Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-10 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesOFRpq���� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes SJglNCOA4��4 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2016-11-10 Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: David Traniello, Chairman John Jarema Damase Caouette Kathleen Hackett Robert Redfern Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Members - Not Present: None Others Present: Time: 7:00 PM owl C�� T0i'f'fN CLE READING, MnSS. loll APR 19 P 4: 29 , Location: Great Room Town Representatives: Julie Mercier, Community Development Director Chris Heep, Town Counsel Reading Village 40B Development Team: Matt Zuker, MKM Reading Ken Chase, MKM Reading Bob Engler, SEB LLC Public: Ralph DiAngelis, 26 Arlington Street Kevin Sexton, 20 Emerson Street Kathy Rovnak, 96 Sunnyside Avenue Ilene Barrett, 90 Sunnyside Avenue Grace Jakubowicz, 85 Sunnyside Avenue Lois Bell, 35 Washington Street Cathy Capozza, 138 Woburn Street Joan Cotter, 49 Riverside Avenue Karen Stroman, 46 Washington Street Tom Bergendahl, 90-92 Green Street Everett & Virginia Blodgett, 99 Prescott Street Robert & Linda Aiello, Washington Street Norma Strack, 141 Eastway Johnathan Barnes, 41 Pratt Street Nick Gagnon, 76 Washington Street Margaret Paquette, 49 Lincoln Street James Newell, 32 Prescott Street Christine Lusk, 52 Washington Street, Peter Avtges, 21-23 Prescott Street Nick Aiello, 44 Vine Street Page 1 1 N FR ° Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �a STg Isc4RQQ�P Peter Doucette, 108 Washington Street Lianne Stoddard, 96 Washington Street Julie Ross, 16 Kensington Street Jeanne Thomases, 21 Arlington Street Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders, Recording Secretary Topics of Discussion: Case # 16-02 The Zoning Board of Appeals continued the public hearing in the Great Room at the Pleasant Street Center, 49 Pleasant Street in Reading, Massachusetts on the petition of MKM Reading, LLC who seeks a Comprehensive Permit to develop 72 units of rental housing on a 42,342 square foot residentially -zoned tract of land under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B Sections 20-23, with waivers from zoning requirements, on the property located at 31-41 Lincoln Street and 2-12 Prescott Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Traniello opened the continued public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Traniello explained the process for the meeting. After a brief overview by the Board, and an update by the Applicant, and then public comment, the Board will review the draft Decision. He noted that many residents have expressed concerns in the past, and asked that public comment be limited to new information only. He explained that without a further Extension of Time from the Applicant, the public hearing must close on or before December 15, 2016. Mr. Traniello summarized how the public hearing has progressed since the first public hearing that was held on February 4, 2016. Mr. Matthew Zuker from MKM Reading listed minor changes that have been made to the plans since the last hearing. The updated civil plan includes roof leaders, and the updated landscape plan includes hardscape, benches, and hardier plant materials in snow storage areas. He noted that their engineer met with the RMLD to discuss the location of the telephone pole, and also conducted a sewer main inspection which has been accepted by the Town Engineer. Results of a hydrant flow test were provided, and they intend to comply with the Fire Chief s request for a fire hydrant on Lincoln Street. He added that they will be meeting with the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, November 15th to discuss the on -street loading zone and downtown parking. Mr. Traniello explained that the Board had the opportunity to review the Draft Decision dated October 17, 2016, and noted that it does not include or reflect information submitted since that date. He asked the Board for feedback on the Draft Decision and on the updated list of waivers. Mr. Pernice questioned how the trash will be moved from the compactor to the trash truck. Mr. Zuker responded that either a small truck will fit inside the building, or the bins will be rolled out to the street by the management company for pick-up. Mr. Pernice asked about off-site parking and if the spaces that are needed will be identified. Mr. Zuker answered that the on -street parking situation will not change, and reiterated that he will be meeting with the Board of Selectmen to discuss the off-site parking situation downtown. Page 1 2 c�,V OF I?t,, i4 f O�sJ9. INCO4QO� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Caouette