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 October 23, 2019 IN ATTENDANCE: Stephen Karll, Chair Michael Ford, Member Richard McDonough, Member 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) Deborah Keller, Licensed Civil Engineer, Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors Chairman Karll calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. 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 explains that tonight’s hearing is related to drainage and stormwater. Chairman Karll explains that we will start the meeting hearing from the Petitioner and/or their representative. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 1 Lynne Sweet, LDS Consulting Group, Newton, MA, is joined by the Applicant’s Attorney-Peter Freeman, their client-Paul Holland, Engineer-Jim Burke, and Architect-Mark Major. Ms. Sweet provides a quick update of what they have worked on and submitted since the last meeting, and then she is going to turn it over to Jim Burke to go over the new Site Plan. Ms. Sweet advises that they had a very productive working session that was arranged by Assistant Director SantucciRozzi with the Fire Chief and the Applicant’s Engineer. As a result of that meeting, they have worked on a new Site Plan that provides a little better access for the fire trucks to get to the back of the building. They have submitted a letter from their fire expert through the Assistant Director. They also have provided a response to the Peer Review letter from the town’s Stormwater Peer Consultant. They provided some plans that showed the fire access lands, as well. Jim Burke, Professional Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with Decelle Burke Sala with offices in Quincy, MA, explains that the project locus is 2.62 acres, essentially all of it impervious. What they are proposing is a two-development project (8 condos and 70 apartments) in various size buildings. This project has benefits from a utility perspective, and not only from stormwater, but also water supply and sewer. They are proposing a new sewer for this development and a looped water main, as well. The original submission had a Peer Review, and they asked the Applicant to extend the study to beyond their 2.62 acre parcel. The watershed size is 5.44 acres, and has a significant amount of impervious overland flow from municipal parking lot and some of Washington Street flows into a drain line that they analyzed. Parkingway also flows onto the Applicant’s lot, as well. The current condition of the parcel is that it is an auto-related paved site surrounded by parking lots. Mr. Burke states the flow was divided into three areas: minimal flow to the athletic field; flow to the 18 inch pipe that flows under the athletic field through various existing catch basins; and a lot of it flows directly to Storrs Avenue. The big parking lot with the buildings having frontage on Washington Street hit a berm at the athletic field and slide right behind those conifers on Storrs Avenue and shoot out to the street. Those are the analysis points we are looking at. Mr. Burke highlights the buildings on their lot; the lot is paved and goes to a bunch of catch basins; he points out that behind the big building and in front of the two smaller buildings are a bunch of catch basins that flow into the 18 inch pipe that flows under the athletic field. There was a large area that flows onto the Applicant’s site that they had to analyze. Mr. Burke switches to the Proposed Conditions Plan and explains that they are capturing a significant amount of the flow and bringing it into the system. They are capturing 60% of that 5.44 acres and 40% of it is bypassing. Not only are they handling their 2.62 acres but they are handling the additional offsite impervious flow, as well. Chairman Karll asks what they are going to do with it. Mr. Burke explains they are going to put it into three underground recharge systems. System A, the large one of the crux of the building, has 143 chambers in a 13X11 configuration. They are going to be recharging the 2, 10, 25 and 100 year storms in all these structures, and they will be able to reduce the offsite flow and volume by recharging and containing in these structures. The second one is along the retaining wall; that has 65 chambers in a 13X5 configuration. The last one is over by Storrs Avenue and has 70 chambers in a 7X10 configuration. They have an overflow to Storrs Avenue with a direct connection to that particular system. Chairman Karll asks if they will use what they store for irrigation. Mr. Burke states they are not proposing that, at this time. Chairman Karll asks if they are going to use Town water for irrigation. Mr. Burke states “no”. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 2 Mr. Burke explains that they are proposing two irrigation wells on the property. Chairman Karll explains that the water is high in iron. Mr. Burke states they can certainly look into some tankage. It is an interesting idea. Chairman Karll states, in front of the field and the Temple, there was huge puddles that formed. The Town did something to alleviate the flooding in the area. Mr. Burke has witnessed it and explains the gradient on the bottom of Storrs Avenue is flat as a pancake. Pavement isn’t really designed to go at half percent, so you are going to have spot puddling through that area, and it comes to the double catch basins at the base of it, which constitutes the town’s efforts to correct the flooding in that area. It has helped. Mr. Burke remembers the flooding that occurred before the town made the field improvements. The field was a lot lower and flooded constantly. Mr. Burke advises that what this project will do is reduce the volume, which will be detained on their site for the 100 year storm event. That is significant. There is a benefit for small storm events and large storm events. This particular project takes offline 3.6 acres of impervious runoff, and they detain it, control it and treat it. Mr. Burke states this will make a noticeable benefit to the flooding on Storrs Avenue. The 18 inch pipe that flows through the field currently surcharges at a 10 year storm event – 5 inches of rainfall. They can have a 100 year storm event go through that pipe without being surcharged because they intercept that much impervious area. The only thing that flows into that in the end will be the municipal lot. Mr. Burke advises that they capture and detain anything below that