscal Impact Analysis shows a positive financial effect to the Town through the development of The
Meadows.We have revised the analysis and will be distributing it at the public hearing on September 10�'.
Please refer to that document for further information.
4. Economic Benefit: As required by the regulations governing Chapter 40B,for ownership housing,
we will agree to limit profit to all partners or owners to no more than 20% of total development costs. The
limitation on profit is defined in the Regulatory Agreement, which is signed by the financing institution,
which must be a member bank of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, and us, the Applicant. At the
a end of the project, the Monitoring Agent, the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), will
certify the profit level, and all profits in excess of 20%of total development costs will be paid to the Town
for deposit in an affordable housing fund to be used by the Municipality for the purposes of encouraging,
creating or subsidizing the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing elsewhere in the Municipality.
5. Master Plan:`The applicant should demonstrate how the proposed multi-family units meet the goals
and policies of the Town of North Andover's Master Plan as a portion of the land was zoned industrial to
Cbring in a tax base that would support industrial development."
We have reviewed the master plan document presented at the May 2000 Town Meeting. Throughout the
document, there are recommendations regarding affordable housing and the development of Route 114.
P.O.Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
�I
William Sullivan
September 10, 2002
CPage 2
Since we are proposing to build affordable housing on a site that is nearly 75%zoned residential and 25%
industrial, we believe that we are in conformance with the stated goals of the master plan which has been
presented to us.
6. Traffic: We understand that the ZBA will refer the traffic study to VHB for review and we will work
with VHB on any issues relating to the proposed traffic alignment.Also,we have reviewed our plan on an
informal basis with MHD and will file an application with MHD for a highway access permit as required by
law.
C7. Plans: The plans which have been submitted fulfill the requirements of Chapter q p 40B for a
comprehensive permit filing,as well as the Town of North Andover's rules and regulations governing such.
r' Preliminary development plans are all that is required for submission with a comprehensive permit
L application,and are, by definition, lacking the depth of detail that the Planning Department or Department
of Public Works are accustomed to receiving with typical subdivision or special permit applications.
C Roadway design and profiles will not be provided at this time, nor will any of the other specific details
mentioned, such as parking lot construction, signage, etc. However,we are in the process of revising the
plans to provide topography and explanation of symbols.
C8. Lottery Process:We have never intended the Town's staff to run the affordable unit lottery. It is and
always has been our intention to hire at our expense an experienced third party consultant to run the lottery
to ensure fairness.
9. Bonding. In support of affordable housing, we are asking the ZBA to allow us to use surety bonds
instead of cash bonds, which will add to the project cost. Please provide us with a copy of the Town's
surety bond agreement for review.
10. Affordable Units: As you know, Chapter 40B requires that 25% of the units be set aside as
C affordable. We regret that increasing this number to 35% will make the project uneconomic, unless the
ZBA agrees to a pro rata increase in the number of affordable units to offset the additional loss of income.
L� Sincerely,
L+ Valley Realty Development, LLC
Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
TUkp
C cc: Bd. of Selectmen c/o Mark Rees, Town Mgr
Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Team Members
G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp.Permit\Public Hearings\August 13,2002\selectmen response.ltr
C
P.O.Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
OFFICE OF
C' TOWN MANAGER
120 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845
f �10RT/�1
Mark H. Rees _ ?o•,f`.o*'a"oL
o _ Telephone (978) 688-9510
Town Manager * FAX(978) 688-9556
�9 °�+no r�•`h
S2 CHUS�
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
E FROM: North Andover Board
of Selectmen .
CRE: Preliminary Review of the Meadows Condominiums 40B Project
DATE: August 9,2002
CPursuant to your request, please find areas of concern from the Board of Selectmen after arelimina
P rY
review of the proposed 270 condominium unit proposal entitled"The Meadows".
E1. .21E Study—Request that the applicant conduct an environmental study to confirm that no
hazardous materials exist on the site.
2. Water/Sewer—Applicant needs to ensure that proper water/sewer facilities are in place to
operate the proposed development. Also,will the applicant provide the Town of North
Andover with a sewer hook-up to Sharpners' Pond Road for the industrial zoned land across
the street from the proposed development? This will ensure those parcels of land can'be
C, developed in the future with sewer.
