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 September 23, 2019 IN ATTENDANCE: Stephen Karll, Chair Michael Ford, Member 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 Chairman Karll calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. CONTINUED 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 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 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. 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 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 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 ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium 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 opens the meeting and states that Member Michael Ford has complied with the Mullen Rule, as he did not attend the hearing on August 1, 2019. Sitting on this matter will be Chairman Karll, Member Ford and Member McDonough. Our order of testimony will be form the Applicant, the Peer Review, Deputy Fire Chief Steven Sawtelle and then we will hear from the public. We are limiting this hearing to Traffic. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi clarifies that we have two subsequent hearings scheduled as follows: October 7, 2019 to discuss Drainage; October 23, 2019 to recap any outstanding items. At the October 7, 2019 Meeting, she will have suggestions for additional meeting dates. Chairman Karll asks that, when the audience comes up to speak, they limit their remarks to traffic. Lynne Sweet, LDS Consulting Group of Newton, MA, is the 40B Consultant for the developers. Ms. Sweet explains that we are going to hear from Sean Kelly, Traffic Engineer from Vanasse & Associates, and Jim Burke, the Civil Engineer from Decelle Burke. She is also joined by the proponent, Mr. Holland, and Mark Major, the Architect. Ms. Sweet hands in a copy of the presenta-tion from the Traffic Consultant. Sean Kelly, Traffic Engineer from Vanasse & Associates, begins his presentation. He wants to take a few minutes to walk the audience through their Traffic Study, how it was conducted, what their findings were, what their recommendations are and then he would be happy to answer any questions. Most people are familiar with the project site. It is east of Memorial Field. Storrs Avenue runs east/west to the north of the site. Access is off Storrs Avenue, and there is also access onto Washington Street directly. The Traffic Study they conducted was done in accordance with all state and industry guidelines. The first stage was they went out and collected existing conditions data as they exist today. They did daily counts along Washington Street and Storrs Avenue, and they also did peak period counts. Today, Washington Street carries about 16,000 cars on a typical day. Storrs Avenue carries about 2000 cars. Traffic flows on Washington Street vary between 1200 and 1300 cars per hour. Storrs Avenue is about 170 to 190 cars. These are typical, weekday conditions and not when there are events at the stadium next door. They also looked at motor vehicle crash data to get a handle on whether there were any safety deficiencies within the study area. They looked at the crashes within each location. The intersections they evaluated were Storrs at Abbott (unsignalized intersection), Storrs/Elm/Washington (a signalized location), Parkingway at Washington (unsignalized), and Hollis/Clark/Washington (unsignalized). The time they focused on were weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The reason they drilled down on these periods is because this is when the traffic associated with this project is at its heaviest and also when commuter flows in the area are at their heaviest. They adjusted their counts in a number of ways. They bumped them up to account for growth in traffic over the next seven years. That is the state guidelines for assessments to look seven years into the future. They also contacted Town staff, and a couple of residential projects were identified and they incorporated traffic related to those. They got a snapshot of what traffic would look like seven years into the future independent of the project. As far as the project itself, they used data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This is the 2|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium industry standard and what they are required to use. It is MEPA’s and MassDOT’s required data source. For 80 units of housing, recognizing that we are now proposing 78 units, the ITE data indicates that on a daily basis it will generate about 434 trips (217 in and 217 out). For peak hour flows, there are about 28 vehicles in the morning and 38 in the evening. Mr. Kelly explains that this is the busiest hour of traffic, but not everyone is going to commute during that hour. There will be traffic outside of those peak hours because people commute at different times. Mr. Kelly explains that they looked at the distribution of where this traffic is expected to travel to and from. This was based on two things: U.S. Census data showing where people that live in Braintree work; and existing traffic patterns in the area. They found the bulk of the traffic (60%) they project will be heading north on Washington Street; 20% south on Washington Street; 5- 10% more localized roads in the area. They looked at the impact of levels of service. There are some movements that experience delays – typically the Stop Sign intersections coming into Washington Street. There are delays during peak times because of the heavier commuter flows. The impact of the project is not substantial. To summarize, they prepared this report in consultation with the Town of Braintree and DOT. It was done in accordance with all industry guidelines. They have done a detailed assessment of the traffic volumes, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations to the public transportation services. The project isn’t expected to have a significant impact on delays in queuing vs. what would be out there independent of it. With regard to traffic in the nearby residential neighborhood, this would be Storrs Avenue traveling west, they are projecting the increases are going to be minor to the level of 3 cars per hour during normal peak periods, basically a car every 20 minutes. They do recognize that, when there are games at the field next door, parking and traffic conditions are exacerbated. There is much higher demands than what you typically would see in the area for both parking and traffic. This can be managed through the implementation of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan. They noted no safety deficiencies within the study area. They also looked at sight lines and found that all of the driveways, with some modifications, meet the required sight lines and provide safe access to and from the sight. Mr. Kelly explains that their recommendations are threefold. The first relates to the access to the sight. They are recommending that all site access