lot. Once everything else is through the system, they will be able to release it to the same system where it will go back to the wetland behind Storrs Avenue. Mr. Burke can provide the numbers, but there is a reduction in both volume and peak flow for each storm event. Member Ford states that he appreciates the three underground recharge stations, but he would like to talk volume. He can visualize it but asks how much water is actually going into those units. Is it by square footage or volume? Mr. Burke explains that for a 25 year storm event, it is System A, which is the large one. That probably captures the most of the offsite flow. It’s about half an acre of impervious area that is not the Applicant’s property and the entire roof that flows into that chamber system. Mr. Burke states he is looking at 7,581 cubic feet, and to get that in gallons you need to multiply by 7.5 squared; Mr. Burke estimates 150,000 gallons. Chairman Karll states that in reality we are getting a lot more rain in the last several years than the 100 year storm (once every 100 years). Chairman Karll asks if the Applicant’s system will handle two or three of those 100 year storms within three or four months. Mr. Burke’s reply is yes because within three or four months the flow would be either recharged into the ground or into the wetlands area. Mr. Burke states, keep in mind, the elevation of this particular lot is significantly higher than where that hydraulic radiant line is for the wetlands. That dictates the flow through the area above Storrs Avenue. Chairman Karll asks if the Applicant did any studies about the water table there. How will you protect the buildings if the water rises during a 100 year storm event? Mr. Burke states they will be doing a ground water mounding study as requested by the Peer Review Engineer. Mr. Burke states he did have a chance to speak with the Peer Review Engineer, and she did provide a number of other suggested improvements with regards to water quality and ongoing maintenance of the system. As far as the nuts and bolts go with this particular system, if you are worried about climate change and the additional runoff that may occur in the future, it is a great reason to put this project online because this system will do nothing but help. Chairman Karll is concerned because climate change is happening. Mr. Burke states this is a benefit to the neighbors with regards to flood storage and stormwater control. Mr. Burke is open for questions, but he would like to go through the plan changes from the original Peer Review. Mr. Burke finds Peer Reviews helpful; they always make the design better. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 3 Mr. Burke advises that there will be further changes; a lot had to do with water quality aspects of the stormwater. These systems have increased in size since the original design to be able to handle the additional offsite flow. There is additional water quality aspects in there for TSS removal, and there are other improvements made with regards to the operation and maintenance plans. Mr. Burke advises that they will be doing some other revisions for fire related issues, as well as traffic. Mr. Burke would like to finalize stormwater issues tonight, as he thinks it is a benefit for the project. Chairman Karll asks the Peer Review Consultant to present. Deborah Keller, Licensed Civil Engineer with Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors out of Hanover, MA, explains that she looked at the original plan set dated February 2017. She had some various comments, and she worked with Mr. Burke to discuss some of them. They were discussing how they could be a little more conservative about getting the treatment prior to the subsurface chambers for drainage knowing that the three chambers or systems are collecting and going to recharge a fair amount of water. She wants to make sure that these systems work for a long period of time, so maintenance is quite important and making sure that sand and sediment doesn’t get into the system and clog it up. Ms. Keller mentions they talked about the chamber system that they are proposing on this site; there is an opportunity to introduce what the cultec manufacturer calls their separator row, which is that they isolate one row out of the system. The system doesn’t get any bigger, but they isolate it and wrap it around with filter fabric and use that as a first flush row of chambers. It helps to contain any sediment that gets into the system into that one row, which is much easier to clean than to clean the whole system, especially when the systems are under parking lots and courtyards where there is high traffic. It would be very difficult or inconvenient to have to get in there and repair them. Ms. Keller thinks that is an easy thing to add to the system, with minimal cost, to provide that extra security for the treatment of those systems. Ms. Keller explains they talked about the watershed catchment area, and she asked to look at how the up gradient surface flow impacted the systems and how that would be addressed. That has been reviewed and looked at in this second round of plan revisions. Ms. Keller did submit a second review letter earlier this week, but nobody has had an opportunity to look at it. Ms. Keller explains that there are still some outstanding comments, more plan cleanup and operation and maintenance adjustments in the O&M Plan, just to identify inspections and procedures for the maintenance and repair, if needed, on these drainage systems. This is to ensure that it is all in the O&M Plan and can be followed through if a condominium or other association will be managing this property. They will need to have that to ensure that those maintenance procedures are followed. Ms. Keller recommends that some additional soil testing be performed in System A, prior to construction. It can be a condition. This is just so they can confirm. There is only one test pit in that location, and it is on the edge of the system. They would like to see another one in the middle or on the northerly side just so they know that they have consistent soil in that area. Ms. Keller believes that could be addressed right before they start construction. Ms. Keller explains that there were some other plan cleanup details. They were looking for ground-water mounding analysis for each of these systems. This would be helpful to see and to ensure the impact of the recharge for these systems and