The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-03-29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Town of Pleading ��' A V r Meeting Minutes >•Q� g+ ;;� 1 N . �J911:C OHQ��F 2010 MAY 17 AM 11: {0 Board - Committee - Commission -.Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2018-03-29 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Public Library Location: Conference Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Purpose: Public Hearing Session: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema, Acting Chair Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Members : Not Present: David Tranlelio , Others Present: Jean Dellos - Assistant Town Manager, Julie Mercier - Community Development Director, Chris Heep - Town Counsel, Andrew MacNichol - Planning Assistant Chris Sparages, Ted Regnante;,Jesse Schomer, Ed Marchant, Mary Lock, Jeff Lock, Ryan O'Keeffe; Amy O'Keeffe, Keith D'Entremont, Jim Foley, Marilyn Foley,. Cecelia Russo, Andrew Friedmann, Vanessa Alvarado, James Small, Janette Koenig, Steven Koenig, Scott Miller, Stephen Crook, Meng Zhang, Kathleen Splaine-Vella, Roberta Moore, Rita Robertson, Paula Pelusijony Rodolakas, Jeanne Smodgrass, Diana Lavancher, David Cannon, Brad Rhodes, Boriana Milenova, Mike Flynn,Tony D'Arezzo, Larry Rocheleau, Paula Rocheleau, Chris Corkum, Gretchen Dulong, F. Peter Dulong, Gina Dulong, John Oliver, Steve Sadwick, Todd Ellis,-Gaetano Mangametto Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Acting Chair Jarema called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. John Arena called the Board of Selectmen to order. Mr. Jarema then asked if any other board representatives were there;none were. Case# 18-01—Eaton Lakeview 40B The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Conference Room at the Reading Public Library,64 Middlesex Ave,Reading,Massachusetts on the application of Eaton Lakeview Development,LLC, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40B Sections 20-23 with waivers from zoning requirements for the issuance of a comprehensive permit,to develop 120 units of rental housing on 4.33 acres of land,partially in a residential zone and existing industrial zone on the property comprising of six tax parcels known as:0 Lakeview Avenue(Map 17,Lot Page I 1 131),0 Lakeview Avenue(Map 18,Lot 2),23-25 Lakeview Avenue(Map 18,Lot 1),0 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 274),0 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 275),and 128 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 276)in Reading,Massachusetts. The first item on the agenda was a recap of the March 7°i meeting.Mr.Jarema asked if either Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios or Community Development Director Julie Mercier could provide an update.Ms.Mercier replied with a memo she drafted and posted on the Town website.The memo recapped the March 7`s meeting and also provided a list of new items received since that meeting; it also outlined the process for the current meeting. Ms.Mercier mentioned that the Town received a 2 1 E Phase II Environmental Report from the Project Engineer;this was posted on the Town website.Town Counsel.preparcd a Safe Harbor Letter which was submitted to'DHCD and the Applicant. Development[review Team notes were printed for the Board for clarification ofstaff comments on the project. Mr.Jarema noted that the library closes at 9:0Qpm so time was limited to fit in as much„as possible.He then asked if the Development Team had any new information they'would like to present to the Board. Project Attorney Jesse Schomer mentioned that no new information would be presented but that the team was here to listen to the public concerns about the project. Mr.Jarema asked if any Board members had questions for the applicants;there were none. Mr.Jarema gave the floor to Boriana Milenova and Mike Flynn for a neighborhood presentation regarding project concerns.Ms.Milenova started by thanking the Board and mentioned questions throughout the presentation are welcome as they are looking for pen dialogue.Ms.Milenova stated they are.presenting on.behalf of 150 neighborhood residents. She expressed an understanding that this project,cannot be dragged'out and time is of the essence.The neighborhood requested that the ZBA review and take the February28`''letter,theysubmitted into account,and that they be given all new information from the Developer and be included in all discussions. Ms. lvlilenova introduced the neighborhood.tedin an l.theirquillifications:.Mike Flynn is wcivil engineer and meibber of heading's Conservation Commission; Dean iIofelich is a registered architect with 20+years' exlierience, who could not attend the meeting;Christos Kuliopoulos is a real estate devplopnient.advisor with 20-1-years' experience;Tony Rodolakis is an environmental scientist and consultant;David Cannon is a General Contractor; and she is acting as Communication Coordinator.for the group. Ms. Milenova then proceeded to remind the public of Chal ter.40B Regulations and recapped what Town Counsel mentioned at the previous meeting. She also reviewed tlie'Town's Safe Harbor'status and the implications of the Safe Harbor on this project: She stated her belief that the Town will meet the'l0%affordable housing threshold with the completion of this project