Zoning Board of Appeals

Department of Planning & Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 1 JFK Memorial Drive Braintree, MA www.braintreema.gov Joseph. C. Sullivan Mayor Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Meeting Minutes August 1, 2019 IN ATTENDANCE: Stephen Karll, Chair Richard McDonough, Member Gary Walker, Associate ALSO PRESENT: Christine Stickney, Director-Planning & Community Development Melissa SantucciRozzi, Assistant Director P&CD Connor Murphy, Staff Planner, P&CD Carolyn Murray, Attorney (KP Law) Nicole Taub, Town Solicitor John Goldrosen, Assistant Town Solicitor Pursuant to notice duly published in a newspaper in general circulation and posted at Town Hall, and by written notice pursuant to MGL 40B, mailed to all parties in interest, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at Town Hall, One JFK Memorial Drive, Braintree, MA on August 1, 2019. Chairman Karll calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and reads both Public Hearing Notices (below), as we will be discussing these 2 Comprehensive Permit Applications jointly for the purpose of the Hearing. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Following a Decision from the Housing Appeals Committee Dated June 27, 2019, Notice is given by the Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals under the provisions of MGL Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23, 760 CMR 56.00 and the Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals Comprehensive Permit Regulations that a Public Hearing will be conducted on THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. at the Braintree Town Hall in Cahill Auditorium. The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider a Comprehensive Permit Application (Chapter 40B) that includes an Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan from 383 Washington Street LLC. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 70-Unit Multi-Family Residential (Rental) “Parkside Apartments” building along with associated drainage, utility, parking, access, landscaping and lighting improvements on a proposed lot of 93,866 Square Feet. The properties at 383 Washington Street, Storrs Avenue and the way known as “Alves Avenue” are all Zoned General Business within the Village Overlay District and are identified on Assessor’s Plan 2028 as Plot 31 and 32-A. ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Following a Decision from the Housing Appeals Committee Dated June 27, 2019, Notice is given by the Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals under the provisions of MGL Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23, 760 CMR 56.00 and the Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals Comprehensive Permit Regulations that a Public Hearing will be conducted on THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. at the Braintree Town Hall in Cahill Auditorium. The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider a Comprehensive Permit Application (Chapter 40B) that includes an Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan from 383 Washington Street LLC. The Applicant is proposing to construct eight (8) Townhouse Style Residential Units (Ownership) “Parkside Condominiums” in two (2) buildings along with associated drainage, utility, parking, access, landscaping and lighting improvements on a proposed lot of 20,327 Square Feet. The properties at 383 Washington Street, Storrs Avenue and the way known as “Alves Avenue” are all Zoned General Business within the Village Overlay District and are identified on Assessor’s Plan 2028 as Plot 31 and 32-A. Chairman Karll turns the meeting over to Attorney Carolyn Murray for remarks. Attorney Carolyn Murray, explains that since this is an introduction or a re-introduction of the 40B Applications, the Chairman thought it might be worthwhile to go over a few procedural matters, especially since some of you may have been here over two years ago and are wondering why we are back here tonight. Some of you might not have been here over two years ago and are wondering what this is all about. These are both Comprehensive Permit Applications. These are two applications for a residential development that involves 25% of the housing units to be dedicated to affordable housing. This operates under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B. Under that statutory provision and regulatory authority, there are some provisions under which a Town could either deny a Comprehensive Permit or approve it, and the Applicant would not have any right of appeal. Those are when we have hit certain benchmarks referred to as “Safe Harbors”. Over two years ago, when this Public Hearing first opened, the Town believed it had achieved one of those Safe Harbors known as the 1.5% General Land Area Minimum. The applications were filed on February 14, 2017, and the Public Hearing opened March 2017, at which time Town asserted that it had achieved the 1.5 % Safe Harbor, meaning 1.5% of the Town’s general land area zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use was already used for affordable housing. The ZBA invoked that Safe Harbor and notified the Applicant as required under the regulations governing Comprehensive Permit proceedings. The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) disagreed with the Town, and the Town further appealed to the Housing Appeals Committee. On June 27, 2019, after two years, site visits, two days of hearings and submission of over 100 exhibits, the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) concluded the Town had not achieved the 1.5% Safe Harbor. Instead, the HAC found the Town had demonstrated that 1.396% of its general land area was dedicated to affordable housing. That decision required us to hold this public hearing tonight. In the interim, we have since filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that decision. However, we are legally obligated to go forward with this public hearing tonight. If it should happen that the Motion for Reconsideration is granted, then we have also asked the Housing Appeals Committee to stay these proceedings. If the Town’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied, the ZBA must see this Public Hearing through to a decision, and if there is a further appeal of the ZBA’s decision, the issue of the Safe Harbor could be re-visited (760 CMR 56.03(8)(c). Since the regulations require us to resume this Public Hearing, I am recommending that the ZBA reserve its rights relating to asserting a further appeal on this safe harbor. 