how it would impact the structures. There is a garage level underneath the larger building, and they want to make sure it is not impacted structurally. There is a retaining wall along the athletic field property line, and you want to make sure that they are not impacting that wall structurally, as well as the one that is in Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 4 between the two residential townhome structures. That mounding analysis will be helpful to ensure those systems don’t impact those structures. Chairman Karll asks if Ms. Keller has any information about the water table in that area. Ms. Keller mentions that the Applicant has done multiple soil testing on the site in the lower section or parking lot area. Ms. Keller states that the Applicant did provide the Peer Review with some additional soil testing, which shows what they have determined as the seasonal high ground water table. They have tested within two systems, and they did not observe groundwater where there is any staining of the soil. Ms. Keller explains that staining would determine how high groundwater would come during a spring or a fall flooding season. Ms. Keller has that for the lower portion and explains they did not see any groundwater, which means it is either lower than the test pit that they dug or it’s very good material and you just don’t see the staining. Therefore, Ms. Keller thinks it would be great to get one additional test pit before they start construction there. Ms. Keller is sure the Applicant will have to do some soil investigation for the foundation and the building. She mentions that can be done all at once. The systems, per the stormwater regulations, need to drain within 72 hours. The Applicant has provided calculations showing that all the systems would drain down and be empty within 72 hours. That helps the cycle of storm events; you have three days to get that system empty and available for the next storm event. Chairman Karll asks if there is anyway today that engineers take into consideration climate change. Ms. Keller explains what they do, is to go through a website that takes all of the existing historical data and creates rainfall intensities. If you went in over the past five years, you would see that the numbers keep creeping up. It is a good option for engineers to look at that because you are getting more accurate intensities rather than looking at a printed out rainfall for the United States. You are getting more detailed informa- tion for the location of your project. The study that was performed for this site was within the range of that rainfall data. For instance, the 100 year storm event, instead of using 7 inches for Massachusetts, they are using 8.12 inches. They have already bumped it up a little bit, and Ms. Keller was happy to see that. Ms. Keller advises that the remainder is minor cleanup work that she feels they can take care of in the next round. Chairman Karll opens the discussion to the general public asking them to provide their name and address. Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, states 70 apartments and 8 condominiums and mentions that it said on the form tonight that this meeting is about storm drains, but he really feels that this is not about water, 18 inch pipes, pounds per square inch runoff, or moving a building a few feet so that a fire truck can get through if there is an emergency. The real issue is about a real estate development or real estate speculation. Chairman Karll reminds that tonight’s discussion is just about stormwater and drainage. Mr. Leonard appreciates what Chairman Karll is saying, but he feels strongly about this because he has lived in Braintree for so many years. Chairman Karll mentions that a lot of people do, and there will be other opportunities to discuss the merits of this project. Mr. Leonard states he will be brief; this affects the entire town. The project from his view is too big for where it is going. It is not a benefit. Simply, to approve things like this encourages other developers to do the same thing. Chairman Karll asks if the resident understands that, because it is a 40B project, the Zoning Board’s authority and input is somewhat limited. Mr. Leonard thinks that 40B originally had a noble purpose, which was to protect renters against predatory landlords. Mr. Leonard does not think that 40B was designed to give developers a weapon to use against the people of a town to force them to change their laws to guarantee that a real estate speculation would become a profit- Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 5 able thing. Chairman Karll says he cannot comment on that right now, and he asks what Mr. Leonard has to say about the water. Mr. Leonard states the Applicant’s engineer (Mr. Burke) and the Peer Review Consultant (Ms. Keller) did their research, but that is not the issue. The issue is the effect of the entire project and the approval of this type of project on the Town of Braintree. As a history teacher and a historian he quotes: “We the People”. He states that “We the people do not want this project”. Chairman Karll reminds the audience that we want to keep the discussion on water and drainage because there will be several other hearings. Liz Page, 137 Storrs Avenue, mentions that we heard from some experts, but you need to hear from the people that actually live there and see this all the time, 365 day per year. Anyone that lives in her neighborhood knows that, for the low area on the part of Storrs Avenue right in front of the football field, you don’t even need a 5, 10 or 25 year rain. You just need a good shower, and that is flooded. That, in fact, floods all the basements on Bestick Avenue, onto Howie Road and the little river in that area overflows. They built the pumping station on Common Street, which doesn’t accommodate this. This will end up with this neighborhood in turmoil. This is not going to fit; it doesn’t work. Chairman Karll asks Ms. Page, when the Town tried to fix the problem, did it help. Ms. Page states that it improved it, but it still is nowhere near fixed. Ms. Page states that when there is a good, heavy rain you cannot get down there, and when cars are parked along the side, it will make it worse. Gail Saccone, 33 May Avenue, has a question. She comes from Hingham originally, and she had some issues around sewers, drain-water and when Title 5 came in cesspools. Her question is this information is based on nothing on those