3. Density—The proposed density of the project is extremely high. The applicant needs to
provide the town with proper studies that will project the effect this density will have on town
services, including schools, fire and police services.
4 "
Economic Benefit of Proiect/Pro-Forma Documentation—The Zoning Board of Appeals
should request the applicant to provide the town's 40B Consultant with all their pro-forma
documentation they submitted for their funding. This information should be evaluated
�. closely by the consultant to ensure the applicant's economic benefit is not going to exceed
g g d the
20%allowed.
5. Project as it Relates to the Town's Master Plan—A portion of the land the applicant proposes
to develop is currently zoned industrial for commercial/industrial uses the town desperately
needs. The applicant should demonstrate how the proposed multi-family units meet the
goals and policies of the Town of North Andover's Master.
Plan as aP ortion of the land was
C' zoned industrial to bring in a tax base that would support industrial development.
6. Traffic—The applicant has provided a traffic study with specific recommendations for traffic
n flow. The Zoning Board of Appeals should utilize the services of VHB to evaluate the
Lproposed traffic alignment for safety and conformance with MA Highway and AASHTO
D 0 egulations.
AUGDZ 3 2002 .
BOARD OF APPEALS
�J
7. Plans—The proposed plans from the applicant are extremely difficult to read and do not
provide town staff with adequate information for them to conduct a proper review. The
applicant should provide a set of plans that would be similar to filing with the Planning Board
(� for a Definitive Subdivision. That level of detail would give staff an ample opportunity to
L conduct a thorough review. At this point,the plans presented have proposed symbols
without appropriate legends to denote items,do not show existing and proposed contours, do
not show details of roadway design and profiles,making it difficult for public safety to be
properly evaluated. There are many other inadequacies on the plans which lack sufficient
detail and therefore until revised plans are submitted town staff cannot produce any
comments and/or suggestions for improvements.
8. Lottery Process—The applicant needs to ensure that the lottery process for the affordable
units is controlled by someone they hue that is not town staff so as not to impose an
n additional burden on town staff.
9. Bonding—Will the applicant be posting surety or cash bonds as part of bonding this project?
The applicant should sign the surety bond agreement utilized on other projects(i.e.
subdivision bond, etc.)if they are seeking utilization of surety bonds.
10. Affordable Units—Due to the high density of the project,the applicant should dedicate 35%
of their proposed units to be designated as affordable vs.the minimum 25%they have
proposed.
C
C
C�
I �
u
LJ Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
September 10, 2002
William Sullivan, Chairman
North Andover ZBA
27 Charles Street
aNorth Andover, MA 01845
Re: Meadows Comprehensive Permit
CDear Mr. Sullivan:
We have reviewed the memorandum from Bernice Fink to the Town Manager(attached)dated August 12,
rj 2002 and have the following comments and responses. The methodology we used to prepare the Fiscal
Li Impact Analysis is called"cost averaging"; the most commonly used cost averaging method is to apply a
per capita multiplier. Under this technique,an average cost for particular municipal services is determined
and that cost is multiplied by the number of new residents or housing units to be serviced. This method ll
is well described in the DHCD/Division of Municipal Development's "Growth Impact Handbook", which is
available on the Internet.
EI have written this letter to explain some of the assumptions and calculations in the Fiscal Impact study we
have produced in support of the Meadows Chapter 40B application. Secondly, a response has been sent
C to Bernice Fink by Eric Loth for her critique of the first draft of the analysis. We appreciate her input and
agree with her on several points. The revised study, which we will submit at the public hearing on
September 10'", will incorporate the changes.
EThe first point of clarification is probably the most contentious. What will the impact be on the schools?
More specifically, how many children will the new project attract?The most common method of measuring
the number of children in a new development is to multiply the number of bedrooms in the project by a
Eknown ratio. You requested we research numbers in local towns. The results of this research are
summarized in the attached chart. However, the ratios we used in our analysis are the most
comprehensive and the most appropriate.
E, The"Growth Impact Handbook"includes children per bedroom ratios from the American Housing Survey.