2|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Under Chapter 40B, the ZBA has 180 days from opening of the Public Hearing to close Public Hearing, unless extensions are granted. The Public Hearing was opened in March 2017, and when Town’s Safe Harbor appeal was filed, the ZBA proceedings were stayed. However, with resuming the Public Hearing tonight, we pick up where we left off. Of the 180 days to complete the Public Hearing, we already used 71 of those days, leaving 109 days to complete the Public Hearing. I have conferred with the Applicant’s counsel who agrees that 109 days remain, bringing us to about Nov. 17 to close the Public Hearing. The Board then has 40 days to deliberate and vote on the application and another 14 days to file the written decision with the Town Clerk. Attorney Murray explains that Chairman Karll asked that she go over 40B because it has been over ten years since the Town last had a 40B application. It is unlike anything that you have experienced at Zoning Board Meetings or Planning Board Meetings. For those unfamiliar with the Chapter 40B process, when it comes to acting upon a Comprehensive Permit application, all of the rules that normally govern other Zoning or Planning Board hearings do not apply here. First, the role of the ZBA is very different under Chapter 40B. Under 40B, it is a Comprehensive Permit application, and the ZBA acts in place of all local board and local officials and issues all permits (one Comprehensive Permit) under all local bylaws, ordinances, rules or regulations. The ZBA does not act on behalf of any local board when exercising authority under state law (i.e. Board of Health under Title V, Conservation Commission under Chapter 131 Wetlands Protection Act or Building Inspectors under state Building Code). The ZBA has no authority to act in place of those local boards or officials under state law. So, if an application included consideration under the State Wetlands Protection Act or under Title V, the applicant must go to the Conservation Commission or Board of Health for those approvals under state law. But if an application seeks an approval or a waiver from a local Board of Health regulations of a wetlands bylaw that is more restrictive than a state law, the ZBA acts in place of the Board of Health and Conservation Commission with respect to those local permits and approvals. This particular application includes an ANR Plan, normally acted upon by the Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Law; here, the ZBA acts in place of the local Planning Board. The Comprehensive Permit statute allows the applicant to request and the ZBA may grant waivers from any local bylaw, ordinance, regulation, or even fee schedule. Waivers can include a waiver of use, despite what underlying zoning may allow, so multi-family development can be allowed through the grant of a waiver even though the underlying zoning requirements would not allow such a use. This is not a use variance but is inherent in the authority conferred upon the ZBA to override local bylaws that otherwise present an obstacle to affordable housing. The standard here looks to see if this project is consistent with local needs or is there a valid local concern that is brought into issue. Those local concerns need to be based on public safety, public health, environmental concerns or open space. Things that are not valid local concerns include: a general concern about traffic, stating a project will being more children into the neighborhood and pressure the school system. Attorney Murray’s job will be to advise the Zoning Board on matters and help guide them to a decision. ZBA can only apply local ordinances, rules, regulations in place at time application was filed, which is February 14, 2017. The applicant has submitted lists of waivers requested, which the ZBA will consider. All of this leaves a community with the impression that there is little we can do when a Comprehensive Permit application is filed. One thing you can do is mitigate. You can think 3|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium about how this project is going to affect your neighborhoods, how it is going to affect traffic flow, and think about ways in which we can try to pro-actively shape this development so that we can mitigate against some of those impacts. One bright spot is that the Town can request a local preference, which can be set at up to 70% of the affordable units being reserved for current residents of Braintree, for teachers or other municipal employees, or employees of local businesses, or for households with children attending Braintree schools who may meet the income requirements, subject to the subsidizing agency guidelines. So, one thing we can do in deciding this application is to request a local preference be included to benefit our neighbors who need affordable housing. Attorney Murray advises that we are resuming this Public Hearing tonight because we are legally required to do so, but we are going to reserve our rights to further assert our Safe Harbor position in the event that this leads to a further appeal. Attorney Murray explains the way the regulations are set up, we don’t have a right to appeal that decision. We have to see this through to a decision. If there is a further appeal of the decision, we can renew our arguments relative to Safe Harbor. You will hear the chairman call for a motion that will reserve our rights under Safe Harbor. Chairman Karll explains ZBA Panel and Mullin Rule. We are missing one member of our Board who couldn’t attend. The Panel for this hearing shall consist of Stephen Karll, Chairman; Michael Ford, a member who is not here tonight; and Richard McDonough, Member. Gary Walker shall serve as an alternate if needed. Member Michael Ford was unable to be here tonight. According to General Law Chapter 39, Section 23D, the so-called “Mullin Rule”, a member can miss a single session of a public hearing but still be qualified to vote on the application, provided that member reviews all of the material presented at the missed session, including the audio or video tape, if available, and then certifies in writing that he has done so. Member Ford will be following this procedure and will submit this certification so that he may be able to participate in the vote on this application. However, the Mullin Rule only allows a member to miss a single session of the public hearing. If anyone misses more than one session of the public hearing, that member is disqualified from voting. Chairman Karll explains that unlike all other proceedings that come before the ZBA, a Compre- hensive Permit application requires only a majority vote of this