Town Meeting May 14, 6:30pm
at the High School

Order a Sign

1. It’s a bit incorrect to say that Osgood Landing is zoned for residential under the 40R (Zoning for Mixed Use, Affordable Housing with Developer and State Incentives). Only a portion, 31 acres, is residential under the 40R zoning – see pink area below.

It was always intended to keep the vast majority commercial for the tax base. The new residential zone would increase to 57 acres, almost double!

2. The town received $600,000 in zoning incentive payments which may need to be repaid if the site is not developed as a 40R.

3. The owner has a right to develop 530 units in the residential and mixed-use under the 40R zoning. The new MBTA Zoning would allow up to 865 units!

4. The Town would receive $2,000 per unit ($1,060,000) and $1,590,000 in bonus money from the state under the 40R and ZERO under the MBTA Zoning. We would lose up to $3,250,000 by not developing under the 40R!!!

5. The MBTA Zoning REDUCES the number of affordable housing units required under the 40R! The 40R would be 20-25% affordable units and 70% local preference!

6. The units built under the 40R development agreement would meet our 40B affordable housing requirements through 2030!

7. This MBTA Zoning change would allow a high density by-right development. A developer, unlike Royal Crest, wouldn't need to bring their plans to the Legislative Body which is Town Meeting. The Planning Board can not deny a proposal if it complies with this zoning.

This is the ONLY VOTE we get. We are voting NOW on the future development.

We should leave the 40R zoning with all the incentives and development agreement in place and not put $3 million at risk!

We can comply with the State Mandate by zoning over existing multi-family housing locations. Many other communities have done this to comply.

The current area of residential zoning 40R zoning is in pink. Mixed use in green. Blue commercial. The MBTA zoning would EXPAND the residential into the blue area and not require mixed use in the green area. The cross hatched area in blue and green expands the residential zoning by approximately 26 acres.

It's all about development!

The MBTA Rail stop is being studied to encourage AND make even more money for developers!

The Town commissioned the North Andover Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. It is clear that they are promoting Osgood Landing for residential development. The Facts are in the report.

"Presents an opportunity for North Andover's ambitions at Osgood Landing"

Promote residential investment.

Increases the value to developers! It doesn't make rents "more affordable".

"Dense housing infrastructure" and "Major rail transit hub".

The timeline for adding T Station.

Read the entire report here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PN84zp98LvWO31jZKq77HstI51wPxvEd/view

Town Meeting is fast approaching and as many of you know, residents will once again be called on to approve zoning changes that would add approval for over 1300 new units in town.

These zoning changes are mandated by the MBTA Communities Act, a state law which our legislators all approved. While we are required to make plans to comply with this law, the law does NOT mandate where and how this is done.

The town’s plan to meet this requirement is completely off base with the sentiment of residents, who have time and again over the past several years told town officials that they need to slow down with the pace of development.

The Town’s Plan:
Approves more units than are required by the law.
Approves more acreage than is required by the law.
Includes commercial mixed use zoning, the law only requires residential zoning.
Puts these units in places that are already over developed (Osgood Landing) or serving other important purposes (Market Basket).

Most importantly, it is completely permissible under the law that we can simply OVERLAY the required MBTA zoning over already constructed, high density developments in town.

The town is representing this as the only option because they want to see these units built!

The cement on the latest developments in town is not yet dry and town leadership is already getting ready to come at us with more units. Responsible people with an eye towards the future livability of our town would wait to see the full effects of development in town before they pushed another mega-development project.

OTHER ISSUES:

MBTA Zoning will be “BY RIGHT” and will trump our Inclusionary Zoning bylaw, meaning this zoning will produce less affordable units.
The MBTA Communities law is currently being litigated, if found to be unconstitutional we will have zoned 1300+ high density units for no reason, which would be almost impossible to change.

To that end, we will be recommending a no vote on ARTICLE 28 at Town Meeting and mobilizing people to attend the meeting. THIS CAN ONLY BE STOPPED AT TOWN MEETING!

Please attend & bring your friends on Tuesday, May 14, 6:30PM at NAHS

1. There is still PLENTY of time to reject this proposal and come up with a less aggressive plan for the town without jeopardizing MassWorks or Housing Works grants.

-North Andover has until December of 2024 to comply.

2. We would only lose the opportunity to apply for grant money if the Select Board and Planning Board refuse to submit a proposal that could actually pass town meeting before the deadline.

-Town Meeting & residents have made it abundantly clear over the last several years that they feel the pace of high-density development in town is out of control. We understand there is a legal requirement to make these zones, but the town’s proposal goes well above and beyond what is required by law.

