Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Special Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Andover planning commission recommends approval for 80‑bed LifeSpring recovery center after heated public hearing
Summary
After more than three hours of testimony and questioning, the Andover Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to city council for a special‑use permit allowing an 80‑bed intermediate care (addiction treatment) facility at 224 East Central Avenue. Neighbors cited safety and property‑value concerns; the applicant emphasized state licensure, screening and discharge planning.
The Andover Planning Commission voted July 21 to recommend approval of case Z‑SU26‑0002, a special‑use application for 224 East Central Avenue to allow an intermediate care facility operated by LifeSpring Recovery.
Neighbors packed the hearing and delivered largely negative testimony, saying the 80‑bed, 24‑hour facility is the wrong use for a parcel bordered by single‑family homes and close to local schools. ‘‘Right facility, wrong location,’’ said Ben Elliott of Havenwood Court, urging the commission to deny the request because a letter from the operator cannot substitute for binding conditions that would travel with the land. Other residents raised concerns about traffic, ambulance calls, the proximity to assisted‑living residents, screening for registered offenders, and potential property‑value losses.
The applicant defended the proposal. Doug Leach, founder and CEO of Ascension Recovery Services, said the center is state‑licensed, heavily regulated and frequently accredited, and that his organizations have opened similar facilities without community problems. ‘‘We screen out violent offenders,’’ Leach said, adding the centers operate with 24‑hour staffing and a full‑time discharge planner who arranges transportation so ‘‘nobody walks from the facility.’’ Jason Griever, executive director for LifeSpring Recovery Center of Andover, told commissioners the site’s staffing and traffic patterns will be similar to the property’s former use as a skilled nursing facility, and that the facility will primarily serve private‑pay and insured patients, reserving a small number of Medicaid beds.
Legal counsel for the applicant warned against conditioning a decision on the nature of the residents. Attorney Steve Stark said both assisted‑living and recovery populations are protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that zoning denials aimed at a protected class could expose the city to litigation.
Commissioners focused their deliberations on four remand factors the city council asked them to reconsider: 10 (surrounding property and neighborhood character), 11 (potential detrimental effects), 12 (comprehensive plan consistency) and 14 (relative gain to the public vs. hardship to the applicant). Staff repeatedly told the commission the site was a repurposing of a former skilled nursing building, that city staff found the proposed use consistent with the comprehensive plan’s “city center” place type, and that evidence presented at the hearing did not establish a measurable detriment to public health, safety or welfare.
After discussion, Commissioner Gary Israel moved that the commission recommend approval based on staff findings for the remand factors; the motion passed with one commissioner opposed and the remainder in favor. The commission’s recommendation now goes to the Andover City Council, which has final authority.
What the record shows: speakers included dozens of residents who testified during public comment, the applicant team (Doug Leach and Jason Griever), and legal counsel for the applicant. Staff relied on the Unified Development Manual (UDM) definitions and referenced prior permitted uses on the site. Several residents offered third‑party studies and an expert report alleging property‑value declines in other jurisdictions; the applicant and staff countered with peer‑reviewed studies and comparative local evidence indicating no statistically significant effect in comparable cases.
Next steps: The council will review the planning commission’s recommendation at a future meeting. The planning commission’s action is advisory; if the commission had taken no action, the case would have returned to council regardless.