board. This means that only two out of three members are needed to approve or deny this application. As described in her overview by Special Counsel to the Board, the Town invoked the 1.5% GLAM Safe Harbor and lost that interlocutory appeal. According to the regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Community Development, which govern comprehensive permit proceedings, the Town cannot appeal the Housing Appeals Committee decision rejecting the Safe Harbor at this time. Instead, we have to resume this public hearing, issue a decision on the Application and appeal the Housing Appeals Committee’s decision in the context of a further appeal. For this reason, we are resuming this public hearing; however, on the advice of counsel, we should reserve our rights to further challenge that Safe Harbor determination. Chairman Karll advises that, at this time, he will entertain a proposed motion as follows: Move that the Town of Braintree re-asserts its position that the Town has 1.5% of its general land area dedicated to affordable housing as provided in 760 CMR 56.03(3)(b), notwithstanding the Interlocutory Decision on Safe Harbor rendered by the Housing Appeals Committee on June 27, 2019, and in accordance with this Interlocutory Decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals resumes this public hearing but reserves its right to further challenge the Interlocutory Decision of the Housing Appeals Committee pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(8)(c). 4|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Member McDonough makes the MOTION as read above; seconded by Member Walker; all in favor 3:0:0; no one is opposed. By a vote of 3 in favor and 0 opposed, the motion to reserve our rights to challenge the Safe Harbor determination is approved. Chairman Karll explains, as noted by counsel, the ZBA has only 180 days from the opening of the public hearing to close the public hearing on this application; 71 of those days were already used back in March to May 2017 when the Safe Harbor was being asserted. This leaves us with 109 days to complete the Public Hearing, bringing us to November 17, 2019, unless the Applicant grants any extensions. For this reason, and given the length of time these applications typically require, it has been the ZBA’s practice in the past to schedule hearings on a separate night, not on the Board’s regular meeting schedule. So, Chairman Karll would like to establish that meeting schedule now, with all parties present. Chairman Karll’s understanding is that Monday and Wednesday nights work best for the Board Members. Chairman Karll advises that the ZBA is allowed to seek the services of experts to provide technical review of the applicant’s submissions on a variety of issues, such as Stormwater Management, Design, Wastewater treatment and Traffic, as well as other areas, with the costs to be paid by the Applicant. Looking at this Application, it appears we need Peer Review for the Traffic Impact Assessment and the Stormwater Management Report, as identified by our Assistant Planning Director, Melissa SantucciRozzi. Ms. SantucciRozzi has prepared these Peer Review Service Requests as well as identified four consultants for each review. She has inquired with the Applicant, Mr. Holland, to determine if there are any conflicts with any of the firms which the Town would seek proposals and quotes from. Chairman Karll asks Assistant Director SantucciRozzi if she has any updates on this process. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi advises that she has provided draft copies of the Stormwater Peer Review Request for Service to the Applicant, as well as those for the Traffic Assessment Review. The Assistant Director has spoken to Mr. Holland about the four firms identified for each review, and he has indicated that both he and his team have no conflicts with any of these firms. The Assistant Director requests that the Zoning Board engage on some motions, and she will proceed in the morning to solicit cost proposals. Chairman Karll proposes three motions. Chairman Karll entertains a MOTION to request the sum of $10,000.00 to be provided by the Applicant and deposited into the Town’s peer review consultant account under General Law Chapter 44, SubSection 53G, no later than Friday, August 16, 2019 for the purpose of funding Peer Review of the Applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment. Member McDonough makes the MOTION as proposed; seconded by Member Walker; unanimously voted 3:0:0. Chairman Karll entertains a MOTION to request the sum of $10,000.00 to be provided by the Applicant and deposited into the Town’s peer review consultant account under General Law Chapter 44, SubSection 53G, no later than Friday, August 16, 2019 for the purpose of funding Peer Review of the Applicant’s Stormwater Management Report. Member McDonough makes the MOTION as proposed; seconded by Member Walker; unanimously voted 3:0:0. Chairman Karll entertains a MOTION that we authorize the Assistant Planning Director to solicit cost proposals from peer review consultants for traffic Impact Assessment and the Stormwater 5|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Management Report and to engage such consultants to begin their review. Member McDonough makes the MOTION as proposed; seconded by Member Walker; unanimously voted 3:0:0. Chairman Karll explains that we want to try and set a calendar of upcoming meeting dates. Chairman Karll mentions that it has been suggested by counsel that we establish dedicated topics to be discussed at our public hearings so that the public knows what we intend to discuss each evening and we keep discussion focused. So far, it appears we need one evening to discuss traffic, another evening to discuss stormwater, and I suggest that the various Town Departments that represent those jurisdictions also be present on those evenings. Other Town Department and Zoning Board comments can be discussed on a separate evening, as needed. The following schedule is recommended. The Assistant Director explains that we have printed off the calendar for Cahill Auditorium showing availability, as we want to have meeting in Cahill Auditorium. She highlights the available dates and suggests that we set the dates for at least three meetings. It is noted that September 30 is Rosh Hashanah and October 9th is Yom Kippur. The next Public Hearing for the 40B will be Traffic Peer and Applicant’s Traffic Consultant and all related Town Departments, followed by public comment. It is proposed that this meeting be held on Monday, September 23, 2019, and that we move the regular