gets designed in accordance with MUTCD, the national guidelines. Whether it is signage, Stop Signs, painted stop bars, center lines, sight triangles, all of those elements should be incorporated into the access plans – both out to Storrs and Washington. With regard to offsite improvements, they have recommended two main things. The first is at the intersection of Washington Street/Elm Street/Storrs Avenue. Today, there are some long delays, particularly for traffic turning off Elm Street. They have looked at the timing plan, and they are confident that they can make the intersection work better by optimizing the timing, changing the splits, changing the cycle. They have committed to doing that. They have also committed to going out six months after the project is 80% occupied and doing more counts to see how the traffic patterns have changed and, if needed, changing that timing again to optimize it based on what is in the field. They have recommended upgrading the pedestrian infrastructure there (the push button – Walk/Don’t Walk), as it doesn’t meet current design criteria. They are looking at the clearance times for the Walk/Don’t Walk to make sure everything meets current guidelines. Lastly, transportation demand management and promoting the use of transit by residents of the facility. They are looking at the potential of having some electric charging stations onsite and possibly a Zipcar, as well, for residents of the project. That summarizes their Traffic Study. They have received comments from the Town’s consultant and also from Town staff. They had 3|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium prepared responses and can walk through them, but if it makes sense to hear form the Town’s consultant first, that would be fine, as well. Chairman Karll asks if any of the Applicant’s traffic staff actually driven the site or driven the streets during peak and off-peak hours or do they stay there and conduct counts. Mr. Kelly explains that they actually install video cameras, and there is a software that translates that video data. But they always do a field visit to look at how traffic operates. The actual count data is picked up by cameras, and they don’t use technicians now. Chairman Karll suggests that someone should drive the site at 5:00 PM both ways to see what it is like, to see the traffic light at the inter-section of Storrs/Elm/Washington. Chairman Karll explains that, with the traffic light coming up Storrs, maybe one-two cars can get through on a green light. It is a tough intersection. Mr. Kelly’s understanding on the timing of the intersection was to eliminate “cut- through” traffic. Chairman Karll states the “green time” on Storrs Avenue is more than artificially low it is nonexistent. Chairman Karll advises that traffic on game day for Archie’s can be tough. There is also a small synagogue opposite the driveway for the development on Storrs. There may be three or four “high holidays” where traffic and parking are high, especially with those spaces gone on the site next to the field. They will have to park on the street, as there is a very small parking lot next to the synagogue. Every Saturday there is a service there. Something will need to be done to relieve the parking situation. Member Ford states they received a Supplemental Report from Mr. Kelly’s organization today, and Member Ford calls their attention to Table 5. There is a suggestion that we are decreasing the number of units by 2. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi confirms this fact. Member Ford confirms that based on 80 units, there was a trip count of 434 trips per day. We took out two units and lost 34 trips to bring it to 400 trips per day. Member Ford concludes that, based on that calculation, the 400 trips should be 1190 trips per day—the math cannot work both ways. Mr. Kelly believes the issue is that there were multiple Land Use Codes, and when you have a certain number stories in a building, you use one Land Use Code vs. another. Mr. Kelly explains that the comment from the consultant was to use a different Land Use Code for the 8 units vs. the other units. Member Ford concludes that it is slanted in favor of the developer regardless of which one we use; there seems to be something wrong with the math, and Member Ford doesn’t know if that calls into question the whole report. Mr. Kelly explains they used a mid-rise rate for the whole project. Member Ford gets that there were different rates used, but if you use one, it shows 1190 trips, which is what he is focused on, and which is a severe negative impact to not just the neighborhood but to the entire town. Based on the 2000 trips that happen on Storrs Avenue, this would increase that by 50% to 3000 trips, which Member Ford feels is unacceptable. Mr. Kelly welcomes the Peer Review’s comments. Chairman Karll asks if the two units that are being reduced are the townhouses or the apartments. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains that she asked the Applicant to do this. They ran 80 units using one Land Use Code, which was for the midrise. It is actually 70 apartments that are midrise and 8 condominiums that are lowrise. The Assistant Director requested that they rerun the numbers, not knowing if they were going to be higher or lower. What is represented here is the calculation for the apartments in Column 1 and the townhouses in Column 2, with the total in Column 3. The Assistant Director clarifies that the Applicant’s initial report was more conservative than the number she asked them to rerun. The Assistant Director clarifies that the other thing Mr. Kelly did not discuss this evening, which is in the original Transportation Impact Study, is that they are taking no deductions for existing trips. There are existing trips that come on and off the site in the A.M. and P.M. peak; it is currently a contractor’s yard and the guys bring their own vehicles and jump in Holland trucks and pickups 4|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium and leave the site. Regardless of which column. Both the 400 trips and the 434 trips do not represent a deduction for existing trips. The Assistant Director thought that the townhouse units would produce more trips because they are more like a single-family home. This came in today, and the Peer Review Consultant has not gone over these materials, but we will ask them to do that. Chairman Karll mentions that the line-of-sight coming out at Dependable Cleaners is very poor. How does the Applicant intend to improve that? Mr. Kelly recommends having no parking for twenty feet or a car length to improve the line-of-sight. As part of their follow-up work, they have made that recommendation to look at on-street parking and, where necessary, remove a space if needed. Member McDonough concurs with Chairman Karll’s initial comments about having someone drive the site at peak times. Member McDonough was also going to mentions the access and egress on Parkingway. That