Danvers Planning Board issues unanimous unfavorable recommendation on rezoning for proposed 249 Andover St hockey rink

The Danvers Planning Board voted 4–0 on April 6 to recommend unfavorably to Town Meeting on a citizen petition to rezone 249 Andover Street (Map 047, Parcel 015A) from Residential III (R‑3) to the Highway Corridor Zone (HCZ), a move the applicant said was necessary to build a single‑sheet youth hockey practice rink.

Board Chair Louis George said the vote reflected broad concerns about traffic, the range of commercial uses allowed under HCZ and the parcel's wetland constraints. "The Use Variance history means we can't treat this parcel as already commercial," George said during deliberations.

Why it matters: Rezoning to HCZ would allow uses—such as hotels, dealerships and larger commercial operations—not permitted in R‑3, and board members said that change could affect neighborhood character and property values if the rink never materialized.

What the applicant proposed: Architect and developer Peter Vanko described a single‑story, roughly 31,000‑square‑foot facility with minimal seating to serve youth hockey and school programs, with about 52 parking spaces and a bridge between buildable pockets required by wetlands. Broker Brian DApice warned against classifying the project under an alternative educational exemption, calling that approach "spot zoning." PMZ partner Mike Vienneau said the team would consider mitigation, landscaping and potential conservation restrictions.

Board scrutiny and public concerns: Planning Director Brian Szekely clarified that the current veterinary clinic on the site was permitted by a 1972 use variance and therefore is not a pre‑existing nonconforming use that would allow an easy expansion under R‑3. Board members—Jean Hartnett, Mike Decoulos and Dave Rodrigues—pressed the applicant on traffic impacts, turning restrictions on Route 114, and the substantial height increase the HCZ allows (from 30 feet in R‑3 to 55 feet in HCZ). Hartnett asked what might be built on the property if the rink were not built; the applicant said they could not guarantee the rink would be constructed if rezoning failed.

Neighbors voiced traffic, noise, wetlands, and safety worries. Abutter Cedric Buettner summarized a recurring theme: "Fairness"—neighbors said they relied on stable residential zoning and feared commercial encroachment. Susan Thompson and others urged a traffic study and a site walk; residents described difficulties with left turns and truck traffic near the cul‑de‑sac.

Applicant concessions and board decision: The applicant indicated willingness to explore a lower height (around 35 feet), traffic mitigation and increased screening. Despite those offers, the board judged permitted HCZ uses and traffic risk unacceptable; Jean Hartnett moved and Mike Decoulos seconded an unfavorable recommendation to Town Meeting, which passed 4–0. The board also voted to close the public hearing (motion by Dave Rodrigues, seconded by Mike Decoulos).

What happens next: The Planning Board's unfavorable recommendation will be transmitted to Town Meeting, which has the final authority to approve or deny the rezoning petition. The applicant retains the option to pursue other design or zoning strategies or to withdraw the petition.

Sources: Planning Board meeting transcript, Town of Danvers (April 6, 2026).