Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes opeR�ai Town of Reading ' - Meeting MinutesEll��` ,-. 'i 0 iS: f'3 sJ9.INC°4Q°a4 + i,,' G, Board - Committee - Commission - Council: UN 2154 Zoning Board of Appeals 2019 `� ��� {0: Date: 2018-05-02 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Public Library Location: Community Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Purpose: Public Hearing Session: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Erik Hagstrom Members - Not Present: David Traniello Others Present: Jean Delios - 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 Pelusi, Tony 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: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Case# 18-01—Eaton Lakeview The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Community Rooms at the Reading Public Library,Public Library,64 Middlesex Avenue in Reading,Massachusetts on Thursday,March 29,2018 at 7:00 PM on the petition of Eaton Lakeview Development,LLC,who seeks a Comprehensive Permit to develop 120 units of rental housing on 4.33 acres of land that is partially in a residential zone and partially in an industrial zone under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B Sections 20-23,with waivers from zoning requirements, on the property comprising six tax parcels known as: 0 Lakeview Avenue(Map 17,Lot 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.. Mr.Jarema called the meeting to order. Page 1 1 He noted discussing the 53G account for peer review and turned the topic over to Chris Heep. Mr. Heep advised the 53G account should already be in place. He advised that the Board should authorize staff and the Applicant to fund the 53G account in order to conduct the services for the Traffic Peer Review. Mr. Jarema stated that as the first order of business,he will ask the Board for a motion to create and fund the 53G account for peer review. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant funding a 53G account for Peer Review for Case#18-01. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice, Hagstrom) Mr. Regnante said there was no problem funding the account and announced he will talk about the scope and sequence of events. He noted that he had a statement prepared. Mr.Jarema stated he hoped to discuss the scope and looked forward to input from Jean Delios. Ms. Delios summarized the tasks of the consultant hired to perform the traffic and parking studies,and described the components of each tasks noting MA DOT guidelines,Town Bylaws and General Bylaws,Reading Street Policies and Subdivision Regulations will be considered. She then stated a comprehensive review of all intersections that will be included. Ms. Delios then read the scope into record. Mr.Jarema asked if the Board had any questions on the scope for Ms.Delios. Mr. Redfern asked if a letter from the Applicant's Transportation Engineer was received today,would that proposal take that letter into account. Julie Mercier stated the objective of the night was to come to an agreement on which scope of services to use. Mr. Jarema mentioned he was specifically concerned with the intersection of Walkers Brook and Lakeview and did not see that included in the scope. Ms. Mercier advised Mr. Jarema.it was included in the original proposal and is at the top of the page. Mr. Regnante opened up his presentation by stating he would like to bring the Board up to date as to where they are on the project and what is happening in the next few weeks. He discussed the April 12 meeting with abutters and gave credit to Ms.Milenova for being instrumental in organizing it. He advised the Board that they had a very good exchange of ideas and expressed their concerns, including how they felt 120 units,the mass and layout were too excessive,and how they would like to see some of the construction more in line with single family homes. Mr. Regnante also discussed how the abutters were concerned about the amount of parking and would like to see an increase in the green space. Mr. Regnante then notified the Board that the plan in place is not the plan they will be going forward with. He advised the Board there will be another meeting with the abutters on May 15 and possibly more to come up with a mutually acceptable proposal. He offered that for tonight's meeting,instead of debating the original plan it would be beneficial to listen to the Public,stating it doesn't make sense to debate the plan since they are changing it. He suggested discussing a revised plan at the July 18 ZBA hearing to allow for a few more meetings between the team and the abutters. Mr. Jarema stated the Board wanted to review the traffic scope from both sides,and with a major change that will be impacted. Ms. Delios offered that while all parties are present,to review what the Applicant has come back with for the traffic study and listen to the comments from the audience. Mr.Jarema asked Mr.Regnante if he would discuss the peer review and then come back to comments from the Public. Mr. Regnante said it made sense to get to discuss the peer review sooner and estimate a monetary amount to deposit into the account. He noted changes to the plans may change the scope of the traffic peer review. He suggested beginning with the initial review by the traffic engineer then take comments into consideration,and determine if more or less of a scope will be necessary based on a professional opinion. Traffic Engineer,Kim Hazarvartian discussed a multiphase approach to the peer review:Phase I will include a review of materials in hand