HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes W46�
ersTown of Reading
Meeting Minutes RECEIVEDTOWN CLERK11-
READING, MA.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals 2019 JUN -6 PM 3: 06
Date: 2019-02-20 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Community Room
Address: 49 Pleasant 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, Manager Jean Cellos, Chris Heep, Chris Sparages, Ted
Regnante, Jesse Schomer, Guy Mandniellc, Steven Gribbin, Matt Brassard,
David Cannon, Paula Rocheleau, Tony D'Arezzo, Cecelia Russo, Susan
Viegas, Chris Synott, Wei tam, David Tuttle, Carla Bacci, Boriana Milenova,
Brad Rhodes, Matt Holmen, Penny LaShea, Barry Berman, Diana Lavancher,
Kent Gail Toomajian, Tim Folly, Steven &Janette Koeng
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Case#18-01 —Eaton Lakeview
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 Wednesday February 20a,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. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Public.
Mr.Jarema stated the Board just received the latest draft decision, architectural plans and a few other
documents. He noted the extension expires on 3/23/19 and would like to conclude by then but to be fair to the
Board having just received these documents,they may not be able to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Regnante suggested Mr. MacNichol summarized what has transpired since the last meeting.
Page 1 1
Mr. MacNichol addressed the small revision to the bedroom counts,the decision from the Conservation
Commission, the revised architectural plans noting where the affordable units were,the Operations and
Maintenance plan,and the revised waiver list. He suggested letting the Applicant discuss the revisions and
then the Board ask their questions.
Mr. Regnante agreed that the Board should have adequate time to review the information and hoped for
another date for a decision. He discussed two major issues for their consideration. The first being their
ccntdbution to the traffic corridor study. He noted their offer came from the recommendation of their traffic
engineer and was based on the impact of their project. He noted Town staff indicated they needed to
contribute more and as a result made the offer of$20,000 which is included in the draft decision. He opined
the offer was fair and hoped the Board finds that figure acceptable. He stated the second issue was that of the
open park. He noted the only problem from their point of view is a potential need for more parking in the future.
Mr. Regnante discussed talks with Town staff about the matter and read the language in the decision that
outlined the steps that would be necessary to take in the future.
Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Regnante if he wanted to address the three compact parking spaces. Mr. Regnante
turned it over to Mr. Sparages. Mr. Sparages discussed the changes to the parking spaces and parking ratio
with the Board and Mr. MacNichol and stated the compact spaces will be labeled as such.
The Board commented that the language in the decision for open parking was agreeable and stated they were
happy to hear of the contribution of$20,000 for the corridor study. Mr. Hagstrom asked if it was their
understanding that the language in the decision allowed them to come back to the Board for a modification.
Mr. Regnante answered yes.
Mr. Jarema reminded everyone that they discussed how that option would be available at the last meeting and
noted that realistically that would not happen for a substantial amount of time. Mr. Regnanted added that was
why they included the language in the decision.
Mr. Jarema stated that his comment is relevant to traffic and the traffic study. He said his concem was
Lakeview Ave is going to be a major entrance to this project from the time of the demolition permit to it being
almost fully occupied. He noted Ms. Delios is looking for grants and an anticipated timeframe of two years. He
commented that his major concern was particular times of the day until the study is complete and that he would
like to see something there to address that. He noted signaling is costly and nobody really pays attention to
signage. He opined on an option of having a camera at the intersection to provide data for the study and
suggested adding language in the decision for police detail during peak traffic hours. He reminded everyone
that the traffic corridor is getting worse all the time. Ms. Delios said a police detail is an interesting idea but the
question comes down to the cost and there is a set minimum. The Applicants discussed that Mr. Jarema's
concerns were valid and noted there were four construction companies that operate out of that location
currently with no issues. They added that once construction starts,those companies won't be there anymore
so there will be a significant reduction in the flow of traffic. The Applicants and Board discussed working each
site in phases. Mr. Regnante offered to put a provision in the agreement to coordinate with Town staff
regarding construction vehicles to reduce the impact to the neighborhood and opined the police detail might
render the project uneconomical. Mr. Jarema stated he was thinking outside the box and didn't think the
Applicant would underwrite the whole detail. Mr. MacNichol stated that in the decision there is already a
condition for a pre-demolition meeting and pre-construction meeting.
Mr. Caouette stated that everyone needs to face the reality that a construction project this size is going to be an
upset to the neighborhood. He opined that during rush hours there should not be any transport,and although a
challenge,the project will be beautiful when it is done. Mr. Sparages agreed and stated to put things into
perspective,there won't be a lot of site work but more building up.
Mr. Jarema stated the two major issues have been addressed and the other issues and waivers need to be
reviewed. Mr. Caouette suggested developing a final draft for the Board to vote on at next meeting. Mr.
Regnante stated that in regard to Open Meeting Law, it is allowed for each Board member to communicate
directly with Ms. Delios and Mr. MacNichol so that at the next meeting any issues have already been worked
on. Ms. Delios suggested compiling a list of outstanding questions to bring to the team for discussion to allow
everyone to come prepared.
Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to Public discussion.
A resident of 3 Smith Ave said it is rather predictable that the Applicants will came back about parking and
opined that most people have two cars therefore it will be easy to demonstrate a need.
Mr. Regnante stated that they did not want to come back again before the Board, but thinks it may be naYve to
think there won't be more cars. He reiterated that they want to stay committed to the project.
Page 1 2
Ms. Milenova questioned the steps leading to conservation land and opined that there is concern that would be
an invitation for young people to do drugs and inappropriate things.
The Development team discussed the steps as allowing access to the wetland area,explained the retaining
wall and right of way for people, and not being subject to blocking a private way. Mr. Jarema asked Mr.
MacNichol to research the matter and provide feedback at the next meeting.
Ms. Delios commented that pertaining to police details,that in other projects the police department works daily
with developers and feels confident that they will work through any issues.
A resident of Eaton Street questioned parking when a resident had a party. The Development Team stated
they were not building a function hall, and the community room will feel more related to business, it's not meant
to host a large-scale event.
Mr.Jarema closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Board and Applicant discussed upcoming dates and timeline for having information prepared.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to continue Case#18-01 to February 28, 2019.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice)
Adiournment
On a motion made Mr. Caouene,seconded by Mr. Redfern the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting at.8:21pm.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouene,Hagstrom,Pernice).
Page 1 3