expressed his frustration with reviewing a Draft Decision when details of the site configuration are still outstanding. He listed the major concerns that have been expressed by the Board and the community: density, parking, safety, and the total number of units. He opined that acquisition of the gas station site was a golden opportunity for the Applicant to create something beautiful and address the aforementioned concerns. He said he is disappointed. Ms. Hackett agreed with Mr. Caouette; she is frustrated with the process as well. She commented on the parking, and requested that the Applicant submit data to justify allowing one space per unit. She asked whether the units will be marketed as having only one space. Ms. Hackett also expressed concerns with the lack of a construction plan, the lack of lighting at the rear of the building, and the safety behind the building. Mr. Hagstrom stated that it is easy for the Board to get lost in the minutiae, but that is why the peer reviewers were hired. The Board should focus on the bigger issues, such as density. He asked the Applicant for the proposal that will be presented to the Board of Selectmen, and he pointed out that the number of parking spaces shown on the various plans is inconsistent. Mr. Jarema reiterated the parking discrepancy concern and asked if the parking spaces would be assigned or first-come, first-served, and what would happen in the winter months. Mr. Jarema stated that in the past, the Board has relied on daytime government and hired peer reviewers, but that it is difficult to do so when information is submitted at the last minute and staff departments do not have time to review it in advance of the meetings. He questioned the process for razing the existing buildings and infrastructure, and opined that he would like to understand construction management for the project before a Decision is rendered. He noted that having one additional meeting will not be sufficient to get through all of the unaddressed issues. Mr. Jarema asked which board makes the final decision on the loading zones, and opined that the loading area should be on-site. Mr. Chris Heep, Town Counsel, explained that in general, under the Comprehensive Permit process, the ZBA acts for all local boards. However, this situation is different as it involves Town -owned property. Thus, the Board of Selectmen has final approval, but the ZBA can weigh in on whether they think an off-site loading zone is appropriate. Mr. Heep agreed that the Draft Decision needs work, which might take additional sessions. He explained that the public hearing has to close on December 15, 2016, but that the Board has 40 days after that to render their Decision. After the public hearing closes, the Board will only be allowed to discuss the Decision among themselves and with Town staff; no additional outside information can be submitted. Mr. Redfern agreed with the other Board members. He listed his concerns: inadequate parking, too many units, the loading zone in the public street, and the lack of open space for resident use. He questioned the waiver for unusual lot shape, and the waiver for drive aisle width. OF R yy� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes GJ9. IWCOP4O�P Mr. Traniello commented that he defers to daytime government on outstanding information and for help in making an informed decision. He asked the Applicant to provide a justification for the parking ratio, and to address lighting at the back of the building. He said that the waivers need to be discussed and may need to be updated, and explained that the draft conditions will likely become more stringent. He questioned the number of proposed bedrooms. Mr. Zuker clarified that there will be 60 one -bedroom units, 3 two-bedroom units and 9 three- bedroom units. He addressed the comments that were made by the Board, noting that the 40B process is frustrating for everyone. He said that the parking waiver request summary justifies the parking ratio, and he cited various local and regional studies. The Haven Street residents do not use the required 1.25 parking spaces per unit. He opined that if people have two vehicles, they will not rent at this property. He pointed out that the MBTA is located directly across the street. Mr. Zuker pointed out that the project has gone from 93 units per acre to 73 units per acre, which is a 20%. reduction in density. He commented that the building has one less floor than what was originaly proposed. He commented that the construction process will need to be sorted out prior to getting a building permit, but technical details should not be worked out by the ZBA. Mr. Zuker agreed that putting additional lighting in the back is an option. He noted that the 