-Town leaders need to LISTEN to residents and come up with alternative locations, overlayed over already existing multi-family housing zones, and limit their plan to the 50 or so acres required by law. The plan they have proposed is almost double the required acreage on commercial sites!

3. The vast majority of the grants we’re being threatened with are almost ALL aimed at accommodating HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS!

a. The MassWorks Infrastructure grants in 2017 and 2019 totaled $5 million for creation of new sewers, sidewalks, and pedestrian infrastructure along Route 125. This is directly in front of the Princeton North Andover development.

-Has anyone seen the Rt 125-sidewalk used or is it a multimillion dollar sidewalk to nowhere? Even with a sidewalk, trying to walk on that road is jarring and dangerous.

-The sewer service line made it easier to build large scale residential development. Don't forget this is right in front of Barker Farm — a site which the town has already indicated in meetings how it could be developed!

Barker Farm in the Town's Priority Development Zone

b. The Town was awarded another MassWorks Grant, totaling $1,240,000 to reconstruct and improve the intersection of Route 125 (Osgood Street) and Great Pond Road.

-Another instance of a grant being awarded to offset increased traffic from high density developments.

-How much more traffic can the town handle? Sutton Street backs up from 495 all the way to the airport; Mass Ave is backed up from the Atkinson all the way to Waverly Road. The rotary regularly backs up to Ridgewood Cemetery. We've certainly seen the increased traffic across the board as these developments have been built.

c. Housing Choice Action Grants totaling over $140,000 for planning projects related to rezoning downtown and reusing the former senior center behind Town Hall.

-The professional review of the downtown will likely recommend rezoning downtown for more high density multi families because that's what the town wants!

-Do we really need a grant to study use of the former senior center? We had a citizen group study the use of 400 Great Pond Road / Boathouse. Another citizen group studied the Stevens Estate (after the town promulgated doom and gloom if we didn't rush to sell it). The answer is no, we are capable of doing this!

4. Recap. We would only lose the grant money if we turn it down and the Town refuses to put the overlay on existing housing sites that if built would have a relatively small net increase. This would also leave the commercial base intact.

We will NOT be losing out on any local aid.

We will NOT be losing out on state education funding.

Milton voters reject MBTA zoning plan

Milton is the only one of the first group of 12 communities that were labeled “rapid transit communities” that has failed to meet the Jan. 2 deadline for compliance with the law that is aimed at addressing the regional housing crisis.

Wakefield Turns Down MBTA Communities Zoning

Wakefield joined Marshfield and Milton in the suburban resistance to the MBTA Communities housing production law, rejecting three proposals to rezone an area near transit for multifamily development.

Chelmsford ‘Making as Many Barriers’ as Possible to MBTA Zoning

“We also wanted to look at areas that were already highly developed,” board member Chris Lavallee told residents at the hearing, which was continued until March 13. “The reason why is because the likelihood of them being developed in the short term is extremely low.”

Marshfield votes down rezoning that would have made the town compliant with state law

In a Special Town Meeting Monday night, Marshfield voters chose to not rezone to comply with the state law meant to allow for more multifamily housing in commuting communities. Marshfield rejected the zoning changes required by the MBTA Communities Act Monday 169-289

Middleboro SelectBoard has KP Law support Milton

Attorney Jonathan Murray of KP Law, the town’s legal counsel, will draft an amicus brief, also known as a “friend of the court,’’ supporting the Town of Milton in a lawsuit filed by the state, all five select board members agreed at their April 29 meeting. The state is suing over Milton’s refusal to submit a plan to meet the required zoning changes.

Group of residents sues Rockport over MBTA Communities proposal

“This creates market rate, normally expensive, housing. It does not allow for the government to promote or cater to the vulnerable populations who need additional housing opportunities like veterans, the disabled, the elderly or the poor. This is simply a developers’ buffet supported by no compelling or permissible government objective.”

Milton housing: Town fiercely pushing back on attorney general lawsuit

The state, attorneys for Milton wrote, dramatically overstepped with MBTA Communities, which requires cities and towns served by the T to zone for more multifamily housing. If Milton’s argument prevails, it could have huge implications for the most ambitious housing law Massachusetts has enacted in decades.

Hamilton group seeks to intervene in Rockport MBTA zoning suit

‘Everyone came together and just pushed forward on this — it’s something that voters don’t want shoved down their throats, there’s no question about it. ”The constitutionality of the zoning law is a concern for citizens groups who argue that it interferes with the state’s Home Rule amendment that mandates municipalities have the power to decide their own zoning regulations.