September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to Wednesday, September 25, 2019 to be held in Johnson Chambers. The next meeting date for the 40B Hearing would be Monday, October 7, 2019, and the third date for the 40B would be Wednesday, October 23, 2019. Chairman Karll explains that 40B applications and information on Housing Appeals Committee decision is available in the Planning & Community Development Department and on the Town Website, and they are extensive. Chairman Karll suggests that individuals look at the General Laws related to 40B, review some of the Housing Appeals Committee’s decision, which have not been that favorable to towns, and go online to see the applications. Mayor Sullivan wants to express his appreciation for the work the Zoning Board of Appeals has done and the level of thoroughness that is offered. Mayor Sullivan wants to thank the many residents that have been attending meetings. This is an incredibly complex, complicated and formal process. We did not want to be here on August 1st, but we are required to do so because of decision handed down by the Housing Appeals Committee. Mayor Sullivan wants to acknowledge the work of the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as the work of the Planning Department, who have been engaged in this project and proposal for a long period of time. Mayor Sullivan notes that Carolyn Murray, who served as Town Solicitor at the start of this new government and did an incredibly admirable job, has served as Special Counsel for us, as she understands this issue very thoroughly. We also have Nicole Taub, Town Solicitor, and John Goldrosen, Assistant Town Solicitor. All of whom will assist us in working through this process. The Mayor knows that the Zoning Board will make careful and thoughtful consideration of this proposal. The Mayor expresses that, with all due respect to all those involved in this process, the Town of Braintree believes in our argument. The Town is disappointed in the State’s decision thus far; the Town believes that this proposal should not be accepted. As the Zoning Board does their discovery, they will make an informed decision over the next 3+ months. Mayor Sullivan commits that all Town resources will be available to the Zoning Board as they do their examination. The Mayor reiterates that the standard for considering this application is different than all other applications for zoning relief, and the standards for denial are somewhat more limited than with traditional zoning relief. The Mayor asks that Members listen to the 6|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium presentation and the public comments with an open mind to ensure, in the State’s eyes, that we are conducting a fair and thorough process. We as a community are acting in the best interest of the Town. The state is watching us with this Comprehensive Permit process, and, while the Mayor understands that, he finds this frustrating. As a backdrop to tonight’s issue, the Town and residents are very much aware of a Zoning Rewrite proposal that was offered earlier this year by the Mayor’s team, and it has had a lot of public commentary. The Mayor has spoken publicly about the need for additional housing in our Town, including specifically 55+ housing and transient-oriented development housing near public transportation. That process continues and serves as a backdrop to this conversation tonight. The Mayor believes that the work they are attempting to do in terms of housing can also be done while we preserve the character of our neighborhoods, but this is an ongoing conversation for another day. Mayor Sullivan wishes that tonight’s conversation could have been a different one and that we could have had a community conversation with the developer about the size and scope of this proposal and that the developer would be willing to work with us within our existing municipal zoning. The building and the uses in the area of the square could start to function around the municipal lot that is already in existence with a potential for vehicular connections, pedestrian connections and outdoor spaces for business owners along Washington Street to attempt to use the front and rear façade of the buildings that currently exist today. The Mayor notes the improvements that have been made to a lot of the buildings in the square. These property owners could use their buildings, as they see fit, to create a more improved core in the square around the existing municipal lot. This proposal does not have that potential because of the size and scope that is being offered through the Comprehensive Permit, but if properly redeveloped in size and scope, we could try to strike the right balance, addressing community concerns, through mitigation, design and site planning. Unfortunately, the developer chose the 40B route, which circumvents the Town’s local oversight through a state program that allows for four times the current zoning. The Mayor explains that we, as a community, have and will continue to make our argument in a fair-minded way. The Town has asked MassHousing and the developer to do the same. The Mayor wants to note a letter he has written along with Planning Staff back on December 9, 2016 specific to this proposal. That is how long we have been engaged in this conversation. We noted in that letter a number of critical areas that need attention. This letter was sent to Ms. Kate Lacy at MassHousing. The Town put forth their commentary at that time, raising a number of issues that I know the Zoning Board will continue to consider because the State rejected our proposal. The Mayor wants to note, for the record, that in the second to last paragraph, it says: “Lastly, while the Town of Braintree is aware of the Commonwealth’s 40B Statute, the Town would prefer to have productive and constructive input and negotiations regarding these proposed Projects.” We should have a prominent role, understanding our own local needs and desires, to be engaged in those decisions, and the 40B process prevents us from being engaged. The Town has seen this before. In 2003 and 2004, the Town had to accept three state projects (Turtle Crossing, Reservoir Place and Ridge at Blue Hills). We have been down this path, and we haven’t had a 40B proposal for over 10 years. We have been able to manage our housing in a responsible manner, but we need to do more through our local zoning. We can achieve some of the results that we need and desire as a community on our terms and not on the state terms. The letter continues: “In recognizing that all proposals are different as well as all locations are unique, any proposal