is an issue. Member McDonough also concurs with the timing on Storrs Avenue. Chairman Karll adds that the intersection at Elm/Storrs/Washington gets blocked many times. Member Ford states eliminating parking would be another burden on small business in that square. Parking is already at a premium, and you are proposing removing parking from an area that, quite frankly, has businesses that have been there for many years. It seems to be another headache for the Town and businesses. Mr. Kelly mentions you can put up a sign, but it becomes an enforcement issue. Chairman Karll mentions that police need to be more pro-active in these areas, especially if this project goes forward. Member McDonough happens to use that municipal parking lot on a daily basis; safety is an issue on the Parkingway. If there is more activity there, the safety is what he would be concerned about. Lynne Sweet apologizes for the late delivery of material but they thought it was important to get it out; she wants to point out that the proponent has committed to going out and doing additional weekday traffic counts in October to pick up actual counts while school is in session. They typically do their counts on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. If there are any particular days where there is a half-day at school, they will look into that. Chairman Karll thinks someone should drive the area. You would get a better flavor than just having a camera and counting. Ms. Sweet states that Jim Burke, the Civil Engineer, is going to come up to discuss changes to the Site Plans and the Site Lines. Jim Burke, Civil Engineer-Decelle Burke Sala, did a quick revision to the Plan, which hasn’t been submitted yet, responding to the Peer Review letters. One of the plans has a revised crimp angle for the ladder aerial fire truck. The information provided by the town actually reduced the radius that Mr. Burke was using. Mr. Burke didn’t have the large ladder truck making the radius inside the large loop. They actually can make that turn with an improved 45 degree angle on the turn radius. Mr. Burke states he will be providing that to staff with a letter itemizing the changes for the record. Member Ford asks about fire access to the rear of the building. Mr. Burke states access is to the front and side; the access to the rear would have to be by foot. Member Ford states that does not work; that is not public safety. Mr. Burke states they will have to figure that out in the near future. Chairman Karll states that is important, especially for people that live in the rear. Mr. Burke mentions that another revision he made was site angles for the access onto Storrs Avenue. Chairman Karll asks if there is an issue with ambulances getting in. Mr. Burke states 5|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium “no”; site distances are sufficient. Ms. Sweet mentions that what they have done on other projects, where there is foot access behind the building, there is plenty of room for them to go back there by foot and with ladders; they have committed to removing the snow in the backs of the buildings. That has worked in other communities. Chairman Karll asks how high the structure is going to be; Ms. Sweet clarifies that it is three stories high, but there is twenty feet between the back of the building and the lot line. Ms. Sweet clarifies that the back of the building is at grade, and the entrances are at grade. It is Mr. Burke’s understanding that a fireman is regulated to walk 250 feet from the fire truck and equipment to protect the property, but they will be looking to improve this situation, as best as they can. Member Ford states that firefighters will do whatever they need to do to protect somebody and help somebody; it doesn’t make the situation right. Mr. Burke understands. Ms. Sweet adds that all of the buildings will be fully-sprinklered, as well. Chairman Karll states that we will hear from our Peer Review Consultant next. Kirsten Braun, Ron Muller & Associates, was reviewing this traffic study. She wants to point out that they did follow MASSDOT guidelines, and it was done professionally. Ms. Braun mentions that there were a few things that stuck out to the Peer Review as “red flags”. The major one, which the Applicant touched on, had to do with sight lines and when the traffic volumes were collected. Their traffic volumes were collected in July, and generally in most studies you want to collect the data when school is in session, especially because you have four schools within a half mile of that site. Ms. Braun states that Vanasse had mentioned that they will be counting new data in October; Ms. Braun feels that will rectify the situation, and you will be able to see where the differences in traffic come from. Ms. Braun states they were really worried about the queuing issues on Washington Street, which she knows is bad today and will get worse in seven years. You do need to be mindful of that as you are doing these studies, to hopefully improve upon a situation when you build a development. With regard to sight distance, there is a big issue on Storrs Avenue. There are the arborvitaes and a big sign for 14 Storrs Avenue for wayfinding for what is in those buildings. Ms. Braun thinks it was suggested in the study that the arborvitaes be removed as well as the sign, which would really help the sight lines. Ms. Braun mentions that on the Site Plan there was proposed to be a wall on the perimeter of the property. That was another big issue for the Peer Review. If you have a wall three-feet high and the road is declining on Storrs Avenue, are you going to be able to see a car approaching up to Washington Street? Ms. Braun believes some of those things have been addressed. She has not had a chance to look at some of the new information that came out today. Besides these issues, the Peer Review was also concerned with the pedestrian connection between the site and Washington Street. On the Site Plan, it looked like the connection ended before the pedestrians were able to safely get to Washington Street. That was a major concern. Those were the major “red flags” that the Peer Review saw; for the rest of the study, Ms. Braun states it looked like Vanasse & Associates covered their bases. Chairman Karll asks if the Peer Review took a look at the intersection of Washington/Storrs/Elm with the traffic signal. Ms. Braun states, when she did the sight distances, she went out after work at 5:30. That was one of the Peer Review’s major issues. They noticed that the ques were terrible. The timing is tough to work with. The congestion out there is definitely an issue. One of the Peer Review concerns was the queuing up on Washington Street northbound backing up to the Parkingway. That might impede on drivers getting into or out of the sight, as that is one of their main access points. One of the Peer Review recommendations was to see if they could do any timing adjustments to help with the ques. Chairman