fields right now. It is parking lots, an open area and a small building relative to the monster building being proposed. What happens when the founda-tions and the garage are put in? They don’t absorb water. Where does that water go? Those are large buildings, and Ms. Saccone would assume they need a deep foundation. She thinks this is going to affect the absorption rate in that area of acreage. Chairman Karll states they will try to get Ms. Saccone an answer, but his belief is that it will go into catch basins and catch systems. Ms. Saccone states that might be based on what is happening now, but she doesn’t know if the size of the proposed buildings would affect the runoff. Mr. Burke states they have to analyze the current condition and know what the land cover is and analyze what is running off that particular property now. Then, they analyze the proposed condition, with different land coverage, and they have to buffer any increase in flow that is generated by the development. In this particular case, the site is essentially impervious. They, basically, are not increasing the impervious area in a significant manner. So, the runoff from this particular lot ends up being the same. What they are doing is providing underground storage chambers to collect, recharge, detain for larger storm events and allow all the water around it to get ahead of it. It allows for a longer flow time but not at a high rate. It is actually released at a lower rate, so the flooding is compensated for. Ms. Saccone states that answers the question, but she is not sure it’s true. Chairman Karll states the Board doesn’t know if it’s true either, but the engineers are basing this on their expertise and their calculations. Chairman Karll assumes, if the project goes forward, we will see what happens. If it doesn’t work, maybe we can do something about it. Laurie Castignetti, 39 Ray Lane, states that she lived on the corner of Parkside Avenue and Abbott Street for many years and was once told that was the lowest point in the Town of Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 6 Braintree. Mrs. Castignetti mentions that when they first moved in, they weren’t told by their neighbors, and she walked down to the basement to knee-deep water. Mrs. Castignetti knows that there has been some work done there, but she would ask or recommend that some of the people that live down in that area are interviewed to see what kind of water issues they continue to have. It is really disruptive; things are ruined. She understands and respects all the calculations done by the engineers, but there are things that are happening and continue to happen that need to be investigated a little further. Chairman Karll wishes those residents would come to these meetings. John Haran, 141 Walnut Street, states that when they moved to Braintree in 1975, rain frequently flooded Storrs Avenue next to the football field. Ground water from adjacent fields float from the field under the road, creating the flooding. When Archbishop Williams rebuilt the field, they under-took work that addressed the ground water and made the situation better. Mr. Haran’s concern is that this project, with its digging and building and new garage, may aggravate that situation again. Chairman Karll mentions to Mrs. Castignetti that the same thing happened to him, but it was water table coming up through the basement. Kathy Mosesso, 99 Colby Road, directs her question to the individual that did the water study and asks if they took a walk around that area and walk into the woods behind the temple. She states it is like a swamp in there with a very low water table. If you walk through those woods and go over to Staten Road and Bestick, it is all water in there. She feels it is going to get worse with this giant project. Mrs. Mosesso’s other question, which Chairman Karll alluded to, is what happens if it doesn’t work. The Town tried to fix it once, and it still floods. You put the big building there, and it is worse. What can you do then? What recourse do we have? Mr. Burke mentions that you cannot say “it’s definitely going to work” with every project, but he can stand there and say “it’s definitely going to work”, just from a hydraulic grade line in itself. Mr. Burke grew up in Braintree, and he is familiar with the old field. He knows there are wetlands in the back. From a standpoint of what’s there now and the amount of impervious area that runs toward Storrs Avenue, he is not surprised that it is being flooded out from small storm events. When they ran the hydrant test, it flooded out Storrs Avenue. It doesn’t take a lot of water for that particular roadway to flood. There are a number of reasons – the flat gradient being one. It takes a while for the water to get to those catch basins. They can’t really correct that, but what they can do is limit the amount of water that gets there. That is what they are doing. Currently you have 5 ½ acres of impervious area that is dying to get to that low spot. What they are doing is intercepting 60% of that, letting it hang out, recharging it into the ground, getting it out of the town system and then releasing it. Mr. Burke states the science is there, the logic is there and hopefully it’s going to work. Chairman Karll states the question is, if it doesn’t work, can you go in and correct it. Chairman Karll proposes a number of “what if” scenarios. Mr. Burke explains that it is a hard question to answer because it isn’t a “what if”. Mr. Burke explains that there are benefits to this particular project that are real and tangible. Stormwater is one of them. Kate McDonough, 103 Prospect Street North, previously lived on the corner of Cochato Road and Dean Street. Her daughter lives there now. Ms. McDonough states she doesn’t know if the water from Dean Street has been taken into consideration because when it rains the water flies down Dean Street and goes into the area behind the Masonic building. Those sewers are overwhelmed by the water on heavy rainy days. Ms. McDonough mentions that is another source of water that may not have been taken into consideration. Chairman Karll mentions that what he thinks the Applicant takes into account is the runoff from their project and not the runoff Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 7 from the grades of the streets in that area. Ms. McDonough thinks that should be taken into consideration because on heavy rainy days, the sewers on Dean Street and Cochato Road