24' drive aisles have been approved by the Town Engineer. He stated that the peer reviewer did not like the location of the loading zone on the property, which is why it is now proposed on -street. He mentioned the abundance of parking downtown at certain hours, and noted that procedurally it will take time to work out logistics with the Town and Board of Selectmen. He asked what additional information the Board is requesting for parking. Mr. Traniello questioned how the Applicant will enforce the one car per unit limit, and whether they would be amenable to a condition regarding this limit. He asked if the rent will be less for a tenant who does not need a parking space. Mr. Zuker answered that every building has rules that can be self -governed, but that conditioning it could result in unused parking spaces. Mr. Traniello opened the meeting to public comment. Virginia Blodgett of 99 Prescott Street read a statement regarding her frustration with the process and project, as no solutions are ever presented. She suggested that the Applicant remove a story, which would be improve the parking ratio, lessen water and sewer impacts, and reduce window glare onto neighboring properties. She also suggested that the Applicant could chop off the ends of the building in order to allow for on-site vehicular circulation at grade. She noted that the Town is making progress toward the State's 10% requirement. Everett Blodgett of 99 Prescott Street stated that he was misquoted in a memo from staff to the Board. He opined that the addition of 70+ units to the neighborhood should be considered an extraordinary event that would warrant improvements to the sewerage system. He reiterated his concern that the system cannot handle the capacity. 4 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �c 6Jg. INCOt4VOPP Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street echoed what the neighbors have stated. He opined that the project is not really downtown, but is within a residential neighborhood. He said that it is out of scale with the neighborhood and that the ZBA should reject the waiver requests. He commented that Parker Tavern and the Reading Depot are two historic properties that will be adversely affected by the project. Jeanne Thomases of 21 Arlington Street stated her concerns with the traffic pattern on Arlington and Washington, two narrow streets in the project vicinity. She questioned the water table and stated that sidewalks in front of her property flood. She noted that the long-term supervision and maintenance of the property will be important, and that impacts from the building demolition should be mitigated. She inquired how the project will alter the environment and air quality. Robert Aiello of 106 Prescott Street commented that the intersection is currently visible due to the lack of a building on the corner, but that this project will block sight lines and require major improvements to the intersection. He opined that there should be a traffic light installed in place of the stop sign. Peter Avtges of 21 Prescott Street opined that the project does not fit the neighborhood, and that one story should be removed. Mr. Traniello closed the meeting to public comment. Mr. Traniello asked if there were any additional comments from the Board. He questioned if the Board had enough information to discuss the conditions and waivers. Mr. Heep confirmed that procedurally the Board needs to review the Draft Decision and give guidance to the Applicant tonight. The Applicant needs to know what direction the Board is going in to determine if any proposed conditions might render the project "uneconomic." If so, the Applicant will need to inform the Board of this, and then the Board can engage a consultant to have the project financials peer reviewed. Mr. Caouette reinforced what he previously has said, and agreed that removal of one story could solve the parking and density concerns. He said loading and unloading should not be done on the street, and residential parking should only be on the property. He agreed that the Decision must be discussed tonight. Mr. Jarema pointed out that more information is needed from the Town Engineer regarding the water, sewer and groundwater. He opined that another meeting will be needed. Mr. Bob Engler of SEB LLC, the Applicant's 40B Consultant, stated that review of the project pro forma can only be asked for after the Board has gone through everything else. He said the Board has to tell the Applicant what they want, and then the Applicant can see if they can live with the requests. He added that the Board's window of time for this is tonight only, and that the Applicant has submitted everything they are going to. He stated the Town will not win in