Karll mentions that a police detail might help. Chairman Karll asks if there are any questions for the Peer Reviewer. Chairman Karll 6|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium thanks the Peer Reviewer and mentions that she will hopefully continue to update as information comes in. Deputy Fire Chief Steve Sawtelle states that, as he listened to the presentation, the Fire Department has concerns about traffic volume. Whether it is going to be 434 or 1190, there are concerns about the number of points of entry that enter that sight currently. Chief Sawtelle thinks it is unfair to restrict parking for existing commercial businesses, where they have to give up parking in front of their establishments to allow for this project. From a fire standpoint, when it was a commercial property, the volume of traffic coming out of the Parkingway was very limited. You were there for one purpose and one purpose only. All of the conditions that the Applicant sites are unresolved conditions. They haven’t allowed for snow removal and restricted width of street because of accumulated snow. As far as response from the Fire Department, that is their main thoroughfare going to Independence Manor, which has senior housing, Archbishop Williams High School, Loretta, Robert and Common Streets, Stedman Avenue. The size and scope of the project is what concerns the Fire Department. Deputy Chief Sawtelle asks if he can address his concerns about access to the property for fire ground operations. Chairman Karll wants to hear all of Deputy Chief Sawtelle’s concerns. As Chief Sawtelle looked at the graphic that the Applicant showed with fire apparatus, they were shown coming up Storrs Avenue. Chief Sawtelle points out that they are not going to respond to this property by going around the property and coming up Storrs Avenue. They are going to come from the south, from headquarters, and make the left-hand turn into the Parkingway. Chairman Karll asks Chief Sawtelle if they can make that turn with large apparatus. On Parkingway, they can roughly make that turn in. Deputy Chief Sawtelle mentions that, from the front door of the proposed building to the handicap parking spot, it is approximately 90 feet. If they come with aerial apparatus and enter through the Parkingway and stop in the entrance way to the circle out front, that puts them 90 feet away from the building and takes the aerial out of reach. The front of the building is Side A and you go counter-clockwise around the building. The rear of the building is Side C. Deputy Chief Sawtelle reads from his presentation. They do not have access to Side B (the side of the building) or Side C (the rear of the building). Deputy Chief Sawtelle is not sure how their concerns can be addressed. Chairman Karll asks Deputy Chief Sawtelle how they would get to the backside of the building; would they use ladders. They would use ground ladders; they are not going to get a piece of apparatus in a 20 foot area. If you are a resident on the backside of the building, how does the Fire Department facilitate a rescue? Chairman Karll asks the Deputy Chief if it is fair to say he is not happy with the way this is situated. The Deputy Chief is very concerned about Fire Department access. The Deputy Chief explains that you can show the traffic driving through, but they do more than drive through. They have to work, and they may have to deploy the apparatus and hose lines. Chairman Karll states we have a serious fire issue. Deputy Chief Sawtelle states he has concerns about the size and scope of the project. Member Ford noticed that the traffic pattern through that circle is really just for an ambulance and not a fire apparatus. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi points out that the revised version has the engine on it. Deputy Chief Sawtelle explains that they wouldn’t be able to access the back. You cannot go onto Archbishop Williams field, as it wouldn’t support their apparatus. The topography of the land is below, so you lose your reach. There is a concession stand back there that would block access. It is against the code. Chairman Karll hopes that we will get some revised plans to meet the concerns of the Deputy Chief, and the Zoning Board would appreciate a review. Ms. Sweet asks if it would be acceptable for their architect to come up and talk about the Fire Suppression System in the building that might address some of the concerns that were just raised. Chairman Karll thinks a Fire Suppression System is wonderful, but if the Fire 7|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Department is going to be called and has to get in there, the concerns the Deputy Chief made are real. Chairman Karll states the Zoning Board knows you have to have a Fire Suppression System. That is the Building Code. Mark Major, Project Architect from VMY Architects, states the building will be built to code with an automatic fire sprinkler system. It is a wood building; it is three-stories of wood sitting on a concrete garage. The concrete garage is set into the hill. On the back-side of the building, the side that faces the football field, it is a three-story building. To get to the third floor window, it is about 22 feet from grade. The Fire Suppression System will be an automatic sprinkler in every space in the building no matter what size the room is. Every space in the building will have a wet sprinkler head. All the space between the ceiling and the next floor above will have a sprinkler head. Any fire in a concealed space will be addressed by a sprinkler head. All the apartments are constructed as their own individual compartment, which means that there is a one-hour fire-rated petition around all four sides of every apartment. This petition goes from the floor of that apartment through the floor ceiling assembly to the floor for the next apartment. If there is a fire within that unit, the building is designed so that the fire will remain within that individual unit. Within the apartment building, there are three egress stairways that exit to the outside. The fire-rating around each stairway is walls of two-hour protected construction. The corridors are all one-hour construction. Also, there is a state-of-the-art fire alarm system. There will be smoke detectors in each unit in the living rooms and in the bedrooms. These smoke detectors will activate the building’s fire alarm system. The people are notified well in advance of any actual fire so that they can exit the building through the egress stairs. Chairman Karll appreciates the safety that the building is built with, but if someone has a fire in their unit, they are not going to say they have two hours to wait. They are going to want to see the Fire Department there. The Fire Department has to get there safely so that they can get in and do what they have to do. Chairman Karll understands that the building is being built to code, which is what you are supposed to do, and the Holland Construction