already,review of the traffic study,site plans and neighborhood report,followed by a proposal similar to tasks in a Town's RFP,not to include expansion of the study area-which would come after the initial review,,in Phase II,Phase III, etc. Mr.Jarema asked Ms.Delios if the Town had a peer review traffic consultant in mind. Ms.Delios replied yes and advised they examined time and cost involved as well as the Applicant's phased approach. Ms.Delios stated the Page 1 2 decision was not hers but up to the Board and explained that the scope the Town put together gets the job done all at once with a broad sweep of all intersections,the same as in phases by the Applicant but only in different approaches to getting it done. Mr.Regnante and the Board discussed the request for the expansion of intersections and different time frames. Mr. Caouette stated he did not have an issue with what the developer is proposing but asked if the decision was made tonight,how quickly can the Town turn out the contract with the peer reviewer. Ms.Delios answered it would be right away. Mr. Caouette asked Mr. Regnante if the new revised plan would be available next week,to which Mr. Regnante answered the team still wanted to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Caouette surmised that the Applicants weren't planning to submit a revised proposal to the Town until a revised agreement with the neighbors was reached and Mr.Regnante confirmed. Mr.Caouette offered,that he thought that was a great idea and a model for the future. He commented that the size of the project was an issue,and could the Applicant share any of the anticipated revision with people this evening. Mr.Regnante said he would rather not,but offered there would be a substantial reduction in units,height and mass but did not want to provide details until the team sat down with the neighbors. He mentioned that Ms.Delios and Ms. Mercier were at the workshop and were invited to be present at the next meeting. Mr. Caouette restated his concerns with the size but will wait to see what the Applicant provides. Ms.Mercier commented that pertaining to the traffic review,the neighbors spent a lot of time on their presentation and would like to discuss if a full scope or phased scope is acceptable. Ms.Milenova started by thanking the development team for listening to the neighbors' concerns, and thanked Ms. Delios and Ms.Mercier for addressing their concerns about the traffic. Ms.Milenova said they do see Mr. Hazarvartian's point about using a professional engineer,but asked him to please drive out to the site for a better review. She stated that the project doesn't create a problem,the problem is preexisting and already there,but the project will exacerbate it. Mr. Larry Rush of Eaton Street mentioned that on Eaton Street there is a blind spot,and a hill where a child lives. He said he would like a sign alerting traffic there is a child there. Ms. Joyce Gould from north of John Street mentioned that traffic already backs up and they can't get to their homes, there will be more of a burden on the egress to John Street and asked if it could be incorporated into the study. Ms. Gina Dulong of Eaton Street said she would like to elaborate on what Mr.Rush was saying. She stated those residents have a toddler and requested a blind driveway sign,noting that the complex will be right there and it is a concern. She also stated that Pleasant Street needs to be looked at during this time of year. Ms.Mercier advised it was included in the original scope,but Ms.Dulong alerted the audience it wasn't done during Little League season, that that is different and a huge concern. Mr.Tony D'Arezzo of John Street asked if they will be using best available data or if a raw data count will be done. Ms.Delios said that was correct, it will be best available data from data gathered by the Applicant. Ms.Mercier offered that the scope needs to be clarified to include necessary new data needed. Ms.Minza of Lakeview expressed concerns of limited space, children playing,school buses,people that walk there and to please consider all of that. Mr.Riddle of Appleton Street raised the concern of children that will live in the development,which school they will attend and would they"expand the scope to consider traffic at the school. Mr.Jeff Palmer of Lakeview Ave commented on his concern that the traffic study may be dismissing low volume intersections and he would like to know which ones they were. Mr.Hazarvartian offered to listen to the Town's consultant on that for an answer. Mr. Palmer stated there are"no" low volume intersections. Mr.Jarema then closed the Public portion of the meeting. Mr.Jarema asked Ms.Delios if she had any comments. She mentioned if they go with a phased approach to keep an open mind going forward;the process has been collaborative so far, it has been a community project and would like to see it continue that way. Mr.Jarema opined that it appeared the Board needed to make a decision on the scope and sequence prepared by Town staff with a complete valuation by peer review or the phased option proposed by the Applicant. He said unless Ms.Delios wanted to elaborate,he would ask the Board. Ms.Mercier offered clarity on the phased option Page 1 3 and asked if he was talking about using the Applicant's scope and adding additional intersections. Mr. Delios clarified the decision will be to go with the expanded scope with all the intersections the neighbors have outlined or go with the abbreviated scope. She opined that given it is already May and we are going into the summer with