for compatibility and inclusion within the existing neighborhood context 7|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium must be achieved. The recognition of the Town’s local needs — not the developer’s goals — is an important responsibility that we take seriously.” Mayor Sullivan wants to make another public plea and asks the developer of this proposal to withdraw the request. The State allows the developer and town to work together. If both sides agree to the conversation, we can discover a way, under our terms, to make projects like these implemented in a sensitive way. To be directed by the state, as this process requires us to follow, we lose our voice and our ability. That will not be good for our community. Mayor Sullivan expresses that it is important to the Zoning Board and to the community that over the course of the next 109 days, as we review this and vet this thoroughly, we will use all options available to us. Mayor Sullivan expresses that it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position, as we believe in our argument and it is a good argument. Mayor Sullivan confirms what Chairman Karll previously noted that there aren’t many, if any, municipalities who have been able to push-back on this state statute. Mayor Sullivan thanks the Zoning Board for the work that they have done and will continue to do. Mayor Sullivan’s hope is for a community that is a caring one and a community that has a strong future. We will do all we can to ensure the quality of life in our community. Chairman Karll thanks Mayor Sullivan and explains that there is only one way to change 40B, and that is legislatively. Chairman Karll states one of the other criteria the Board has to consider is that it has to be economically feasible, which means that they cannot lose money on the project. Chairman Karll wonders if it is economically feasible to reduce the number of units. Chairman Karll explains that it is a learning process; it is very complex, formal and legal. Cities and Towns are somewhat “handcuffed” as far as what we can do. Chairman Karll opens the discussion to the Applicant to start their presentation. Peter Freeman, Freeman Law Group, representing the applicant, introduces the team which consists of: Paul Holland, the Applicant; Jim Burke, Civil Engineer from Decelle Burke Associates; Mark Major, Architect from VMY Architects; not in attendance is Jeffrey Dirk, P.E., Transportation Engineer from Vanasse & Associates, Inc.; not in attendance is Lynne Sweet, Housing Consultant from LDS Consulting Group. Attorney Freeman’s remarks will be brief and will review the jurisdictional points. Attorney Freeman states both the Chairman and Attorney Murray gave excellent summaries, which covers a lot of what Attorney Freeman wanted to state as an over-view. For the record, Attorney Freeman states the Applicant believes the Town has not attained the 1.5% General Land Area Safe Harbor. Attorney Freeman respectfully disagrees with Mayor Sullivan’s remarks, and he does not think his client intends to withdraw. Attorney Freeman is confident that they will have a good and fair hearing, they will provide a good project, there will be Peer Review and that is the way the process should work. Attorney Freeman explains that his comments cover both the condominium proposal and the rental proposal at the same time. Attorney Freeman states that procedurally there are three components that an applicant must meet, and they meet them as shown by the evidence in the application. They must control the site; the Applicant has title, and a copy of the deed is in the application. The Applicant must be eligible to receive a subsidy from a government subsidy program for housing, and that is evidenced by the project eligibility letter. There are two from Mass. Housing and they are both dated February 10, 2017. The third component is simply that the Applicant be a limited dividend organization. That is affirmed by both the project eligibility letter and the fact that, as part of that process, the Applicant will receive final approval from the Agency and sign a Regulatory Agreement that limits the dividends on both of the projects in different ways. It is different for rental than for sale. In order of presentation, Paul Holland will 8|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium come up next, and then they will go through the Site Engineering Review and then the Architecture. With regards to the Waivers, although they have a very thorough list included in the application, it makes more sense not to go over them this evening. Certainly we need to go over them before the end of the hearing. Typically it makes more sense to have the presentations and some Peer Review feedback before we get into the Waivers. Attorney Carolyn Murray wants to confirm one thing with Attorney Freeman for the record which is that the Project Eligibility Letter was dated February 10, 2017 and was good for two years; she asks if the Applicant has gotten an extension on this. Attorney Freeman doesn’t know if they have a formal extension; he will ask for it. Attorney Freeman states that everything under 40B by regulation is tolled during the Appeal, so they are not in jeopardy, but he will certainly confirm this with MassHousing. Paul Holland, Applicant, explains that together with his three brothers he owns a group of companies, The Holland Companies, consisting of a construction company, a real estate development company and a rental property company where they own and self-manage a portfolio of apartments. Mr. Holland is the managing partner for this project. He will also be the person managing this project if it is built. Mr. Holland explains that he is a resident of Braintree, as are two of his brothers. He feels this project will be a catalyst for helping improvements in the square. Mr. Holland explains that the project site is located behind the businesses on Washington Street. It abuts the municipal parking lot and the Masonic Lodge, and it runs alongside the Archbishop Williams football field down to Storrs Avenue. It also abuts an office condominium building that is also on Storrs Avenue. There are two access points on the site. There is access from an existing curb cut on Storrs Avenue; that access is shared with the adjacent office building, who has a right-of-way across the applicant’s land. In addition to that, there is an access point adjacent to the Dependable Cleaners, known as the Parkingway, which is shared by municipal parking lot, as well as some properties in the area. Mr. Holland highlights the nearby retail amenities in the Square, and he explains that