Company has a good reputation for building of this sort. Chairman Karll points out that the Zoning Board is dealing with the site, traffic, drainage and all the other elements that go into a project of this size. Mr. Major states that they are designing the building so that the people are out of the building before the fire gets out of hand. Member Ford states that people may be out of the building, but firefighters will be rushing in. That is where public safety is a concern. Member Walker states that over the past couple of years there have been several of the wood- structure buildings that have gone up in flames. One, in particular, in Dorchester was built to code also. Member Walker thinks you need to do a little better than say it “was built to code”. In the Dorchester fire, the building was finished, and they were doing a test of the generator and the exhaust pipe ignited the building. That was built to code; things happen; fires happen regardless of being built to code. Member Walker wants to make sure the firefighters and residents are safe. Mr. Major explains that for that particular fire there was a mistake in the construction that allowed that exhaust pipe to catch the building on fire. The building was unoccupied at the time; the sprinkler system was turned off and not active at the time. That building was not a safe building. Member Walker states it burned for two days. Member McDonough really appreciates the concerns of the Deputy Fire Chief. Member McDonough states we are back to where we began with traffic, access, egress for the building 8|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium and public safety. This is something that has to be resolved. Engineer Jim Burke listened to Deputy Chief Sawtelle’s concerns, and the plan that he had prepared had more difficult turn radiuses shown. He didn’t bother with the left turns because the left turns coming into that site are easily negotiable. Mr. Burke will make the time to sit down with the Deputy Chief to discuss the access that is proposed for the doorways and the front of the building, and we will work to get the perimeter solved, as well. Ms. Sweet wants to mention that the building is going to be professionally managed; there should be onsite management at all times that should help with policing roadways and keeping walkways cleared. Chairman Karll is assuming that we will have questions from the audience, and he asks that someone take the questions down so that we can answer them. Chairman Karll opens discussion to questions from the general public. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi suggests that people state their name and address for the record. Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, appreciates the opportunity to participate tonight. Mr. Leonard has not counted cars at Storrs Avenue, but he has probably been counted. Mr. Leonard thinks the following streets could change from quiet residential to streets with a significantly increased volume of traffic if this project takes place the way it is envisioned. Mr. Leonard thinks that it would affect Abbott Street, Parkside Avenue, Cochato Road, Dean Street, Oak Street, Windermere Circle, Walnut Street, Parkside Circle, Gale Avenue, Rita Road, Hollis Avenue, Monatiquot Street, Ash Street, May Street, Maple Street and possibly Mount Vernon Street, Tremont Street and Hollingsworth Avenue and the safety of the people who live on those streets. Mr. Leonard bases this on what he perceives as one simple fact. Everyone from Braintree has tried to go up Storrs Avenue; Mr. Leonard suggests panning the audience to see how many neighbors are here tonight. If you are the third car in line, and the first car is not watching the ballgame, then you’re not going to get out on that try. Mr. Leonard has advised many people to not go up Storrs Avenue in the winter. Mr. Leonard appreciates Chairman Karll’s suggestion to drive the site. Mr. Leonard respects the research done by the development company, but he has driven those streets since he got his license in 1967, and he knows what a challenge it can be. Mr. Leonard bases the fact that these streets are going to be affected is because drivers who find themselves on a road which is heavily travelled or with frequent delays, and the people who will occupy this new building will be new people to Braintree, they are going to go another way. They are not going to go up Storrs Avenue to Washington Street; they are going to go left and cut through neighborhood streets. They will come to realize they need to choose an alternate route, and the other way could be one of these street, which new residents may choose to use on a regular basis. This decision does not just affect the neighbors; in Braintree we are all neighbors. We are one town; we are one group of people. This is our town. It concerns us all and the safety of us all. Chairman Karll agrees with Mr. Leonard and states that traffic has changed dramatically, and he refers to the Traffic Calming Committee. Christine Sullivan, 10 Abbott Street, is two houses in from Storrs Avenue, and the traffic reports that the applicant spoke of, once she heard they did them in July, the numbers made sense. Ms. Sullivan expresses that the numbers are way off from what they know they have as traffic right now. Her concern is whether anyone is thinking about doing “Do Not Enter” on certain side streets off of Storrs Avenue so that they are forced to go through the main thoroughfare and not come down through the neighborhood. Ms. Sullivan also has two granddaughters that live across the street from her on Abbott Street, who walk and stay on Storrs Avenue for the bus 9|Page ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium stops. They are not talking about that, and it is a big safety concern. It is one of her major concerns. Member Ford suggests a “Right Turn Only” out of the project site onto Storrs Avenue and keep traffic out of the neighborhoods all together. Member Ford does think that creates its own problems, which is dumping more traffic onto Washington Street. It probably creates a public safety concern for the Police Department. Member Ford is not sure if that is viable, but it is some-thing to look at. Christine Sullivan states that a lot of the streets in Quincy are like that, and she doesn’t see any problem with it. It’s generally just marked for the rush hour time frame. Everyone knows that the light from Storrs Avenue to Washington Street has been messed up for at least a decade, and she doesn’t understand why the Town hasn’t changed the timing on the lights. Ms. Sullivan states not driving through or depending upon a camera to take care of this doesn’t make sense. Chairman Karll mentions that we were going to hear from Braintree Police Department tonight; however, the speaker from the Police Department is sick, so hopefully we can get him hear on another evening. Chairman Karll states they would like to hear from the Police Department