and that the Town will meet its affordable housing needs until the next Census goes into effect. Mike Flynn then spoke about the neighborhood's Traffic concerns.Mr. Flynn reviewed the scope of the Traffic Study and noted a number of major road s/intersections,were not included in the studytand opined that the scope should be expanded to account for dispersion of traffic.The'_neighborhood feels that the Lakeview Ave and Walkers Brook Drive intersection is one of the maim egress points for the site and should be studied;the Board also mentioned this at the previous meeting. Mr, Flynn stated residents feel that"you cannot break what is already broken” in regards to the Level of Service of certain roads;especially those with an LOS of`F'. He continued to review numerical data regarding traffic,accidents and distribution;as well as where the data came from.. Recommendations relating to the Traffic Study included expanding the scope,providing Lakeview Ave improvement specifications,exploring ways to improve Walkers Brook Drive, and engaging'in a peer review. Mr.Flynn then presented the architectural concerns of the neighborhood.He started with a comparison to other projects in Town and opined that this project is far too similar to the others. Concerns were raised regarding the setbacks, Footprint and the number of stories the buildings have, which woidd_have a large impact on the neighborhood. A comparison to cape homes,in the neighborhood found that'one cape Home could fit more than 15 times within one of the proposed building footprints. 1-ie then questioned the method used to calculate project density.Grading concerns were presented as well in relation to the height of the buildings.Lack of green infrastructure and large impermeable areas was also of concern regarding wetland protection.Another concern included a generic design so the neighborhood presented 'liisp'iration Ideas' to provide context to match the town Home feel of the neighborhood.Other reconilbendations were f:or more detail in the design of buildings and'the area, to provide relative sizing and true elevations for scale,and a full 3D rendering of surrounding structures. More specific details regarding the retaining wall,community center, loading areas,sewage and water flow capacity and improvements of Lakeview Ave were also requested. Page 12 Ms. Milenova then took the podium again to address the neighborhoods environmental concerns about the project. The neighborhood acknowledged that the developers addressed floodplain and stormwater management but feels that they did not address wetland protection,river and wildlife conservation, water quality,wastewater treatment or hazardous waste safety.Ms.Milenova stated that the Phase II 21E Assessment is not actually a 21E report and the title is misleading and should be corrected.She asked why a Phase II was done when no Phase I was submitted, what concerns triggered the Phase II,what methods were used to characterize risks, and why the document lacks the qualifications and final signatures required.There were also missing pages in the report and the neighborhood believes that tests were left incomplete or insuff cient. She opined that there was limited due diligence in terms of groundwater infiltration and pollutants.The neighborhood feels that it is highly likely for contaminants to infiltrate groundwater and that maintenance promises are hard to enforce and upkeep. Specifically they hope for a Low Impact Development plan which relates to stormwater management and green infrastructure;which they feel could be cost effective for the developer.Examples were shown of raingarden designs and retention ponds that could be incorporated into the project.The neighborhood requested that the Applicant provide a complete Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment,provide test results of underground water quality and the presence of contaminants, submit the Environmental Notification Form(or review of threshold criteria),conduct a study of project impacts on wetlands and wildlife, and provide detail on tree removal,infiltration and emissions. Ms.Milenova cotickided.-the presentation with arecap and reiterated that the law requires a balance between both housing needs and local concerns.The neighborliood.would like a mutually acceptab,le'solution for both sides and is . open to the idea of a resident workshop with the Town and Applicants. Mr. Jarema asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the presentation;there were,none.He then asked the development team if they wished to replyor claflfy anything,Project Attorney Ted Regnante addressed concerns. He agreed that the issues presented are appropriate for a workshop and stated the development team is open to such an idea witli the neighbbrs.'He suggested theylisten to ottidr resident concerns tonight for a full idea of what the probleins include. [Te opined that it was premature to respond to the concerns as they just saw the presentation for the first time. Mr.Regnante said the scope of the peer reviews should be addressed.He believes there are many benefits to getting initial input from staff and consultants.He acknowledged there is no guarantee that an agreement will be reached but the Development Team is committed to working cooperatively. Mr.Jarema agreed that'getting more information