The study indicated a ratio of zero children per one bedroom unit on average, 0.14 children per two
bedroom unit, and 0.42 children per three bedroom unit. This equates to fifty-three (53) children at The
Meadows, based on the unit mix we have proposed. We used the American Housing Survey because it
is one of the only comprehensive surveys available. By including these ratios in their handbook, DHCD
indicates that it has faith in the data.
C
However, we decided to pay for our own research to double check the assumptions. Last year we
commissioned a study by an outside firm which analyzed the number of children at Village Green, Heritage
Green and Sutton Pond.We believe they are very comparable condominium projects as they are all large
projects comprised of flats and are all located in town. The average number of children was 0.2 per unit
or one child per every five condos. At that rate Meadows would have 54 children. The American Housing
a Survey indicated 53 children. In approximately 50 reservations taken at Kittredge Crossing (another local
condominium project with a comprehensive permit), there are three children so far. We believe 50 or so
children projected for Meadows is accurate if not high.
A further component of the school children argument is based on the ancilla or secondary, effect g ancillary, ry, t of
empty nesters moving from large single family homes into smaller condominiums. When they move out,
younger families with children take their place. Based on our observations, we agree with this
u'
E
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
William Sullivan
September 10, 2002
Page 2
phenomenon. However the subsequent logic that this causes fiscal damage to the town from the extra
children is flawed. We disagree that this results in fiscal damage.
C Consider the alternative. If there is no suitable housingin town the empty nesters still sell their house.The
pY
young family still moves in. Then the empty nesters and their tax dollars move to Haverhill, Andover,
C, southern New Hampshire or any other town with condominiums or town houses.A town like North Andover
still ends up with a new young family and loses the empty nesters because we didn't provide housing
alternatives for them.
�I A community is dynamic, people age and change, move in and move on. However without a diversified
housing stock we lose out on the advantages of empty nesters and their tax dollars. Hence it is really not
true that Meadows will have the secondary effect of adding extra children through empty nesters leaving
large houses. That will happen regardless. For the most part, people do not move because they see new
houses being constructed. They move because it is the right time for them, either financially, fiscally, or
socially. If we reduce or prevent housing choices because we fear growth in the number of school-age
children,we risk losing older residents to other towns that provide alternatives in housing. In that case we
end up with a progressively younger, unbalanced town that may not be able to pay for itself. If we can
provide housing that appeals to empty nesters (and younger professionals), we stand to benefit from
retaining those people who have lived here many years and no longer have children (and, therefore, use
fewer town services).
Our analysis has been revised to include some of the more mechanical items and the fixed expenses have
L been reallocated. Furthermore, the new tax apportionment percentages have been used. The property
value estimate is based on actual projected sales prices (affordable units will be taxed at their actual sale
prices). The sales prices have not been normalized to January, 2001. On the flip side we are using sale
prices based on today's marketplace, not the market when the project is built. We hesitate to predict
whether property values or town expenses will grow faster. Accounting for an (estimated) 10% rise in
property values over the past year is approximately a$75,000 increase in tax revenue.As property values
are just as likely to climb higher, we have left the numbers unchanged.
As far as increased demand on resources, the Meadow's tax revenues will more than pay for the requisite
resources. Furthermore the project will pay over$1,000,000 in estimated permit, use and mitigation fees.
In addition, the sewer line along Route 114 will be extended at significant cost to the developers. As you
know, it is our intention to extend the water and sewer line up Route 114 from Palomino Drive at our own
expense. However, any increase in the capacity of the lines to accommodate other residents or future
residents of the Town will be at the expense of the Town.
CSincerely,
Valley Realty Development, LLC
TUkp Thomas D. Laudani, Manager
i
cc: Bob Nicetta, Bldg Commissioner
Bernice Fink, Finance Committee
C Mark Rees, Town Manager
Team Members
G:\DATA\WPFILES\Northpoint\Meadows\Comp. Permit\Public Hearings\August 13,2002\fink response.ltr
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
LJ
Aug,-21-02 04: 28P P.02
E
Bernice fink
Y.C . Box 353
North Andover, MA 01845
August 12, 2002
CMark Rees, Town Manager
'Town of North Andover
C 120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
CDear Mark,
I've reviewed the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Valley Realty Development LLC
dated Monday, August 5,2002 in support oNis application for a Comprehensive permit
liar 270 units of housing(Meadows development) off Route 114 near the Middleton town
line. 1 disagree with its conclusion that the Meadows development will have a net
positive fiscal impact for the 'town of North Andover.