regarding traffic and the proposal that Member Ford has made. Jill Coyle, 83 Parkside Avenue, has some concerns and questions on the Peer Review. She personally thinks that it is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. One of the greatest reasons is that it was done in July, so she is glad that the Traffic Analysis Team will be re-doing it in October. She would also like to ask for them to do it at Braintree’s peak hours of 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM and not their peak hours of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. With regards to the intersection and queuing issues, she notes that they did say they could mitigate the timing cycle and then check that in six months. She would like to strongly suggest, just in case this should get passed, that you ask for the mitigation plan prior to issuing the comprehensive permit because they may suggest some-thing that we know is not going to work. With regard to sight lines, she doesn’t think any small business should suffer the consequences of losing parking for 20 feet because someone else is doing something to make a profit. At the very least, you should require the Applicant to increase the town parking, from the Applicant’s land, by the amount of spaces they are taking off of the street. With regard to the arborvitae, we are losing green space and open space, and she would strongly recommend that we make up for it someplace else. Mrs. Coyle states that this is only from the Peer Review she got at Town Hall today, so she is not really sure about the retaining wall they are talking about; she is assuming this is a brand new one and not the one that is in front of Archbishop Williams currently. The driving aisles were recommended at 23 feet; our bylaw is 24 feet. Mrs. Coyle would like to see us get back to the standard 24 feet. Our bylaw also recommends 2 spaces per unit; the ITE use code that the Applicant used was for dense multi-use “urban environment”, and therefore, it was only one space per unit. Mrs. Coyle’s opinion is that the majority of these codes are formulated based on where they are used the most, which to her would be a city near a transportation center. Braintree is a suburb; this is a large development for Braintree, but it doesn’t mean we are going to fit that urban profile of one car or one trip per house-hold. Mrs. Coyle believes that also carries through with how the Applicant uses the ITE Land Use Code for identifying peak hour trips. Three to ten floors is not what this is; it is the top end of the 1-2 floor. Mrs. Coyle states, ironically, the more floors you get, the fewer trips the law states; so, again she goes back to is it because all of those classifications are based on true urban living. Mrs. Coyle states that anyone that walks that square takes their life in the hands right now. There are driveways between very tight buildings. If you are pulling out in a car, before you know it there is someone walking in front of your car. Mrs. Coyle can’t even imagine what this 10 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium development would do. Mrs. Coyle sees a recommendation for a Stop Sign, which she thinks would make it worse because where would you put the Stop Sign. You cannot put it on the Washington Street curb because cars would block the sidewalk; you cannot put it further back because then you are not up far enough to see past the buildings to get onto the street. Mrs. Coyle thanks Deputy Chief Sawtelle for pointing out how many potential very scary safety issues there could be if the Fire Department cannot do their job and access the building all around to save lives. Liz Page, 137 Storrs Avenue, agrees with Member Ford with the requirement for a “Right Turn Only” out of the development’s access onto Storrs Avenue should be enforced and let the development deal with the consequences there. By the alignment of these streets at the intersection of Storrs Avenue, Washington Street and Elm Street, they are not truly aligned perfectly straight from each other. So, it doesn’t lend itself to be fixed simply by the timing of the lights. Chairman Karll agrees. Ms. Page states that is why we have had this ongoing problem for so many years. Whatever comes from this project, the residents are going to be living with. It is not going to go away. Ms. Page has a couple of questions and some comments. Ms. Page thinks it’s terrible that this business thinks they can simply take away parking from existing small businesses. What makes their project more important than all of these other businesses which struggle to survive in our square? Ms. Page asks if the development parking lot is connected to the municipal town parking lot or is it separated by any type of wall. Chairman Karll states we will get that answer. Ms. Page sees a huge issue when you create the road from Parkingway down onto Storrs Avenue, you are creating a thoroughfare or a bypass of the light at the top of Storrs Avenue. That will create a huge cut-through. Nobody is addressing this, and she sees this as a huge problem. It is something that truly needs to be addressed because it will be a reality. Ms. Page thinks that the public safety issues that have been raised tonight are paramount and cannot be ignored. Gail Saccone, 33 May Avenue, which is on the corner of Hollis, and is actually 4 houses down from Washington Street across from Hollis School, states this is the first time she has been driven to speak at a meeting. Her concern, as the mother of a Lieutenant on the Fire Department, is that she has counted 30 stopped cars between 3:30 PM and 6:00 PM from West Street back in front of the small businesses in the Square. Ms. Saccone’s question is if a fire apparatus or ambulance needs to get through at this high traffic time, where are the cars going to go. She also doesn’t think it is possible for a fire apparatus to make the turn between Dependable Cleaners and the dental office. Ms. Saccone feels the building would burn down before you could get any kind of fire apparatus to the building. Ms. Saccone comments that crossing on Washington Street to go to the convenience store is dangerous. Ms. Saccone follows up on comments made by Ms. Page about the municipal parking lot. Ms. Saccone feels that 1.83 spaces for the development are not enough and residents or guests may park in the municipal lot. Ms.Saccone also comments on dump trucks parked overnight in the municipal parking lot. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi asks a follow-up question related to the dump trucks. Were the dump trucks parked in the back corner of that lot? That is confirmed by Ms. Saccone, and the Assistant Director states she saw those also and they had New Hampshire plates on them. There is discussion about policing those areas. Julia Flaherty, 11 McCue Drive, and Candidate for District 1 Councilor, has been knocking on doors for the past couple of months in this area. There are a lot of people here at the meeting, but they are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of their feeling on this project. Ms. Flaherty states that when knocking on doors and meeting residents, more than 90% of the time their concerns are related to congestion, or the 40B project. Some of residents’ concerns are about contending with traffic. Elderly residents want to continue driving but traffic congestion and sight lines are a 11 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium concern. Working people wonder how long they can continue living in Braintree because their commutes are getting longer and longer. Parents are frustrated because they need to get their children to activities in town that are difficult to get to. There is concern in the Storrs Avenue neigh-borhood about parking on game days. One family told Ms. Flaherty that they were planning to move because they anticipated this project getting built. Ms. Flaherty has talked to 100’s of people, and they are very nervous about this project. They have deep concerns about the impact it will have on their quality of life, and they deserve to have that feeling shared at this Zoning Board Meeting. Chairman Karll kindly invites those people to come to those hearings so that they can voice their opinion; he thinks they should. Quite honestly, the Zoning Board is concerned with this project, but they have to deal with the 40B Law. Chairman Karll invites people to look up the General Law for 40B. Kelly Moore, 46 Hollis Avenue, is waiting for someone, the Applicant or a resident who may mistakenly be in favor of this project, to come up with one favorable reason for this project to be approved. Mr. Moore states this project will definitively and detrimentally affect the nature of Braintree Square. One example, he appreciates the Deputy Fire Chief sharing some facts which actually should create the mindset that this project is DOA. How will emergency vehicles have access to Storrs Avenue because there are going to be so many cars parked on Storrs Avenue? Mr. Moore appreciates Member Ford’s recommendation for a “Right Turn Only” onto Storrs Avenue. Obviously, the light cycle will have to be changed to accommodate that traffic. Mr. Moore mentions that a previous speaker discussed the “cut through” aspect of this; he thinks that would solve that. Mr. Moore has a solution for the applicant that would solve all these problems; he suggests the Applicant come in with an application that fits within the parameters of our existing Zoning Bylaws today. Kathy Mosesso, 99 Colby Road, has a couple of questions related to peak traffic hours PM; she asks how many cars are going north and south on Washington. The Applicant responds, North- bound in the evening at the intersection of Storrs Avenue is about 520 cars; southbound 620 go south and 60 turn onto Storrs Avenue. Mrs. Mosesso did a traffic study last Friday night; she came up Storrs Avenue. There was a backup because of a car trying to take a left behind the businesses where no cars would let it through. Her concern is that any cars coming down Storrs to take a left into the development will not be able to cut through the traffic backed up on Storrs. Her other concern is with fire safety. She refers to a big apartment fire that happened recently in Fitchburg where a man blew himself up, sprinklers did not stop that. Mrs. Mosesso parked in front of Dunkin Donuts from 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM; there was traffic backed up in both directions. She has pictures on her IPad. She was surprised by how many people crossed from the convenience store to the Dunkin Donuts side. About six people crossed in 30 minutes, which backed up traffic more when cars stopped for pedestrians. For sight lines, there were about ten cars coming out of the parking lot that stopped on the sidewalk because of lack of visibility and blocked the sidewalk so that pedestrians had to go around the car. Her other concern is with Archbishop Williams Field as there is track, soccer, lacrosse and football. Once that parking lot is taken up, cars will be parked all over the place on game days and practice days. Mrs. Mosesso refers to the statement where the Applicant said six months after the project they will come back and see if the traffic isn’t working and they will change it. Mrs. Mosesso wonders what if it can’t be fixed, you cannot take the buildings down. Mrs. Mosesso offers to provide pictures of her 30 minute, Friday evening traffic study, which showed terrible traffic. Ed McGowan, 87 Cochato Road (the corner of Storrs and Cochato), is very familiar with the traffic problems. His one solution is to cut through the development and exit onto Washington to reduce the back-up on Storrs Avenue. That would be one of the benefits of the project, but only for those going right onto Washington. Mr. McGowan feels there will be increased traffic for 12 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium those heading to the mall and cutting through neighborhood streets. Mr. McGowan feels that, due to the number of parking spaces allotted to the development, there will be an overflow of parking in the municipal lot and onto the side streets. Mr. McGowan discusses the 100 parking spaces that will disappear for Archbishop Williams’ field, and he notes that today there was a soccer game (middle of the week) and there were 90 cars and a school bus in the middle of the parking lot. Where are those 90 cars going to go? Storrs Avenue, Abbot Street, Cochato Road and maybe all the way up to Oak Street. That is a huge loss, and Mr. McGowan hasn’t heard of any plan to deal with that. Chairman Karll asks that the question asked by the resident, Liz Page, earlier be answered by the Applicant. Liz Page reminds the audience of her question related to whether the development parking lot is connected to the municipal parking lot. Is there any way that it is separated because, she agrees, she thinks their residents are going to be parking in the municipal parking lot even if there is a wall. She feels that we are “kidding ourselves” if we don’t think that is going to happen, and once again it will be the residents and the businesses that will suffer because of this. Lynn Sweet states that, when the proponent had conversations with the Town for several years before they filed this project, much of that discussion was shaped around the developer re-doing the town parking lot and regrading it, restriping it and providing a lot of parking spaces at their cost. Obviously, those discussions did not lead to an agreement for a project. That is not a part of the proposal before the Board today. There is no access from the new development to the municipal parking lot. Ms. Sweet states nothing is “off the table” today. There may be ways that the developer can help enhance the parking in the municipal parking lot at some point down the road. Ms. Sweet also thinks that perhaps parking spaces need to be removed from