appeals o' FF? Town of Reading -II Meeting Minutes court unless there are safety concerns; and the parking ratio is not a safety concern. He requested the Board to tell the Applicant what they want so the project can be approved. Mr. Heep asked for clarification on whether new information would be submitted, noting that the Applicant intends to meet with the Board of Selectmen to discuss the outstanding parking and loading concerns. He noted that the Board of Selectmen's decisions on loading could require that the plans be modified. Mr. Zuker clarified that the submitted plans are final, but that the discussion of on -street loading and parking is ongoing. He reiterated that they bought another parcel yet still removed a floor and reduced the unit count. He stated that removal of another floor will most certainly render the project "uneconomic." He expressed confidence in the presented plans. Mr. Jarema questioned if the Applicant is intending to go forward with the plans as submitted. Mr. Zuker responded that the unit mix is the only aspect of the building that could change. Mr. Jarema questioned if MassHousing has concerns with the number of three -unit bedrooms, and pointed out that 9 are proposed while only 8 are required. Mr. Engler stated that the unit mix is a concern between the Applicant and the State. Mr. Ken Chase from MKM Reading stated that the traffic downtown is very busy during the day but non-existent at night when the demand for visitor parking will be highest. He said that this discussion has started and will continue with the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Jarema expressed understanding that the Applicant cannot remove a floor, but asked whether the Applicant could shorten one end of the building. This would lessen the density and aid in the traffic flow. He opined that DHCD is only concerned with the provision of affordable housing; if the Town does not meet the 10% requirement, 40Bs are the answer. He stated that he does not want to see the Town in court over this project. Mr. Engler commented on a previous statement made by Ms. Blodgett when she informed the Board that there is another 40B project pending with the Town. He said that the State considers the date the project is filed, not what is filed afterwards. Mr. Zuker commented that adding people to the downtown will help with business growth. Mr. Jarema asked how the Board and Applicant could come together on this project. He said the waivers are not just related to the density of the project. Mr. Engler explained that the waivers come with the site plan. If a waiver is not approved, then the project cannot be built. However, if a waiver is not needed, it can be removed. Mr. Zuker agreed to remove the lot shape waiver if it is not needed. Mr. Traniello requested that the Board go through the waivers. Mr. Heep stated a motion is not necessary, just a general poll of the Board. Waiver 1 — Table of Principal Uses — Apartments in S-1 S District 0 Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes 39' I.v(k44� • Board inclined to grant. Waiver 2 — Table of Dimensional Controls — Lot Size under 100, 000 SF Board inclined to grant. Waiver 3 — Table of Dimensional Controls — Building Height greater than 35' • Board inclined to grant to allow 45.2' with one parapet at 48.4'. [error: 49.4' on plans] Waiver 4 — Off -Street Parking Requirement — Parking Ratio less than 1.5 spaces per unit • Mr. Jarema stated that a ratio closer to 1.25 would be appropriate. • Mr. Traniello questioned if off-site parking can be taken into consideration in getting to the 1.25 spaces per unit ratio. Mr. Zuker said that an agreement for off-site parking will take time. Mr. Engler said the Applicant will need to know if off-site parking is allowed before the appeal period ends; otherwise they may be in violation of the Decision with no recourse. • Mr. Caouette and Ms. Hackett agreed that no less than a 1.25 ratio should be allowed. • Mr. Pernice opined that 1 space per unit is okay with him as long as there is actual management of the spaces. • Mr. Hagstrom agreed with the 1.25 ratio, but asked the Applicant to extend the timeline. • Mr. Jarema asked what the traffic/parking peer reviewer concluded. Mr. Heep said his memory is that an actual number/ratio was not given and that additional information was requested from the Applicant. Waiver 5 — Off -Street Loading Requirement — 4 required, None provided • Mr. Traniello commented that the Board of Selectmen will be discussing this on Tuesday. He questioned if this would be considered an easement or grant of rights. He asked if a loading zone on a public way is warranted. Mr. Zuker clarified that they are not seeking exclusive use of the loading