HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes •cs rn �� Town of Reading
s Meeting MinutesRECEIVED
TOWN CLERK
P. P' READING, MA.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2019 JUN -6 PH 3: 06
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2019-01-24 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session:
Purpose: Public Hearing Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
John Jarema
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Nick Pernice
Kyle Tornow
Erik Hagstrom
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Andrew MacNichol, Jean Delios, Chris Heep, Chris Sparages, Ted Regnante,
Jesse Schomer, Guy Mandniello, Steven Gribbin, Matt Brassard, David
Cannon, Borianna Milenova, Brad Rodes, Paula Rocheleau, Matt Holmen,
Tony D'Arezzo, Cecelia Russo, Susan Viegas, Chris Synott, Wei Lam, David
Tuttle
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Case#18-01 Eaton Lakeview 406
The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Great Room at the
Pleasant St Center,49 Pleasant St in Reading, Massachusetts on Thursday January 246,2019 at 7:00 PM
on the petition of Eaton Lakeview Development, LLC,who seeks a Comprehensive Permit to develop 86
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. Jerome called the meeting to order and read the continuance into record.
Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol to discuss the new information and changes. Mr. MacNichol updated the
Board in changes in loading, parking and snow removal as well as revisions to the Engineedng and
Architectural plans that will be discussed tonight. He advised the Board that the Conservation Commission
closed their hearing on the matter last night. Mr. MacNichol advised the Board that the Architectural plans with
changes to the number of units have been passed out.
Page I 1
Mr. Shumer discussed how after the conversion to%rental and%townhouses the numbers were getting close
to marginality so some of the 1-bedroom units were changed to 2-bedroom units requiring a 10-foot bump out
for those buildings. He explained there were only minor revisions to stormwater plans and no change to traffic
plans.
Mr. Griven explained the changes being made occurred in the 12 unit buildings,that 6 units in each building
that were 1 bedroom will now be 2 bedrooms. He stated the elevations are essentially the same, the gaps
between the gables are a little bit wider, but everything else essentially stays the same including the total
number of units. Mr.Jarema asked if the changes were reflected in the draft decision. Mr. Griven replied yes,
everything should be up to date. Mr. Redfern pointed out the different dates on the plans. Mr. Griven advised
that the pages that didn't have changes stayed the same and only the sheets that were updated had the date
change. Mr. Redfern commented there should be a revision block on the plans.
Mr. Jarema stated the hearing will be open to the Public as topics arise instead of waiting until the end in order
to avoid confusion.
Ms. Milenova, Eaton Street, asked for clarification on the changes to the buildings. Mr. Griven explained the
bump outs push out toward the sidewalk.
A resident asked for clarification on how the change in units affect aspects of the project. Mr. Shumer advised
it doesn't make any difference in terms of the number of units,only where they are located.
Mr.Jarema stated the locations of the affordable units were not specified in the draft. He asked if the Applicant
would be able to provide that. Mr. Griven stated yes,that there has to be a mix also with handicap accessible
units and they have to consider how they will mix in the floors.
Mr.Rodes asked about the changes from 1 bedroom to 2 bedrooms. Mr. Griven explained that some towns go
by the number of bedrooms, but Reading goes by the number of units. He also addressed the added 10 feet
and explained the buildings haven't gotten taller.
Mr. Shumer stated that when it came down to it,they worked with the neighborhood and it changed the
financial makeup of the whole project. He explained that sharing that aspect is typically not done at this point in
the process and stated the reality of the situation forced these changes at this later stage.
Mr.Jarema asked Mr. Heep to address the affordability aspect of the project. Mr. Heep stated that in terms of
overall affordability the number of bedrooms affect affordability and the only time they would see financials at
this point would be if the Board is looking to put a condition on the project. He commented that the Board can
hire a financial analyst as a consultant to review the affordability.
Mr. Pernice commented that is interested in what the net increase is in the affordable units and townhouses.
Mr. Griven stated the number of affordable units has not changed,only the number of bedrooms, and the
ownership units have not changed.
Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol to read a memo from the Conservation Commission into record. Mr.
MacNichol read the memo which stated the Conservation Commission closed its hearing and will render a
decision with an order of conditions. Mr. Jarema confirmed with Mr. MacNichol that that gives closure to the
Conservation section of the project. Mr. Sparages commented that revised site plans have been submitted
with items added from different department, including the Fire and Police Departments and Conservation, as
well as the Operation and Maintenance manual. Mr. Heep asked if the consultant from Niche has reviewed the
changes. Mr. Sparages stated he has not had a chance to review the outstanding items.