on the upper site currently, there are three buildings. There are two metal garage buildings, and there is a larger concrete block building. There were a number of comments from the Town and residents about potential environmental issues on the site. Prior to purchasing the site, the Applicant had a Phase 2 Environmental Study completed, and the results of that study were that there were no significant environmental issues on the site. Back in 1996 there had been three underground fuel storage tanks. Those were closed out with Mass. DEP at the time. Two of the tanks were closed out and physically removed; there is a third tank that is underneath the concrete block building. That was closed in place. As part of this project, the Applicant would be knocking down that building and that remaining tank would be removed at that time. The lower end of the site has primarily been used for parking for Archbishop Williams. When the Applicant purchased the site, he reached out to Dennis Duggan, the President at Archbishop Williams, and stated that the school can continue to use the lot for parking rent free for now, but they need to make some long-term plans for their parking. Mr. Holland explains that the proposed project is broken into two projects: 1. A Townhouse/ Condominium Project with 8 units; and 2. An Apartment Building with 70 units. There are two changes since applying for Site Eligibility. The first change has to do with the orientation of the townhouses. There were comments that came in about the number of curb cuts along Storrs Avenue. They changed the orientation of the townhouses so all the driveways are now on the 9|Page ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium interior of the site, and the only curb cut is the original curb cut. The second change has to do with the three bedroom requirement. MassHousing requires that 10% of the units are three- bedroom units. Originally at Site Eligibility, the Applicant proposed having all of the three- bedroom units in the townhouses. At Preliminary, MassHousing said that would be okay, but when it got before MassHousing’s full Board, it was determined that both components had to meet the three-bedroom requirement. They had to reprogram the apartment building, and the number of units dropped from 72 to 70 units in the apartments. Now there are 7 three-bedroom units, 29 two-bedroom units, 30 one-bedroom units and 4 studios. Approximately 50% of the units are studios and one bedrooms. There are 81 garage spaces under the building and 49 spaces outside. There is a parking ratio of approximately 1.8. Some amenities include: a gym, a club room, handicap accessible and hearing impaired apartments and on-site management. The front entryway will have a multi- story glass curtain wall. A total of 18 of the 70 units will be affordable. All 8 townhouses are 3 bedrooms/2 bath units. Two of the townhouses are affordable units. Each townhouse has one garage parking space and one outdoor parking space. In addition, there will be 5 guest spaces for this small condominium complex. Each unit will have small amount of outdoor space. There will be high-end finishes within the townhouses. Mr. Holland wants to explain what it means to be an affordable unit. 25% of the units have to be set aside for people who earn 80% or less of the Area Median Income. For a household of one person today, you could earn $62,450 per year and still qualify for this unit; a two-person house- hold can earn $71,400 or less, a three-person household can earn $80,300 or less and a four- person household can earn $89,200 or less. Today in Braintree there are 5500 households that would qualify as earning less than 80% of Area Median Income. In addition, all tenants will be income checked and CORI checked. The Applicant is anticipating market rents for the studios at $1725/month, one-bedrooms at $2,000, and two-bedrooms at $2,500. On the townhouses, two will be sold through a lottery process for $270,000/each. For background information, as of June 2019, the average single-family home price in Braintree was $537,000, and there was only a handful of homes listed below $450,000. At least one of these two units could be set aside for a local preference or a Braintree resident. Mr. Holland provides additional housing information. Elderly population is up 19% over the past 10 years; these apartments with their elevator access to every floor, their handicap accessibility and some that are for hearing impaired are senior-friendly. The Town had commissioned a study a few years ago through Northeastern University; one of the findings in that study was that the average household size had dropped from 3.07 people in 1980 to 2.56 people in 2010. There are less people living under every roof. So, we need more housing options, but smaller options. Even though 18 apartments are affordable, all 70 count under affordable housing inventory because it is a 40B project. That is not the case in other properties. Mr. Holland discusses higher density apartments built in Braintree recently. In Mr. Holland’s many visits to Town Hall over the past several years, he has made a commitment to work with businesses in town to fix the municipal lot including expanding the lot onto his property and giving the Town a permanent parking easement. This included paving, curbing, lighting and fixing the drainage in the lot. It is his hope that he can maintain that commitment, but he understands it is as a result of the whole process. Jim Burke, Professional Engineer, Decelle/Burke/Sala, was hired by the Holland Companies to design a residential development for these three parcels, which end up totaling 2.62 acres in total. The large lot has a ten foot wide drainage easement that has runoff that comes from 10 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Washington Street. The lot that provides parking for the Archbishop Williams football games has no drainage and is mostly impervious broken pavement. Chairman Karll states Storrs Avenue was a very difficult area that flooded. Mr. Burke explains that the Town did significant work to correct that, but it still is an issue. Mr. Burke understands that drainage has always been an issue; the blue squares on the plan represent stormwater control for the parcel. They are recharge cultec chambers. The big unit is 9X11. The soils in the area are B soils. The smaller squares represent 42 cultec chambers and the other one is a 40 cultec chambers. The existing runoff rate will be reduced. Mr. Burke discusses the improvements being made. Chairman Karll and Mr. Burke discuss the 100 Year Storm, and Mr. Burke states it is 8.12 