are overwhelmed. Chairman Karll explains the Applicant cannot catch that within their project; the town has to put a bigger catch basin in. Mr. Burke confirmed that this source of water was not taken into consideration. Michael Joyce, 100 Wyman Road, thinks the storm-water for the project is commendable; he realizes this is not a popular position. Mr. Joyce is a Professional Engineer, and he explains that the Applicant could have done a lot less. Mr. Joyce did notice that for the catch basin in the municipal lot, would it be possible to incorporate replacing that or taking out the sediment that is built up in it and making sure the connection to the drain lateral there down to the Storrs field is in good condition. Mr. Joyce thinks that would be beneficial both to the Town and the project because, if the drain line does fail down the road, you don’t want to dig up a new parking area. The second thing Mr. Joyce noted was that there is a catch basin at the end on the west side of the property line, which he assumes will be raised to grade. Mr. Joyce wonders if there is any way there could be an overflow pipe put in that structure to run parallel to the property line to the drain line in Storrs Avenue in case the line downstream failed. It surcharges and goes in the pipe rather than the surface. Mr. Joyce wants to remind everyone, as well, that Mr. Burke is a Professional Engineer. His first responsibility is not to the client but to the public. When he designs the system, he informs the client what is accurate and what is not. It is not the other way around. Mr. Joyce states, as an engineer himself, he often wishes someone would come up and say that for his projects. So, he is putting that out there. Chairman Karll suggests that Mr. Joyce speak with the Peer Review Consultant and thanks Mr. Joyce for his ideas. Deb Keller, Peer Review Consultant, states that one of their comments is to look into that Municipal catch basin because it was identified on the existing conditions as full of sediment, and the only way that it can work is if it is cleaned out. Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, has a question about Archbishop Williams’ field and whether it acts like a giant sponge holding all that water. Mr. Patrick mentions that Mr. Burke discussed the fact that the system would absorb 60%, and Mr. Patrick wonders what happens to the other 40%. His concern would be, if you have a week of rain or 100 year storm or a massive accumulation of water, the field holds water, but what happens to the 60% that is being held. When they release the water, where does it go? Mr. Leonard has lived in Braintree since 1959 and states that you can’t go down Storrs Avenue because of that huge puddle that is there. Mr. Leonard feels that whole area is the bottom of a bowl, and the things that are being proposed are scientifically okay; however, you have other sources (like Dean Street) feeding into the bowl. What happens when you have a massive amount of water? Mr. Leonard’s concern is the accumulation of water. Many of the people at the meeting live at the bottom of that bowl. Jill Coyle, 83 Parkside Avenue, has three comments, concerns or questions. Mrs. Coyle states that the grading bylaw says that no excavations below seasonal height of groundwater table; the proposal says utility installation and foundation work may require localized de-watering. She would like to know if that means you would be pumping that water out. The grading bylaw states areas designed for buildings shall be graded away from the building for a minimum of six feet at 24-to-1; the proposal suggests minimum grading at building at 50-to-1, which is more than double the slope. So, the water will be running faster off the property. The grading bylaw states no cut or fill within 25 feet of a property line; yet, the proposal is going to cut and fill approximately two feet off the property line. Mrs. Coyle would like to know how that would effect. Chairman Karll asks Assistant Director SantucciRozzi if she can answer any of those questions. The Assistant Director can answer some of those questions; she explains that the section Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 8 related to cut and fills, if you read further in that text, allows you to make cuts closer to the property line if you are using retaining walls. The reason that we have that offset is if somebody was going to create a slope or modify a slope adjoining to another property. The Assistant Director is not sure which particular portion of the site Mrs. Coyle is talking about because there are walls in different areas. Mrs. SantucciRozzi mentions that if the resident has a follow-up question to let her know. Mrs. SantucciRozzi explains that she is glad that Mrs. Coyle made the comment about the grades away from the building and the slope on those because she wanted to simplify it a little bit because it gets very technical. Mrs. SantucciRozzi points out that Mr. Burke is a Civil Engineer and Deb Keller, our Peer Review Consultant, who is working on behalf of the Zoning Board and the town making sure that what Mr. Burke says is true, as she reruns those calculations. As the Board can see, Ms. Keller’s comments were significant. Mr. Burke has addressed some of them, and there are still some things to address. Mrs. SantucciRozzi explains that the site now is essentially all paved. The drainage system that exists on the site catch basins, some leaching basins and some pipes. It is essentially a 1950’s drainage system that doesn’t have any of the modern technologies that we would use today for detention (holding the water back), infiltration (infiltrating some of the water into the ground) and water quality (which cleans the storm water before its released back into the ground or the town system). Those components don’t exist on the site now. Mrs. SantucciRozzi uses the Sunrise Assisted Living Development as an example. There was a neigh-borhood adjacent that was taking on significant water. They developed the site. They put in a substantial drainage system, and there are people down at the end of the cul-de-sac on Anderson Road that showed pictures of flooded basements at the public hearing. However, the development has helped that. Mrs. SantucciRozzi says often that a site like this with an old drainage system vs. a state-of-the-art system gets an improvement; she explains that the puddle on Storrs is not really the Applicant’s problem to