vacations,etc., if they decided to go with the full scope peer review it can get done in a month—that her only concern is the time frame of the phased option will take longer. She stated it is not that much more money to do a full scope and feels it is easier to just do it,that the neighbors are requesting only a few extra intersections. Mr.Regnante asked if Mr. Hazarvartian would create the expanded traffic study to which Ms.Mercier said no,the peer reviewer will do it. Mr.Jarema reiterated that the goal is to get something done before July. Mr.Hazarvartian stated that he didn't know if they could do it that quickly,that it takes him longer than a month to compile data and prepare reports. He suggested not wasting time and money on unnecessary intersections. Ms. Mercier stated that it sounds reasonable to ask peer review to give feedback on an expanded list of intersections. Mr.Jarema reiterated that they need to get started as soon as possible. He noted having worked with the peer consultant before, staff has confidence in their abilities. Mr.Hazarvartian agreed that it was important to start right away,even before school ends. Mr. Pernice questioned if there would be a chance to respond to'our peer review in regard to an expanded scope and generating our own data. Ms.Mercier replied yes and proposed estimating enough time. Mr.Hagstrom stated he would like to go with the Town's recommendation and to get as much data as possible. He noted parking and traffic at the intersections won't go away even if the mass and density does. He opined that taking the phased approach can minimize what the community is looking for to make informed decisions. Mr. Caouette said he tended to agree, mainly from a standpoint that time is so important,and noting that the 7/18 meeting is not that far out. He surmised everyone will have a chance to review what the peer review submits, either way-even phased and will have the same things to look at. Mr.Redfern stated he would have to agree with that and with other Board members. He suggested being cognizant that there are going to be changes with the project downsizing and there will be changes to that traffic study,further noting he would like the peer review to work with the Applicant's engineer and called for a meeting of the minds in determining which intersections needed to be studied if the phased approach is chosen. He advised the Applicant that the process does not involve a lump sum fee,that the Town has an hourly rate that the Town pays,explaining that the fee is for actual work done. Ms.Mercier stated that if there was a defined scope,peer review will provide a cost. Mr. Jarema stated this is a major concern,they need to get all the information ASAP, and this is only one of the major areas to get over. He asked the Applicant that the Board be kept up to date on what is going on. He mentioned that there needs to be enough time to come up with solutions if a problem is found and feels peer review will get further in a shorter amount of time. Mr.Chris Sparages said he was unaware of any peer review that will generate its own data, and that was what Mr. Hazarvartian was trying to explain. Ms. Mercier said if they would like to do their own data collection,by all means do so. Mr. Sparages asked to confirm that the peer review said they will do their own data collection. Ms.Mercier answered yes. Mr. Sparages opined that obtaining police feedback on which intersections to study is a waste of time and money. Mr. Regnante asked if the Board could instruct Ms:Delios and Ms. Mercier to have peer review work with Mr.Hazarvartian to exchange information. Ms. Mercier said that is typically how the Town does it with everyone being CC'd on all correspondence. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the scope and sequence by Town staff for traffic peer review for Case#18-01. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice, Hagstrom) The Board and Mr. Sparages discussed getting an update on Phase I of the environmental site assessment and if anything was prepared for Phase II. Mr.Jarema stated they can't move forward on that at this particular time. Mr.Jarema said he wanted to mention that they have all been very fortunate on this particular project that the Applicant,neighbors,and staff have moved as a unit to get this going. He asked that the Board be kept up to date and explained that it is hard for them to come into a meeting and be given something that night to make a decision on. Mr.Redfern stated that in light of Mr.Jarema's comment, in regards to the revision of plans,he would like to make note that if in fact July 18 is the next meeting he requests the Town get the revised plans at least a week in Page 1 4 advance for the Board to have enough time to review them. Ms. Delios suggested that due to the July 4 holiday,the Applicant have everything into the Town by June 28. Mr.Jarema asked Mr.Regnante his thoughts, and Mr. Regante said that date was doable. Mr.Jarema said he wanted to mention that this is a very unique 40B project,explaining that the Town did not have to go forward but are anyway. He said without the staff in Reading, it would not be possible and would like to congratulate Ms. Delios for attending a 40B conference. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance to July 18, 2018 for Case#18-01. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice, Hagstrom) Minutes No minutes were reviewed. Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:33p.m. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice, Hagstrom). Page 5