If one accepts the methodology used in the analysis as valid', then there are
n inconsistencies in the data and calculations:
L 1. The "'Town Budget Expenditures 2002—Excluding Schools"table(page 2)
allocates 50%of Fixed Expenses to nonschool costs. However, the "Cost to
School District Associated with Meadows"table(page 7) omits any school share
of Fixed Expanses even though School Building Assistance is included in the
State Aid figure. This omission significantly understates the Cost per Student.
Moreover, a 25% noaschool— 75% school split ol'Fixed Expenses would be more
realistic than the assumed 50-50 split.
2. 'Fhe analysis uses a town population figure of 27,202 (page 3)and a town
enrollment of 4,274 students(page 7) resulting in a student/population ratio cif'
r4274/27202= .15712. in contrast,the estimates for the Meadows devcloprnent
L� are a projected population of'584 (page 4)and 53 students(page 6) for a
studctit/population ratio of only 53/584 _ .09075 . Using the town
student/population ratio with the Meadows population estimate yields a Meadows
student estimate of 92. Even that estimate of 92 students for 270 housing units
yields only .34 students per housing unit that seems low from past discussions
(possibly due to a low Meadows development population estimate`?).
3. 1'he analysis uses the same 79% residential—21%nonresidential split for
"Allocation of Expenditures Excluding Schools"(page 3) and for"Allocation of
(� Revenues" (page 4). The handout used at the December, 2001 classification
�I hearing for the FY2002 tax rate gives a valuation apportionment of 85.82%
residential— 14.18%nonresidential(for expenditures allocation)and a tax
classification apportionment of 83.27% residential— 16.73%nonresidential (for
revenues allocation).
'
The methodology used in the Fiscal impact Analysis warrants further study.
AUu 1 Ll1U'L
E BOARD OF APPEALS
n
L.
Auq721-02 04: 29P P.04
C Other considerations:
ons:
• Was the developer's estimate of$60,608,000 property value (page 5)
based on January,2001 comparable values consistent with the l'Y2002
budget and tax rate used in the calculations'?
CE • Are taxes for affordable units based on affordable value or market value
and was the developer's total property value estimate consistent with
whichever ofthose values is appropriate?
EMissing from the analysis is the increased demand on limited resources and the cost to
expand the infrastructure to support the growth. '11iis has the potential for growing the
town's already high per-capita debt burden. Tt is well accepted that residential
E development does not pay its own way. A good analysis will accurately quantify the size
of the negative fiscal impact to be expected.
Thank you for the opportunity to critique this Fiscal Impact Analysis, I hope that my
comments can lead to further discussion of appropriate methodology and to better quality
future fiscal impact.analyses.
C
Sincerely yours,
Bernice Fink
C
Ccc: Rosemary Smedile, Chair, Board of Selectmen
Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director
U
C
E
C
Cl
E
C
Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
C
�I
C .
C
c�
School Children
c
c
c�
c
c
c
c
c
P.O. Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
Ell
C-73 C-73 E---D C---3 C73 C1 1T7 [---D 1-71 F-3 C---3 C--7 1-3 1--- 3 C--3 C
The Meadows Comprehensive Permit Application Data prepared by Eric LothNalley Realty Development,LLC
Children per Bedroom in North Andover and Surrounding Communities
Town Andover Boxford Georgetown Middleton Newburyport North Andover North Reading
Children in school system 5,808 1,060 1,495 779 2,373 4,190 2,455
Total bedrooms in town 35,672 9,603 7,757 6,807 19,903 29,044 14,674
Children per Bedroom 0.16 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.12- 0.14 0.17
Average in Area 0.14
School system numbers are from October 2001 reporting to the Massachusetts Department of Education.
Bedroom numbers are from the 2000 US Census. However the Census reports houses of five or more bedrooms
in one category as 5+ bedrooms; 5 is used for that category. Hence the real bedroom count may be higher.