inches. The highest rainfall in this area was just over 7 inches in 1955 hurricane in a 24-hour span. Mr. Burke is pretty happy with how stormwater turned out. He is comfortable with Peer Review. Mr. Burke is willing to work with the neighbors and the Zoning Board. They will be replacing the sewer. Currently it runs along the athletic field. As far as water supply, they will be bringing it up from Storrs Avenue and connecting it onto the main driveway off of Washington Street, providing a looped system. There is an 18 inch drain pipe that runs under the field, and they are not connecting to that at all. As far as the infrastructure goes, there are benefits to this project. Mark Major, PMY Architects, offices are in Newton, resident of East Milton, is the Architect for the project. Mr. Major provides an aerial view looking across the complex from Washington Street. Behind the buildings you can see the football field. Renderings show the relative height of the proposed developments along with local businesses and local housing. Renderings show a “bird’s eye view” around the site. Driveways and main entrances to the Townhouses are within the site. It is a three-story apartment building. Renderings show the atrium. Mr. Major explains that the apartment building is three-stories on top of the basement. This enabled them to push basement parking into the hill to lessen height of the building. There are 81 parking spaces in the basement. Trash will be collected in the basement via a trash chute; there are no exterior trash receptacles. Mr. Major highlights first floor entrance and layout which includes: a large sit- in lobby, two elevators, a club room with a community kitchen, an exterior deck off the top left corner that would overlook the football field, a small fitness center and a conference room. There are 4 types of units: studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom. Mr. Major provides the square footage for each type of unit: Studio: 525 square feet; One-Bedroom: 800 square feet; Two-Bedroom: 1100 square feet. Each apartment has an open kitchen concept with a peninsula. Each unit has its own washer, dryer, hot water heater and heating and cooling system. Chairman Karll asks if it is gas or electric. Mr. Major states at present time it is tankless gas hot water heater, and he explains how it will run through the apartment. Each apartment would have its own condenser on the roof, which will be screened from view. The building is 100% sprinkled, a state-of-the-art fire alarm system, smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors. Since this is an elevator building, 100% of units will be accessible; 2% will have features for hearing impaired, which are additional audio-visual devices. The second and third floor mimic first floor, and have between 22 and 25 units per floor. Mr. Major provides a rendering of a three-unit townhouse building. Each townhouse has a single car garage and space in the driveway for a second car. Chairman Karll asks where the snow will be going in the winter. This will be addressed by Jim Burke, the Engineer, who has a snow storage as part of his site planning and civil engineering. All townhouse plans are on the website. All townhouses have 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. 11 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Jim Burke addresses the snow storage plan. There are areas for snow storage on the property; he will have this information at the next meeting. Mr. Burke understands that there may be a time when there will be more snow then they can contain in their snow storage, and the Holland Companies will have a snow management plan. Attorney Freeman explains that the project speaks to “smart growth” and new planning goals that state agencies and planning experts subscribe to. This is a currently blighted site that will be improved. This will be a transit-oriented and sustainable development with energy efficiencies. Attorney Freeman explains that the point of the statute calls for a balance, which includes an affordable aspect. This concludes the Applicant’s presentation for the first night. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi asks that the Applicant submits a copy of their presentation to the Planning Department for the record. Chairman Karll explains that we will be taking further testimony and questions; however, we are going to take a 5-7 minute break. Chairman Karll calls the meeting back to order. He will take remarks or questions from the audience. He asks that we try to keep them brief and reminds the audience that we will have separate meetings on various topics such as: storm-water, parking and traffic. Sunny Shaw, 17 Storrs Avenue, states that the Applicant has put a lot of time and effort into developing this really nice project; however, she would prefer putting it anywhere else except in Braintree Square. She is not going to address that; she is going to address the fact that the Applicant will be using Storrs Avenue as the access road to bring in Water & Sewer, and her property is directly across the street from this project, which means that the law office will not have any access to its own parking lot or front door while Storrs Avenue is dug up. Storrs Avenue, because of the parking or the way it is configured, cannot take two-way traffic. The Applicant needs to mitigate the effects of construction for the people that live there and work there. Chairman Karll states this is a valid question, and it should be addressed by the Traffic Engineer on the night we discuss traffic. Ms. Shaw would like them to address the fact that the law office will be shut down during the construction and what will the Applicant do to mitigate that. Chairman Karll states this will be discussed at the meeting related to traffic. Member Walker has a question regarding the parking situation for the apartments. He understands that for the townhomes there is a garage space and one outside space. For the rental units, will parking be provided or will it be for a fee? Mr. Holland explains that tenants would likely get one parking space, and they may charge for a second parking space. Mr. Holland states they have not yet vetted that out. Member Walker’s concern is, if you charge for parking and residents don’t purchase parking, where might they park. Member Walker hopes there would be enough parking in the development for everyone. Kelly Moore, resident at 46 Hollis Avenue, has several words that would describe this project and this proceeding. One is valient, which describes the efforts of Town Council and town leadership to prove the fact that we are at