Washington Street was an incorrect one. There are no parking space on either side of the entrance. It has to do with a policing issue; there are no parking spaces being taken away on Washington Street. Chairman Karll reiterates the question, which was will there be anything separating the municipal lot from the development. Ms. Sweet answers that there is a retaining wall that separates the new drive from the municipal parking lot. Chairman Karll asks if that is the developer’s retaining wall and how high is it going to be. Ms. Sweet confirms it is the developer’s retaining wall. Jim Burke, Civil Engineer, states it is probably about six feet made of granite block. Chairman Karll asks how we can keep the tenants of the development from using the municipal lot. Mr. Burke states they were hoping that the 1.86 parking ratio was sufficient for the use. Ms. Sweet reminds that the property is going to be professionally managed. The residents will be assigned parking spaces. As far as Ms. Sweet knows, there is no overnight parking in the municipal lot outside of some other residents which may have agreements with the municipality. All of the residents of the development will be assigned parking spots; they will be paying for extra parking spots. If they are parking overnight in the municipal lot, like anyone else, you need to tow them. Ms. Sweet feels it is more about professional on-site management on their property as well as working with the municipality to make sure that everybody understands the rules and regulations. Chairman Karll states that they will make sure the Police Department knows that they can tow those cars overnight. Patrick Leonard, 27 Parkside Circle, mentions that Ms. Sweet said all of the tenants will have assigned parking spaces. Mr. Leonard asks how many parking spaces there will be because that will tell them how many cars will be in there. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi believes there are 149 parking spaces all together. Ms. Sweet mentions that there are visitor parking spaces marked for both the apartments and the condominiums. 13 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Nina Egan, 99 Storrs Avenue, gets clarification on whether tenants are paying for parking. Chairman Karll clarifies that if they rent they will get one space free, and if you want a second space you need to pay for it. Ms. Sweet confirms that is the current plan, and the idea is to actually discourage people from having more cars and penalize them by asking them to pay for a second car. Ms. Sweet notes that there was a mention about the electric charging station. Typically, these days, the entire parking lot is wired because the hope is that in the future it’s going to go to all electric. Part of the plan is to encourage people to have less cars, but also to give them other options. Gail Saccone, 33 May Ave., is getting back to the sight lines off Parkingway. There are currently provided parking spaces in front of Dependable Cleaners. There are most often customers parked along Parkingway Avenue. If they were parked there, and a fire truck tried to get in, we are back to where is the fire truck going to go. There is not a parking space in front of the dentist office because that is a bus stop. If you have a bus there to pick up passengers, they are going to be in the sight line. The other thing about the municipal parking spaces, if it is made nicer, it doesn’t mean people aren’t going to park there. Ms. Saccone discusses what is happening at the Landing. There are supposed to be municipal parking spots behind the development, but what she is reading is that the residents are parking there rather than pay for the extra space. Therefore, the businesses in the Landing are losing customers because the municipal spots in the Landing are not available. Ms. Saccone understands that it is a policing issue, but how tempting to have a municipal parking lot adjacent to this super-sized complex. Ms. Saccone’s question is why it can’t be 40 or 50 apartments rather than 78, something that would fit better and be safer. She doesn’t know why it has to be that big, except for money. Kelly Moore, 46 Hollis Avenue, wanted to clarify one item regarding the fire apparatus and the rear of the building. It is his understanding that not just the access but the actual space in the rear of the building has to accommodate the largest piece of fire apparatus the Fire Department has. Deputy Chief Sawtelle states there is a difference between being able to access the property and being able to deploy the apparatus. NFPA has access roads of 20 feet wide. If you have a 20 foot wide access road, you can traverse that road, but when you have to put your outriggers out, you have to be away from the building and have a climbing angle. Chairman Karll asks if there is water access in the rear of the building. Deputy Chief Sawtelle hasn’t seen any hydrant location plans yet. As currently laid out, they would be hand-laying hose lines to get to the back of the building. You might be using portable water devices at that point; you wouldn’t be using a ladder pipe from the aerial apparatus. Mr. Moore asks what would be an allowable or proper width. Deputy Chief Sawtelle states, to safely be able to do it, you would need anywhere from 35 feet to 40 feet to be able to get the apparatus away from the building and get a safe climbing angle. The other part is that, once you deploy the apparatus, you want to be able to either go off the front of the apparatus or the back of the apparatus. You don’t want to go off perpendicular because then you put all your stress on your jacks. That is when you have more risk of failure of the apparatus, collapse, tip-over. Chairman Karll mentions that our next hearing will be on stormwater. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states they will continue coordination of the follow-up comments from the Applicant team with our Peer Review Consultant. As materials become available from follow-up comments, they will be circulated to Zoning Board Members. We might not be talking about those again until we get through the site and drainage comments at the next meeting. Chairman Karll makes a statement related to the Town Council Candidate, and he urges residents to come to meetings to make their own comments. 14 | P a g e ZBA Meeting – September 23, 2019 Cahill Auditorium Member Ford goes back to comments on public safety and impacts of traffic. Traffic, per se, is something the Zoning Board cannot really look at when talking about this project directly; however, public safety is, and the impacts of traffic on public safety is something he would like the Fire Department and Police Department to look at as it relates to response times. Chairman Karll states the next meeting on drainage and stormwater is set for October 7, 2019. Member Ford MOTION to adjourn; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan, Planning & Community Development 15 | P a g e