is needed,He asked what specific areas would need peer review and asked for documentation from different staff departments. "Board Member Robert Redfom asked fox copies of the presentation to be distributed to the Board and applicants. Mr. Caouette noted that both the applicant and the residents will have to compromise to reach an agreement.He opined that the size of the project is the biggest concern and should be addressed immediately.Mr.Caouette agreed that traffic and egress are major concerns and thinks a makeover of Lakeview Ave would significantly improve these.concerns. He noted that his last concern regards conservation.All other issues should be manageable.Mr. Caouette stated that they must find a minimum size that is economically feasible for the developer. Mr. Peruice asked when the Board should figure out which peer consultants are needed and whether a Licensed Site Professional (LSP)is needed to review any environmental concerns.Town Counsel answered that the Board can ask the applicant for any studies completed and any environmental information relating to local rules and regulations, Mr.Hagstrom noted concerns with the timeline of the project. He opined that peer review may result in substantial changes which may then"require a second peer review.This can take a long time and he suggested that the development team try to address concerns without having a peer review first. Mr.Regnante disagreed. Mr.Jarema endorsed,Mr. Hagstrom's statement and mentioned that peer review greatly slowed down the last 40B project. Mr.Jarcina noted the earlics,t meeting date to continue the hearing would be in May and asked the Board member about their availability. The Board members are all available on both May 2`1 and May 16`h Mr. Caouette stated that anything that can be started should be.Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios stated that peer review results in enormous,time and work by staff and could delay progress. She asked whether the developers could address concerns heard without peer review first. Mr. Regnante again disagreed as he feels that peer review should be done as early as possible. Page 1 3 Mr.Flynn stated that a workshop is better sooner than later because if peer review is done and new ideas are made they could result in plans that residents once again may not like;but he,also agreed that peer reviews should be done as soon as possible.Ms.Milenova stated that nothing would be binding from the workshop so it does not hurt to have it as soon as possible. Mr.Jarema then stated that a traffic peer review will take some time to conduct so it would be good to get underway.He asked again for staff comments. The Board acknowledged that peer review would not be comlilete by,the nekt_meeting on May 2nd but that they would like to vote on.accepting pecr reviewers. Town Counsel interverted wid,stated that,the.Board canaeave peer review discretion up to Town staff and does not need to vote to accept if they so wish. Mr.Redfern opined that if the project is reduced in size then,all other concerns would also be lessened to some extent. Development Team's Chapter 408 consultant Ed Marchant stated that identifying peer review soon is key and agreed that a traffic peer review should be conducted first.He,stated that if reduction..does occur aRer'the review. takes place then the study can be simply ati�usted. Mr.,Marchant opriied that it is premature to conduct a.civil engineering or design peer review because changes will beAnade to address,some,of the neighborhood concerns which,would thea render those peer,reviews invalid.Mr.Regliante agrecd.to an inforriial discussion willixesidents before May 2"d.Nis. Milenova agreed as Ms.Delios then asked what,'livo.lvementwould be.needed froin staff. Mr. Regriante replied that staff should attend the workshop. Mr.Jarema stated that he expects to get a res}onse h om"fhe developersrand expects to'look at possible peer review suggestions by May 2"".He'statediliat specific goals should be-made arid.advanced towards,The Board,agreed that a ti rffic peer review study�woOld be the"first stej).:Ms.Milenova reiterated the neighborho'od,t'ecommendations.for the scope of the traffic study and opined that staff should b;e.hcavily involved as well,Town Counsel found this,to be a good approach. Mr.Jarema then opened the discussion to the audience. Selectman Barry Berman asked how the workshop would work and what the expectations would be. He recommended having a design peer reviewer participate or moderate theworkshop to ensure it is productive and meaningful. Selectman John Arena commented that wanting to reach an agreement quickly is unprecedented and that this project could be the format for others to follow,lie opined that the two.parties,neighborhood and developers,should meet., as quickly as possible to find what ground can be coyered,IIIc found that motivation is essential for the project to be finished and that all major issues should be addressed first and foremost, Selectman Andy Friedmann,noted that he works,for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and that he is encouraged to offer his services regarding the pollution and environmental concerns.He agreed that presenting the Environmental Phase I and II Assessments as a 21E is misleading as they are two totally different things.He