solve. They just can’t make the puddle any bigger. She provides a reminder that this is not 100% grass; it’s not as if there is nothing on the site now that is contri-buting to runoff. There is a significant amount of runoff. Mrs. SantucciRozzi addresses the questions about the slope; she explains that the whole site is contained with curbing. There is no water that is sheet flowing off the site. There is a significant system of catch basins, a significant system of water quality units, which then get into the infiltration system. With the curbing and the location of the catch basins, high points and low points, it is designed so that the water won’t be running off. You won’t see it coming down the driveway running down to Storrs Avenue, which you might see in some situations. Their responsibility is to contain the site through grading and curbing so that the water is all funneled through the closed system, which is the catch basins and the pipes that lead to these more sophis-ticated systems. The slope issue with grading away from the buildings will not create an issue with runoff. Mrs. SantucciRozzi addresses Mrs. Coyle’s first question related to excavation and de-watering. She explains that the grading bylaw, which regulates grading, is for when you are altering a grade, creating a new grade or changing the elevation. Obviously, we don’t want you to remove soil to the point where you expose the ground water because you won’t have a slope. You will have a situation where you constantly have water, erosion and sedimentation. They might have to create trenches and de-water in that trench for a particular utility, but they are not excavating the site to a permanent condition of the ground water level. To try to get gravity and not interject with other pipes, typically, it is below the groundwater table. In the plans, which are on the website, on the first page there is a series of exhibits of all the test pits and the locations on the plans. People can see exactly where the water is below the pavement. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 9 Mrs. Coyle states that, as a resident, she thinks that her end of Parkside Avenue is probably the lowest point in Braintree. She would like to challenge that 8 inches was the most rain they had at one given time and see what we had in March 2010 because she had a lake in her backyard, which normally is a very dry creek from the dam. Her basement was so flooded that they had to literally bail out to help the pump keep up. She believes that was possibly ten inches or more. Bruce Parks, 23 Milton Road, mentions that the Assistant Director answered his main question regarding impervious surfaces, but he asks about the garage being built, the amount of dirt being taken away and whether it is “net zero” with no more pavement is being added to this project. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi thinks it will be a reduction in impervious coverage, and she is double-checking the plans. Mr. Parks’ other question is currently, if there is a water problem, the water is going somewhere; however, now we are going to try to control where it’s going. Is there any possibility that, for those people today that are not affected by the water, all of a sudden they will be affected because we are changing the flow? Chairman Karll states he doesn’t think that is the intent of what they are doing. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi provides information on impervious coverage related to the two sites. For the apartments (the bigger site), currently that area is at 90% coverage, and it is going to 73.9%. For the condominium portion of the site, currently that area is at 90% coverage, and it is going to 75%. So, that is about 15% less impervious coverage on the site pre vs. post development. Mr. Burke (Engineer for the project) clarifies that they are not changing the hydraulic patterns for the project. The flow water is going in the same location as it does now. Cynthia O’Connell, Stormwater Manager-Town of Braintree, has also reviewed the plans for the proposed project and the Peer Review done by Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors. She is in agreement with all of the comments that Merrill had made. She did also submit to the Zoning Board and the Planning Department a comment letter of her own with a handful of additional clean-up tasks and concerns about particular elements of the Operations and Maintenance Plan. From her standpoint, one of the most important considerations for this project is the ongoing maintenance in the future once the project has been constructed. There is a plan included in the Stormwater Report that gives very specific requirements for when things are to be maintained, how often. What she has seen in practice is that there is often a disconnect between the developer of a project and the people responsible for maintaining that project once it has been constructed. Often you find that there may be a Facilities Manager on the property, and when you send them a reminder letter that they owe you a maintenance log for the preceding year for their Stormwater Management System, you get a phone call saying “what are you talking about? What stormwater management system?”. In areas like this, where what is being proposed is not visible unless you know it’s there, these leaching systems function very well as long as they are maintained. But because they are beneath the pavement, it is not something that you drive by and say “oh, look at that detention basin filling up with sediment”. You can’t see it. Mrs. O’Connell would urge the Zoning Board to add a condition requiring some sort of confirmation that the maintenance that is being recommended by the engineer actually takes place. Chairman Karll asks if there is anything the Town can do with that area by the low point at the Archbishop Williams field and in front of the temple to alleviate it any more. Mrs. O’Connell is not very familiar with that particular problem of flooding, although she is aware that it has been a problem in the past. Mrs. O’Connell would like to have a chance to touch base with Bob Campbell, Town Engineer, and with Ben Hulke, the Highway Superintendent, to find out what has been done in the past and whether they see a solution for that. Mrs. O’Connell doesn’t think it’s something connected with this project that is being proposed. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 10 Deb Keller, Peer Review Consultant, mentions that one of the other comments she had and that the Stormwater Manager also had was that they would like to see the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit when they start construction. That is a great opportunity to review the erosion control during construction, which is sometimes a challenge. Ms. Keller thinks it would be great for the Town to see that permit prior to construction starting. It would be required for any alteration over an acre, which would be what this project would trigger. Ron Walsh, 190 Jefferson Street, mentions that his concern is for the property that abuts this development at 14 Storrs Avenue. Mr. Walsh mentions that a couple of years ago Grace Church, at 14 Storrs Avenue, came before the Zoning Board to get approval for parking at that facility that we share with an insurance company. His concern about stormwater and drainage is not only the water itself, but in the winter time when it freezes. Mr. Walsh asks if that has been considered an issue with the neighbors to the east of that development. Secondly, how will that impact the parking they had to get approval for in order to open that church? Chairman Karll states the developers and their experts and engineers took into consideration the stormwater coming off of their property and how to retain it, direct it, discharge it and filter it into the system. Chairman Karll points out “from their property” and mentions that the developer did not take into consideration the streets above or below. That is not their job. Mr. Walsh asks if it is the state’s job to monitor that. Chairman Karll states it is the town’s job. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains that where Mr. Walsh enters into that curb-cut get to their parking area, you will take a quick left, and all along that between the proposed project and Mr. Walsh’s site is curbing. The Assistant Director touched upon this earlier with Mrs. Coyle’s question. There is a portion of the corner of Mr. Walsh’s site that gets a little lower close to Storrs Avenue, but there is not going to be any way from storm-water runoff to go from this site onto Mr. Walsh’s property. Mr. Walsh asks if there is curbing that might capture some of the water as it freezes. The Assistant Director explains that it is curbed all along the common property boundary, and there are catch basins on the Applicant’s side. She doesn’t believe there are any drainage controls on Mr. Walsh’s property, and she doesn’t under-stand the question about freezing. The Assistant Director clarifies that no runoff from the Applicant’s site will be able to come onto Mr. Walsh’s site. Mr. Walsh is concerned about snow melting in the wintertime and causing ice on his property, but he is more concerned about the parking that was permitted by the Zoning Board before they could open their the church. The Assistant Director clarifies that the new development and the parking area used by Grace Church share a driveway currently and proposed. Chairman Karll confirms that the busy day for Grace Church is Sunday. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi mentions that they will pull the drawing up showing this area, and she explains that the common boundary is curbed, and there are two catch basins on the developer’s side right up against the curb. It looks like the Applicant has adequate protection on that common property boundary. The Peer Review Consultant, Deb Keller, asks if Mr. Walsh is worried about his property freezing and asks if he has issues now and where they are storing snow because that might be where you are seeing that problem. If you are piling up snow and blocking it from draining, with the curb along the property line, Mr. Walsh’s property is going to drain down towards the curb and it needs to run down towards Storrs Avenue. Ms. Keller explains that is being maintained because the Applicant is not proposing any work on Mr. Walsh’s property or the curb cut. Ms. Keller would suspect that, if Mr. Walsh’s property piles snow so that it blocks that flow pattern, this may be where you are seeing flooding. Mr. Walsh states it is a concern for the whole neighborhood and the abutters in particular. Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, mentions that there is 15% less paved area for the proposed project, and the implication is that you get less runoff. Mr. Leonard’s question is, for the 70 apartments and 8 condominiums, where does the water go from the sinks, toilets, Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 11 showers, dishwashers and washing machines? All of that water is being generated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Where does that go? Assistant Director SantucciRozzi and Chairman Karll clarify that it goes into the sewer system. Mr. Leonard states imagine what goes into that sewer system now and add to that this mammoth project. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi clarifies that this water does not go into the drainage system. The stormwater system is a separate system from the sanitary system. Mr. Leonard understands that it is a separate system, but he wonders where all of the water from this large development going into the sanitary system is going to go. Charles Kokoros, District 1 Councilor, references the detention system, and states in the old days it was an exposed detention area, so you could see when there was a problem. He is just not sure that they will have the ability to maintain the current detention system. Mr. Kokoros knows that when the rink was coming before the Planning Board, there was back and forth about the drainage because there was a difference in opinion. Mr. Kokoros doesn’t necessarily agree with the numbers as far as the volume of stormwater. Mr. Kokoros states that would be a deniable item based on this project if those numbers are not accurate. Lastly, in regards to the wastewater system, this system has a thing called infiltration. There are points of infiltration throughout our wastewater system throughout our town. We have been working on it for years. We were under a Consent Order back in the early 2000’s. We have worked to try to fix that. Mr. Kokoros thinks it would be interesting to find out, since we are looking at wastewater that could have infiltration of ground water into it, when we have an increased amount of flow that is being put into the waste-water system, to make sure that there isn’t any infiltration