Judge rules in favor of Holden in MBTA housing law compliance case

“It’s a win for a lot of municipalities that don't want to get the heavy-handedness from the commonwealth,”

Hanson - Voted No

Hopkinton - Voted No

Littleton - Voted No

Marshfield - Voted No

Marblehead - Voted No

Wakefield - Voted No

Rowley - Voted No

Norwell - Voted No

Tewksbury - Voted No

Foxborough - Voted No

Holden - Not Even submitting to Voters / State Non Compliant

Georgetown - Did not approve / Tabled Vote at Town Meeting

Wilmington - Did not approve / Tabled Vote at Town Meeting

Hanover - Voted to postpone to fall

Shrewsbury - Vote delayed by Selectboard

Many towns that have voted to approve the MBTA Zoning having done so by placing it over existing multi-family housing which would have a very small net effect if they could even be built.

This is just a sampling of how communities are complying with the letter of the law without jeopardizing the commercial tax base and local control.

Chelmsford - Voted to approve but made "as many barriers to entry as possible"

Sudbury - Voted to approve. The town created zoning overlay districts to comply with the law that cover the Meadow Walk and Cold Brook Crossing area — both existing dense housing developments.

Burlington - A divided Planning Board voted 3-2 in favor of creating five new overlay districts totaling 68 acres, four of which already include apartments and condominiums. “We need this to pass Town Meeting and we need to make this as easy and palatable as we can so that it passes,” Board Chair Barbara L’Heureux said.

Middleborough - KP Law filed Amicus Brief (Milton)

Rockport - Federal Lawsuit filed

Burlington - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Groton - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Hamilton - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Manchester by the Sea - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Marblehead - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Wayland - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

Wenham - Motion To Intervene (Rockport)

You are correct in that if you do not want any housing built at all, there are better alternatives than what we have provided. - Chairperson

I disagree with the fundamental theory that building more housing is a drain or is detrimental to the community. I think it is a positive for the community. I think mixed-use development is a positive for the community, so I disagree with the underlying theory. - Chairperson

State funded Merrimack Valley Planning Commission - "The state does not care if you zone a district and nothing eventually gets built. So we could zone this in an area that never sees development happen and that is totally acceptable."

Articles 9, 10, and 20 in the 2024 Town Warrant cover the ADDITIONAL funding needed for the RecPlex.

Let’s thoughtfully collaborate on a consensus based project that will be a healthier, safer, and an economically feasible plan for the enjoyment of all!

TOO EXPENSIVE
1. The cost of this project has more than doubled from the time it was originally rolled out in 2018 (from $8.75 million to over $21 million with inflation and interest payments)
2. In 2021, the MA Superior Court ruled that Community Preservation Funds (CPF) cannot be used to pay for any aspect of artificial turf fields. These are the biggest components of the RecPlex project and the Court's ruling takes away a major source of funding that the Town had planned to use.*
3. Even if this was allowed by the courts (which it’s not), the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) cannot afford to take on the cost of this project. They would have to “bond” it over ten years (See Article 10). Requesting to bond CPC projects is highly unusual!
4. The 25-year bonds in Article 20 would exceed the life of the artificial turf fields that they are intended to fund. Artificial Turf Fields only have a life span of 8-10 years. Would you take out a 25 year auto loan? If not, then why would you take out a loan on a field that we will be paying for long after it’s useful life has ended?
5. The opportunity costs are too high. What other potential projects will we have to forego in order to fund the RecPlex?
6. The Town is not in a financial position to take on the cost of this project right now. There are too many other pressing needs and not enough funding to go around.
7. Where is the budget for the ongoing maintenance and the government entity responsible for oversight of the fields? Is this going to be left up to volunteers? It’s improper to build something without the funds to maintain the facility properly.

PENDING LAWSUITS
1. Despite publicly claiming that it prevailed in the first lawsuit, The Town actually lost a significant portion of the case (*See point above about Community Preservation Funds and Artificial Turf Fields)
- Several line items in the Town’s most recent budget for the RecPlex were deemed ineligible for Community Preservation funding, yet the Town still has them listed as CPF items.
- Thus, the Town risks further litigation for being in contempt of the judge’s ruling.
2. The town ALREADY LOST the second lawsuit.
3. The third lawsuit regarding the RecPlex is still pending. - Why would we vote to fund this project before the judge has ruled?
- The Town publicly admits this is risky!
- The outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact the design and budget of the project

THE DANGERS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
An estimated 40% of the proposed RecPlex would be artificial turf.