Furthermore it should be noted the school system and bedroom numbers have,.not been normalized to the same date as the
only data available at this time was gathered over a year apart.
G:\DATA\123FILES\NORTHPNT\Valley Realty-Meadows\children.wb3 09/10/02 1:49:11 PM
n
(� Valley Realty Development, LLC
978-470-8257 phone 978-470-2690 fax
C
C'
C
Fiscal Impact Analysis
revised 7� F
�� G✓ �c. Ir 0��1
C
C
U
C
C
LJ
C
P.O.Box 3039,Andover,MA 01810
C
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC
r
Li Meadows Fiscal Impact Analysis
7 Town Budget Expenditures 2002-Excluding Schools
Li Expenditure Category Dollar Amount
General Government $ 2,177,526.00
Public Safety $ 6,759,028.00
Public Works $ 3,578,137.00
Fixed Expenses(50%) $ 51702,951.00
Health and Human Services $ 640,641.00
Culture and Recreation $ 747,549.00
Capital and Reserves $ 1,597,160.00
Total Expenditures $ 21,202,992.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant
Residential Versus Non-Residential Parameters for Community
u Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property$ 2,601,799,700.00 (Assessors Certification Dec.2000)
Residential Assessed Value $ 2,232,864,502.54
Residential Value Percentage 85.82% (per Town Assessor 2001)
Non-Residential Value Percentage 14.18%
Allocation of Expenditures Excluding Schools to Land Uses
Expenditure Category Residential 85% Non-Residential 15%
I General Government $ 1,868,752.81 $ 308,773.19
IIIJJJ Public Safety $ 5,800,597.83 $ 958,430.17
Public Works $ 3,070,757.17 $ 507,379.83
Fixed Expenses $ 4,894,272.55 $ 808,678.45
fUl Health and Human Services $ 549,798.11 $ 90,842.89
Culture and Recreation $ 641,546.55 $ 106,002.45
Capital and Reserves $ 1,370,682.71 $ 226,477.29
Total Expenditures $ 18,196,407.73 $ 3,006,584.27
C
E
Ell
C
n
I
M
Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC
M
L_j Per Capita Expenditures or Cost
M Expenditure Category Per Capita Per Worker
Total Population Census 2000/ 27,202 19,175
Total Workforce per MA. DET
General Government $ 68.70 $ 16.10
1-1 Public Safety $ 213.24 $ 49.98
L Public Works $ 112.89 $ 26.46
Fixed Expenses $ 179.92 $ 42.17
Health and Human Services $ 20.21 $ 4.74
C Culture and Recreation 23.58 $ 5.53
Capital and Reserves $ 50.39 $ 11.81
CTotal Expenditures 668.94 $ 156.80
Operating Costs Associated with Meadows
E.
Per Capita Costs 668.94
Population of Meadows 584
Total Costs $ 390,658.85
'( 1 per 1 bdrm,2.07 per 2 bdrm,3.01 per 3bdrm American Housing Survey 1987)
Total Town Revenue 2002 Annual Town Budget
CRevenue Source DollarAmount
Property Taxes $ 37,694,577.00
Local Receipts $ 5,784,554.00
Intergovernmental $ 3,412,861.00 (Not Including State School Funds)
Interfund Operating Transfers $ 760,774.00
n Miscellaneous Revenue $ 220,000.00
LTotal Revenues 47,872,766.00 Budget 2002 Town Warrant
EAllocation of Revenues to Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses
Revenue Source Residential 85% Non-Residential 15%
CProperty Taxes $ 32,349,485.98 $ 5,345,091.02
Local Receipts $ 4,964,304.24 $ 820,249.76
U Intergovernmental $ 2,928,917.31 $ 483,943.69
Interfund Operating Transfers $ 652,896.25 $ 107,877.75
Miscellaneous Revenue $ 188,804.00 $ 31,196.00
n Total Revenues $ 41,084,407.78 $ 6,788,358.22
C
V
E
E Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM
U
ti
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC j
I!i
.- Gross Revenue Per Capita and Per Worker
r� Revenue Source Per Capita Per Worker
�-' Local Receipts $ 182.50 $ 42.78
Intergovernmental $ 107.67 $ 25.24
Interfund Operating Transfers $ 24.00 $ 5.63
1 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 6.94 $ 1.63