in the areas surrounding this because that exacerbates the infiltration because of the ground water. If you fill that pipe up with more wastewater and there is infiltration coming in from other areas, maybe not necessarily from this particular project, but this project is creating about 110 gallons of wastewater per bedroom. It could create backup situations in other dwellings that surround the area. For example, anywhere where the flow is going towards the gravity feed. Mr. Kokoros thinks we should take into consideration, when we look at the system, to make sure it is the right size and capacity for extreme situations and make sure that they have a system of maintenance in place (as mentioned earlier). Mr. Kokoros looks at some of the town’s storm drains, as he walks around town; it is difficult to keep them maintained. Leaves get on them; sand gets on the leaves. Suddenly you don’t have a drainage system anymore. Mr. Kokoros thinks that the town has invested a lot of money on stormwater management, and we are meeting federal guidelines by doing so. We have to be very strict when we are looking at any project. Mr. Kokoros would like to have Water & Sewer get back to us with regards to the surrounding areas of pipes to see how old they are and if there is any infiltration going on. It would be nice if they did a study to see how it is impacted by increasing the flow of wastewater. Liz Page, 137 Storrs Avenue, asks if snow removal is part of tonight’s discussion. Her question is what are they going to do with the snow that is on the property because there isn’t much extra room. Lynn Sweet states there are locations, she believes, on the site where they are going to temporarily store snow, but the property is going to be professionally managed with onsite management. If there are issues where there needs to be snow removed, they will truck the snow offsite. Chairman Karll summarizes where these hearings are. He states the Applicant has extended their timeframe of 180 days to close the public hearing from November 17 to December 6. Chairman Karll explains that the Zoning Board is under a strict timeframe from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The next hearing will be November 20, 2019. Subsequent hearings after that will be December 2 and December 4. Chairman Karll asks if there are any Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 12 questions on the timeframe and schedule, and he explains that the Zoning Board has to make a decision. Jill Coyle, 83 Parkside Avenue, has a follow-up question from the first meeting, which may have been answered already. Attorney Murray mentioned that their project eligibility had lapsed in February 2019, and Mrs. Coyle doesn’t know if the extension was ever received. Peter Freeman, Attorney for the Applicant, recalls that he was here when that question was originally asked and he had responded to Attorney Murray. Attorney Freeman explains that somebody misread that letter. Standard practice states “you must apply for your Comprehensive Permit within two years of the Project Eligibility Letter”. Attorney Freeman states that was done and there is no need for an extension. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi confirms that we have that in the files. Chairman Karll mentions to the audience that they have the dates of future meetings, and if the audience thinks there are other parties interested, please let them know. It is on cable TV. Again, the dates are November 20, December 2 and December 4 at 7:00 PM. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi mentions that by November 20th we will have the revised Stormwater Plans. Both the Peer Review Consultant, Deb Keller, and the Town’s Stormwater Manager, Cynthia O’Connell, will have looked at those again. We will continue to discuss and work with the Fire Department, as needed. There are some additional revisions for that issue. We have received the October Traffic Update based on additional counts. We will be putting those materials on the website, as well. Mr. Dirk, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer, will be here on November 20th, so we could loop around back to the traffic discussion and try to get some resolution there. We can use the November 20th meeting to address issues and questions that have come up with traffic, access and stormwater. If time permits, the Assistant Director suggests beginning the discussion about the waivers, which are things that are in the local ordinance that the Applicant is saying they are not going to be meeting. They are not bound to meet the local ordinance, given the comprehensive permit application, but those are things that are up for discussion with the Zoning Board. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi will be the one doing the analysis on the waivers. There is also an Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan that is part of the Comprehensive Permit. The Planning Board will not review that plan. It is pretty straight forward. It is essentially creating the condo-minium site and then the apartment site. This can be reviewed and discussed on November 20th. After that, we will be able to get a better idea of what will need to be discussed at future meeting dates. The Assistant Director asks if there is anything the Zoning Board would like her to look at or prepare for the next meeting. Gail Saccone, 33 May Avenue, mentions that at the last meeting we heard from the Deputy Fire Chief, and she is glad that is seriously being addressed. However, we did not hear from the Police Department because someone was sick, but that has become another major concern of hers. In this day, when there are so many shootings, what would happen if there was a gunman in the foyer of this development and there was traffic congestion with no access to the development? Ms. Saccone mentions that it is not just about traffic, it is about access and response time if there is a serious issue, which we cannot say will never happen in Braintree. Chairman Karll states we will send another letter to the Police Department and ask them to respond. Member Ford MOTION to continue the hearings to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on November 20, 2019; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0 (voting: Karll, Ford, McDonough). Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 13 The Board adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes October 23, 2019 14