our 40B number of 1.5% or Safe Harbor. The efforts that all of you have put into that has been amazing, and he appreciates that. The second word is pitiful for the Applicant’s continued desire to take advantage of the 40B number, which results in taking advantage of the town and its residents. This project is too big for this location. Mr. 12 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Moore states we cannot talk about traffic, but 600 vehicle trips is what this project will bring to Braintree Square. Mr. Moore states that might be an exaggeration, but it is too big. Chuck Kokoros, District 1 Councilor, rises in opposition to this proposed 40B. Councilor Kokoros believes if we look at things like access and egress, if we look at the failing intersection at Storrs Avenue, if we look at waste water, it seems like it’s going to fail. He believes that we have reached the 1.5%. Councilor Kokoros hopes that, when these hearings have concluded, that is when the state comes back, if they do not give us favorable action on our appeal, the Zoning Board will deny this application based on all those different issues. Matt Caderis, 79 Storrs Avenue, appreciates everything the Zoning Board is doing and the way that the meeting has been held. It has been informative for those that aren’t really familiar with the process; he appreciates the explanation. Within the traffic discussion, Mr. Caderis hopes that pedestrian safety does become a topic. We often forget about it, but there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. With a single access and egress, Mr. Caderis is concerned about the number of vehicle trips going into the site. Mr. Caderis has an eight year old and an 11 year old that are really excited that Sprinkles Ice Cream has opened on Washington Street, and watching as they cross Storrs Avenue that has fast cars is a big concern. But his next concern is them crossing the parking structure going into and exiting the site. Mr. Caderis would like attention paid to pedestrian safety. Nina Egan, 99 Storrs Avenue, has a lot of questions, but she hopes that we really pay attention to the water runoff. Storrs Avenue in front of Archbishop Williams field floods every time it rains. It has been addressed a number of times with the Town, recently within the last six months, but that area is again caving in the street itself. Sunny Shaw, 17 Storrs Avenue, has a question about whether we have a bylaw that says we cannot open a street a second time within five years. Storrs Avenue has been dug up; they have replaced the water or sewer pipes in the past year. She believes there is a bylaw that says that cannot be dug up again within a certain amount of time. Chairman Karll states we would have to ask DPW. Ms. Shaw states that is a legitimate concern. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states there is a moratorium on streets when they have been done. She is not aware of the exact time frame, but she can find out. Ms. Shaw’s other comment is related to Mr. Holland’s statement that the town is going to benefit so much from this development. The strain on the Police Department, the Fire Department and the School Department, let alone everything else, will far exceed anything that they are going to be paying. Eleanor North, 86 Parkside Avenue, asks if there is an amenity to try to get people to use public transportation. She agrees with Ms. Egan and Ms. Shaw that the street does flood all the time, and it was dug up not too long ago. Ms. North is not sure how two egresses for a project this large will work. She states that only three cars at a time can get through the light at Storrs Avenue. Melissa Hayes, 156 Hollis Avenue, understands that traffic is going to be discussed at a later date. Her one request is that there be consideration on the residents that are a little further up the hill from the development because with the increased traffic going to Washington Street, people will use Storrs Avenue and the residential neighborhood as a cut through to Granite Avenue, West Street and South Shore Plaza. 13 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Laurie Castignetti, 39 Ray Lane behind Thayer Academy, wants to speak out on behalf of the Town of Braintree. She is disgusted that a Braintree resident would recommend something like this for this Town. She feels this will destroy the character and quaintness of this Town. Ms. Castignetti thinks Mr. Holland should be embarrassed to be here presenting this. Chairman Karll states we do not want a personal attack. Ms. Castignetti feels this development is not in keeping with the character of this Town. Chairman Karll strongly suggests that with a 40B, which is very unique, that you contact your State Representative because if you think Zoning Boards throughout the state like dealing with 40B projects, Chairman Karll explains that the Zoning Boards do not like dealing with 40B projects, and if it can be changed, the only way is through the State. Kathy Mosesso, 99 Colby Road, expresses one of her concerns is pedestrian safety. If they have all those units and cars trying to come out onto Washington Street in the middle of traffic, they will have to pull up onto the sidewalk. She feels this will make it anything but “pedestrian friendly”. Chairman Karll agrees that entrance and exit is very difficult, and line of sight is very difficult with cars pulling out and people walking by. This is a big issues in Chairman Karll’s opinion. Jill Coyle, Parkside Avenue, is opposed to this development; she feel it is way too big for the square. She will hold her comments for another evening. She is also here on behalf of John Haran of Walnut Street and Christine Sullivan of Abbott Street, who are both opposed to the proposal. Chairman Karll asks if there is anyone else wishing to speak. He explains that there will be further hearings dealing with specific topics. He asks that, at those hearings, we keep “on topic”. We will allow everyone to speak. Chairman Karll explains that he doesn’t know any Zoning Board of Appeal that enjoys dealing with 40B projects. They are complex. Usually, the Town’s or City’s people are not in favor for one reason or another. However, we are bound by State Law, and we have to comply with State Law. Chairman Karll thanks everyone for coming and explains that the next meeting will be on September 23, 2019. Member McDonough MOTION to adjourn; seconded by Member Walker; voted 3:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan Planning & Community Development 14 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – August 1, 2019 Cahill Auditorium 15 | P a g e