Mr. MacNichol asked if the there was confirmation regarding the sightline at the fence. Mr. Fodem stated it was
agreed that 1 panel would be removed to alleviate the problem. Mr. MacNichol stated getting that in writing
would be helpful.
Mr. Shumer asked to clarify a point about affordable unit counts,stating that in both the original plan and new
plan there are 3 affordable townhouse units and 17 affordable units,that the number stays the same, only the
assortment of 1,2, and 3-bedroom units changed.
Mr. Jarema said he reviewed the draft decision and raised the issue of parking spaces. Mr. Sparages said they
decided against a waiver and wanted the ability to add parking if needed. Mr.Jarema commented there is very
little green space on lot b and asked the Board for their input. Mr. Redfern stated he was comfortable with what
was proposed. Mr. Caouette said he would love to keep that space green and not change it down the road.
Mr. Redfern opined that they have to count that as green space now and not worry about the future, but agreed
he would like to see it kept as green space. Mr. Pernice said he also would like to see it kept as green space.
Page 1 2
Mr. Hagstrom said he personally would like the green space as well, noting it was good for the overall project.
Mr. Shumer stated they would like to keep the green space also but it may be need for parking. He noted their
commitment is to keep it green if possible and that they are investing in making it green, if it changes that will
be an incurred cost.
Ms. Milenova asked what the procedure was if more parking was needed. Mr. Heep explained that the
Applicant would need to wait and discussed the procedure. Ms. Milenova asked about shared parking
provisions. Ms. Delios commented on the Zoning Bylaw provision for shared parking and discussed downtown
parking. Mr. Shumer commented that there are so many variables to shared parking they would not want that
as a condition. The parties discussed the problems with liability, scenarios for future needs and coming back
to the Board, and a parking management plan.
A resident asked if in the parking management plan if the spaces were going to be numbered or if it was going
to be a free-for-all. Mr. Shumer stated there will not be designated spaces except for handicap spaces. Mr.
Griven explained the potential difficulties with designated spaces and how it becomes a management problem
to track people down in the wrong spots.
Ms. Milenova suggested a fee for a second parking space. Mr. Shumer said they haven't really discussed that
idea, that it's not a bad idea, only other places are similar where parking is free.
The Board discussed options for some assigned spaces, some free for all spaces and guaranteed but not
assigned spaces,and also reiterate that if more parking spaces were needed,the Applicant would need to
come back before Planning and the CPDC.The Board noted they can't speculate what will happen in the
future. The Board and Applicant discussed the procedure and required documentation for minor and major
modifications,and verbiage to be included in the draft that would help determine a substantial or insubstantial
change.
The Board discussed traffic issues and proposals,the timeframe of the study in regards to the issuance of the
building and occupancy permits, option to hire police detail, and short-and long-term solutions.
Ms. Milenova commented there is no easy solution and discussed the results of Survey Monkey by neighbors.
She suggested options for eminent domain, connecting roads, and a way for the public to make comments for
the traffic study.
The Board and Applicants discussed how the traffic study and issue goes way beyond this project. They also
discussed the cost of contribution to the study in regards to which roads were related to this project. The
Applicants reminded everyone they are contributing a half million dollars to upgrade Lakeview Ave and toward
Green's peer review.
The Board reviewed utilities, lighting, landscaping and Conservation topics, and that there should be more
information regarding the materials to be used in the building design.
Ms. Delios discussed construction times laid out in the bylaw which will be addressed at the pre-construction
meeting and suggested including the actual hours and referencing the bylaw in the Decision.
Mr. MacNichol discussed how the pre-demolition meeting usually occurs at the time of applying for permits.
Mr. Jarema commented that historically those meetings have been strictly staff. Ms. Delios stated if there were
any concerns to send them along to staff.
Mr. Milenova asked for an explanation of substantial and insubstantial change. Mr. Heep stated nobody can
anticipate what the Applicant will want to change in the future but they can ask for a modification. He explained
the guidelines and process for each.
The Board discussed potential dates for the next meeting and decided on February 20. 2019.
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to continue Case#18-01 to February 20, 2019.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom,Pernice)
Adiournment
Page 1 3
On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:14pm.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouene,Hagstrom,Pernice).
Page 14