then stated that if digging were to commence and high levels of contamination were found that were not reported this would result in even further troubles.He stated his help is available when needed. Mr. Jarema then asked Ms. Delios for a timeframe for a workshop,to be set up. She responded that the workshop should be held soon to see if the project can be made smaller before peer reviews are started. Mr.Redfern commented that a workshop would help contribute to finding a direction. Mr.Jarema then asked Ms. Delios if she would ae_staff to moderate the workshop. She expressed concerns about staff time and work load but said she is happy to jump in when necessary to get work done. She proposed two different but simultaneous tracks: one to see what can be agreed upon without peer review, and the other to determine the scope of the traffic peer review.Town Counsel stated that peer review should be started soon so the workshop should be clone even,sooner.Town Counsel opined that you would need peer reviewers underway/started, . if no progress is made in the workshop, by May 2"d at a minimum. Mr.Arena commented that more than one workshop should be considered and multiple dates should be set.Mr. Jarema agreed and opined that fewer people in the workshops would make more sense as they can relay the information back to the other residents. Page 1 4 Ms. Gina Geladman was concerned that not all resident concerns were able,to be brought up tonight due to time constraints and asked how their concerns can be submitted.Mr.Jarema stated to contact the neighborhood group,as well as to submit them through the Town website. Ms.Mercier stated that comments can be directed to staff. She noted that any comments submitted are given to the development team as well as the Board. Mr. John Oliver of 1013 Main Street asked if the questions submitted would be answered at the next meeting on the record.Mr.Jarema believes that`all' questions will not be answered due to the scope of the next meeting,and suggested that any other questions can be submitted as previously stated.Mr.Oliver then asked when he should get his questions on public record.Town Counsel and staff vociferously interjected that all comments should be heard tonight as part of the public hearing. Mr. Oliver expressed concerns regarding debris clean up before and after construction and stated he would like to be assured these concerns will be addressed.Town Counsel noted that debris in wetlands is under the state Wetlands Protection Act.The jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission,which is a separate Commission that enforces conditions; it could also be addressed in a condition set forth by the Board to ensure compliance. Mr.Peter Dulong of 115 Eaton Street questioned the perc test and test pit procedure and asked why they were not done during a wet season instead of a time of drought.Town Counsel noted that this can also be answered by the Conservation Commission and/or peer reviewers, Mr. Oliver then asked if Conservation will attend the next meeting;the Board stated they are not required to be there,plus it would not fit into the agenda of the next meeting.Town Counsel clarified that the Conservation Commission will have a separate hearing process for this project. Ms. Mercier then asked the Development Team if they'had submitted their Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission.Project Engineer Chris Sparages answered that they have not yet filed the NOI but will be filing soon, which will then be followed with a public hearing process.He then continued to answer the concerns about the test pits and detailed the methodology used. He stated that this information will be provided to the Conservation Commission, as well as the Stormwater Report that was included in the Comprehensive Permit Application which outlines how they have met the stormwater standards set forth by the State.Mr.Flynn then stated he would be recusing himself from that meeting and is not here representing the Conservation Commission but urges the public to attend the Public Hearing that will be held to address these very concerns, Mr,David Cannon of 30 Beech Street then requested that the next hearing be held in the library to accommodate the number of residents attending. Staff answered that they will have to post the agenda stating it will take place in the Selectmen's Meeting Room,but will change that if possible and let neighborhood leaders know where the next meeting will be. Mr.Tony Rodolakas of 11 Appleton Lane asked if the design criteria tripped the requirements for an Environmental Notification Form.Mr. Sparages answered that they did review the MEPA thresholds but have identified none that will be exceeded so no ENF is needed. Mr. Jarema then stated that a lot was accomplished tonight and that he hopes for another productive meeting on May 2"d He then asked for motion to continue the hearing and a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue Case#18-01 to-May 2, 2018 at 7pm,in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, with another location TBD by Town staff. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouetfe,Hagstrom,Pernice) Adiournment On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board ofAppeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom,Pernice). Page 1 5