zone, even though it may appear to be used that way. • Mr. Jarema and Mr. Caouette opposed a loading zone on Town -owned property due to safety concerns. Mr. Jarema asked if a police detail would be required when the loading zone is utilized. • Mr. Redfern questioned if the proposed size of the loading zone is too small. He added if one loading zone is proposed it will have to be a sufficient size for a moving van. • Mr. Heep requested that the Board make a decision on the waiver so the Applicant can evaluate the effect. He said that the Board would have to waive the on-site requirement and the Board of Selectmen would have to designate it within the street. • Board inclined to deny, and wants at least 1 space of adequate size (i.e. 40' x 15') on site. Mr. Zuker replied that putting the loading space on-site would go against the peer review recommendation and would require them to lose units, which would render the project "uneconomic." Waiver 6 — Traffic and Parking Regulation — Location of Service Zones by ZBA instead of BOS • Board inclined to deny because the Board of Selectmen are the roadway commissioners, but they agreed to table the waiver until after the Applicant meets with the Selectmen. 7 F R . ay f c ¢� o '63g' INCOK4�aP� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Waiver 7 — Off -Street Parking Design — Drive Aisle width less than 26' • Board inclined to grant to allow 24'. Waiver 8 — Site Plan Review — Separate process not required. • Mr. Heep stated that the Comprehensive Permit process stands in for the Site Plan Review process. Board inclined to grant. Waiver 9 — Table of Dimensional Controls — Lot Coverage in excess of 25% Mr. Jarema pointed out that an on-site loading zone will affect the open space. Board inclined to grant to allow 57%. Waiver 10 — Table of Dimensional Controls — Side Yard Setback less than 20' [error: 15'1 • Mr. Traniello said accepting the lot coverage is essentially accepting all other setbacks. • Board inclined to grant to allow 15.7'. Waiver 11 - Table of Dimensional Controls — Front Yard Setback less than 15' [error: 20'1 • Board inclined to grant to allow 5.8'. Waiver 12 - Table of Dimensional Controls — Rear Yard Setback less than 20' Board inclined to grant to allow 13.8'. Waiver 13 - Table of Dimensional Controls — Lot Shape does not meet calculation Board inclined to grant. Waiver 14 — Water Connection — Separate permit and process • Mr. Traniello proposed that the waiver apply to the affordable units only. • Mr. Zuker said the waiver is a standard waiver because in some towns there is a separate process for this. • Mr. Redfern asked why the Applicant would receive a waiver for the water connection. • Ms. Mercier indicated that the Town may not have a separate process. • The Board agreed to table the waiver until Ms. Mercier clarifies the process. Waiver 15 - Sewer Connection — separate permit and process • The Board agreed to table the waiver until Ms. Mercier clarifies the process. Mr. Traniello reviewed the timeline and said the public hearing must close on December 15, 2016. Once the public hearing is closed the Board has 40 days to render a Decision. Before the next meeting, the Board will review materials and work with staff to update the Draft Decision. After a discussion, the petitioner agreed to continue the public hearing to December 15, 2016. Mr. Heep summarized that the Board is inclined to deny Waivers 4, 5 and 6 as they are currently proposed, and that they tabled Waivers 14 and 15. FR O� r c. '6'T9: �NCORp��P� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the public hearing to December 15, 2016. Mr. Jarema expressed his concern that there is not an additional hearing scheduled before December 15th. Mr. Zuker said the public hearing could be extended until December 22, 2016. Mr. Engler said the Town will receive a response within a week; and if deemed uneconomic a budget will be given. Vote was 7-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Caouette, Traniello, Hackett, Hagstrom, Pernice). Adjournment On a motion by Ms. Hackett, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Vote was 7-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Caouette, Traniello, Hackett, Hagstrom, Pernice). Documents reviewed at the meeting: ZBA Agenda 11/10/16 New Information: • Draft Decision, dated 10/17/16. • Hydrant Flow Test, dated 10/24/16. • Revised Landscape Plan, dated 10/25/16, and planting specification. • Applicant Response to Civil Engineering Peer Review of 10/18/16, dated 11/4/16. • Civil Plan Set dated 9/12/16, revised 10/17/16, revised 11/4/16. • Memo from Community Development Director to Board, dated 11/9/16. • Plan of Record, dated 11/9/16 (compilation of previously submitted plans).