1. UNSAFE LEVELS OF PFAS - DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH
- Artificial turf is made with dangerous levels of PFAS that are shockingly toxic at extremely low doses and builds up in our bodies, groundwater & environment. Didn't we just ban plastic bags because of these concerns?
- How could we in good conscience introduce these forever chemicals to our town, knowing what we do about them now? Didn't we just ban plastic bags?
2. POSES VERY REAL RISK FOR HEAT INJURIES TO OUR KIDS
- Can get to over 160 degrees Fahrenheit and lead to burns, dehydration, or heat stroke.
3. INCREASED INJURIES & ABRASIONS - The National Football League Players Association say that players suffered more non-direct contact injuries on artificial turf than natural grass and that football players are ‘significantly safer’ on natural grass fields.
4. THE STATE IS AWARE OF THE DANGERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - The House and Senate both have bills pending to ban municipal use of artificial turf over safety and environmental concerns.
5. EXPENSIVE - In nearly all scenarios, the full life-cycle cost of natural turf is cheaper than artificial turf, better for our children’s health, and safer for the environment.

Other Considerations
1. Would students of surrounding schools use the RecPlex fields and amenities during school hours?
- If so, is general public excluded at those times?
- If not, how do school staff ensure safety of students?
2. The RecPlex has been promoted as Open Space / Recreation for use by the public.
- The reality is that the proposed playing fields would be individually fenced in and used by permit only.
3. WHY THE RUSH?? - There is absolutely no need to be rushing this through while in a budget crisis. Residents would be better served by taking our time and doing this PROPERLY.
- At the very least, the town would be best served by waiting for the ruling on the pending lawsuit.

The proposal for replacing the fields at the Middle School is outlined below in the budget estimates now have costs exceeding 22 Million and borrowing that will take 25 years to pay off!

The turf will need to be replaced before we even finish paying off the debt!

There is no mention of how we will fund the additional annual maintenance costs. We are already over budget in 2024 and this is expected to continue into 2027. Our community doesn't have funds to maintain the roads or properly to maintain the existing recreational facilities. We budget for the capital items but not the costs to properly maintain these items.

How much will it cost in annual utilities, regular maintenance and capital maintenance before it's even paid off?

House Bill Pending to Ban Artificial Turf: An Act prohibiting state and municipal contracts for the purchase and installation of artificial turf fields

No state agency or state authority shall provide funding for the purchase, use or installation of artificial turf that contains zinc, plastic or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for any new or existing field after October 1, 2023.

Senate Bill Pending to Ban Artificial Turf: An Act prohibiting state and municipal contracts for the purchase and installation of artificial turf fields

Bill S.2057 No municipality, including, but not limited to, any school district, state department, or state agency, shall enter a contract for the purchase, use, or installation of artificial turf for a new or existing field. Artificial turf fields that have been already installed may remain in use, but shall not be replaced with artificial turf.

Big News: Boston bans artificial turf because of PFAS

159 public water systems in 81 Massachusetts cities and towns—from the Berkshires to the Cape—have tested above the Maximum Containment Level (MCL) of PFAS in their drinking water.

Turf fields may have ‘forever chemicals.’ Should kids be playing on them?

“We’ve always warned people that there are hazards of using artificial turf,” said Sarah Evans, an assistant professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “Natural grass is a safer alternative across the board.” Concerns regarding artificial turf have spurred some states and local governments to take action: New York has banned the sale of artificial turf with PFAS, starting at the end of 2026. And bills prohibiting the purchase of new artificial turf fields in certain places, such as schools, have been introduced in Massachusetts and Vermont.

NFLPA shows alarming statistics in grass vs. turf debate

Based on NFL injury data collected from 2012 to 2018, not only was the contact injury rate for lower extremities higher during practices and games held on artificial turf, NFL players consistently experienced a much higher rate of non-contact lower extremity injuries on turf compared to natural surfaces. Specifically, players have a 28% higher rate of non-contact lower extremity injuries when playing on artificial turf. Of those non-contact injuries, players have a 32% higher rate of non-contact knee injuries on turf and a staggering 69% higher rate of non-contact foot/ankle injuries on turf compared to grass.

Athletes likely to have higher levels of PFAS after play on artificial turf – study

“In 2024, the last thing we should be doing is putting down acres of a plastic fossil fuel product … with chemicals that are going to get all over athletes’ skin, and into soil and water,” Bennett said. “It just boggles my mind that people are still considering using this stuff.”

Town Meeting - Open to All North Andover Registered VotersRead More

Date: 5/14/2024 06:30 PM
Location: 430 Osgood St, North Andover, MA 01845, USA (Map)
More Info: High School Auditorium

Want to help? Would you like a yard sign? Sign up below!

Take Action Now and Donate

North Andover, Massachusetts, United States

northandovercommunity@gmail.com

Town Meeting May 14, 6:30pm at the High School

Facts about the Existing Zoning versus the MBTA Zoning