�J
Total Revenues $ 321.11 $ 75.27
C
Property Taxes Generated By Meadows
CProperty Value of Meadows 60,608,000.00 (developer estimate)
(� Local Tax Rate 0.01266 (Annual Town Report)
L Total Property Taxes $ 767,297.28
Other Revenues Generated by Meadows Per Capita
Residential Per Capita Revenues $ 321.11
Population of Meadows $ 584.00
C, Total All Other Revenues $ 187,530.12
Total Revenues Generated By Meadows
Property Tax Revenue $ 767,297.28
Total Other Revenues $ 187,530.12
Total Revenues $ 954,827.40
t"I
C
C
r'7
L
h Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM
U
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC
M
L-j Net Fiscal Impact of Meadows Excluding Schools
!n Total Revenues Generated $ 954,827.40
L Total Costs of Development $ 390,658.85
M Net Fiscal Impact $ 564,168.55
Anticipated Number of School Age Children In Meadows
Unit Size Number of Units School Age Children per Unit' Total School Age Children
Lj
1 Bedroom 45 0 0
2 Bedroom 147 0.14 20.58
3 Bedroom 78 0.42 32.76
Total School Age Children in Meadows 53.34
'(American Housing Survey 1987)
LCost to School District Associated with Meadows
n Current Total Spending $ 27,241,804.00 Budget 2002
Fixed Expenses $ 5,702,951.00
State Aid $ (6,274,981.00)
Cost to Town $ 26,669,774.00
Current Number of Students 4190 October 21
Dept.of E.
Current Spending Per Student $ 6,365.10
New Students 53
Total Spending due to Meadows $ 339,514.50
Operating Revenues Associated with Meadows
Property Value Of Development $ 60,608,000.00
School Mill Rate 0.00896 below
Property Taxes from Development to Schools $ 543,047.68
Net Fiscal Impact on School District of Development
Property Tax Revenue from Meadows Applied to Schools $ 543,047.68
rl Total School Costs of Meadows $ (339,514.50)
LNet Fiscal Impact on School District 203,533.18
n
El
n
n
Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM
V
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC
rn
Summary-Net Positive Fiscal Impact
M Gross Revenue of Meadows $ 954,827.40
Non School Costs of Meadows $ (390,658.85)
New Meadows School Costs $ (339,514.50)
Net Positive Impact of Meadows $ 224,654.05
�-+ 'School Mill Rate
Take educational expenses,$26669774 X.85(percent residential in town per NA assessor)
$22669308 Divide by$32040390 which is prop tax revenue$37694577 X.85(res. %)
so then.7075 X$12.66(Mill Rate)=$8.96(School Mill Rate)
n -
L
Li
Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheeti
09/10/02 01:38 PM
Li
Lj
Prepared by Eric Loth/Valley Realty Development,LLC
I ,
V
Scenario 2: Regional Average Number of Children per Bedroom
aCost to School District Associated with Meadows
Current Total Spending $ 27,241,804.00
$ 5,702,951.00
State Aid $ (6,274,981.00)
Cost to Town $ 26,669,774.00
Current Number of Students 4190
Current Spending Per Student $ 6,365.10
New Students 80 'see below
Total Spending due to Meadows $ 509,208.10
COperating Revenues Associated with Meadows
Property Value Of Development $ 60,608,000.00
School Mill Rate 0.00896
I
Total Property Taxes from Development $ 543,047.68
Net Fiscal Impact on School District of Development
Property Tax Revenue from Meadows Applied to Schools $ 543,047.68
C Total School Costs of Meadows $ (509,208.10)
Net Fiscal Impact on School District $ 33,839.58
Summary-Net Positive Fiscal Impact
Gross Revenue of Meadows $ 954,827.40
Non School Costs of Meadows $ (390,658.85)
New Meadows School Costs $ (509,208.10)
DNet Positive Impact of Meadows $ 54,960.45
573 Bedrooms X.14(see Children per Bedroom in Region)
C
C
Fiscal Impact Analysis Sept 10.wb3 Sheetl 09/10/02 01:38 PM