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 November 20, 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) 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 there are two separate petitions: one is for the 70-unit apartments and one is for the 8-unit Townhouse Style Residential Project. Chairman Karll explains that tonight we will hear from the Applicant’s Traffic Consultant, Jeff Dirk, the Zoning Board’s Peer Review Consultant, Ron Mueller, Braintree Police Department, Lieutenant Robert Joseph, and there will be comments from the Zoning Board and the public. The second part of the meeting will be related to fire access. We will hear from the Applicant, the Braintree Fire Department, Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 1 Deputy Chief Sawtelle, the Zoning Board and the public. Then we will hear from Attorney Carolyn Murray and the Assistant Director on any follow-up that may be needed. The third topic will be the 40B Waivers for the 70-unit Rental Project. Attorney Carolyn Murray will introduce the waivers that are requested. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi will give the overview of the Staff Report. Then there may be Board dialogue, Applicant’s input and then we will hear from the public. Chairman Karll explains that there is another meeting scheduled for December 2, 2019. The topics of this meeting will be basically an outline of everything we have discussed: stormwater, fire access, waivers for both projects, landscaping/lighting and whether or not there will be any further hearings regarding this matter. Chairman Karll would also like to mention that we used the Mullin Rule for Member Gary Walker. For the record, Member Walker complied with the Mullin Rule for the October 23, 2019 Meeting. Chairman Karll states that we will start with traffic. Attorney Peter Freeman, representing the Applicant, states that Mr. Dirk, Traffic Engineer, is ready; however, Attorney Freeman states that they may have not anticipated a full presentation as there has been back and forth with the Peer Review. Jeffrey Dirk, Partner with Vanasse & Associates, who are the Traffic Engineers/Transportation Consultants for the project, explains that they made a full transportation presentation at the last public hearing. He would be happy to go through any aspects of the full traffic presentation. What they were asked to do since the last hearing, and not dwell on a lot of the prior presentation, was to look at some updated traffic counts. There were two separate Transportation Impact Assessment Studies prepared for the project. One was prior to the hearings being suspended; it was two years old at the time the applicant would have started the hearing process. The concern with that is traffic counts that are more than two years old are generally not valid. So, they are required to go back out and do updated traffic counts that validate the traffic counts that are more than two years old. Mr. Dirk explains they did updated traffic counts, but the unfortunate thing was the counts were done during the summer time in order to make the submission. As the location is near Thayer Academy, doing traffic counts in the summer time has the impact of not including traffic volumes that are associated with school related traffic. It also varies due to people being on vacation in the summer time. There can be variations in the traffic patterns. With the counts that the Applicant did in July compared to counts done in December, they did find that there was a significant variation, which was mostly related to the proximity of Thayer Academy. As a result, they went back out and updated the traffic counts, and the new traffic counts they published were taken at the end of September and beginning of October (time periods when schools were back in session and during regular school hours). This is including, not only commuter related traffic, but any traffic associated with school buses and people driving their children to and from school. They went back and redid the entirety of the traffic study using those new traffic counts. They also provided the comparison of the September/October traffic counts to the December traffic counts. What it basically showed was that the traffic volumes were generally consistent with what they had counted two years ago in December and recently this year in September/October. There wasn’t a significant change in terms of increases in traffic volume. As they went back and did the reanalysis of the study, the conclusions were generally the same. Even though the traffic volumes were different from the July conditions, the impacts associated with the project were generally the same as what they had reported in the updated July Traffic Study. That was submitted to the Peer Review Consultant, and they received a letter back dated October 30, 2019, which validated those findings. Essentially, they concurred with the methodology that was used in collecting the traffic data as well as the analysis conditions and the result of that analysis. The results were Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 2 that, as we added the traffic from this project to the intersections we looked at along Washington Street and Storrs Avenue, it showed conditions before and after the addition of the project’s traffic were the same, in that delays went up marginally, increases in queuing went up marginally. It wasn’t significant enough that they showed a change in levels of service. What they had concluded with specific regards to the Washington Street/Elm Street/Storrs Avenue intersection was that the intersection has four (4) approaches, when operating during the peak hour, that are at or over their design capacity. Of course, that is not going to get any better in the future, as traffic volumes increase with or without the project. What they did look at with this project specifically is what can be done in terms of trying to improve the traffic operations at the intersection, reduce delays and reduce queuing at the intersection itself. Through some analysis they performed, what they showed is if they were to adjust the signal timing and phasing, they could essentially offset the impact of the project, but not only offset the impact but actually result in an improvement by being able to process more traffic through the intersection with the possibility of reducing some of the queuing, particularly along Washington Street. Chairman Karll asks “How are you going to do that?” Mr. Dirk explains that you basically look at the timing. You know that each of the approaches to the intersection is assigned a certain amount of time (20 seconds, 30 seconds). You spread that time around the intersection to operate more efficiently. The goal is to have the traffic signal be more responsive to the actual demands that are there. The condition that is pointed out, where there is not enough time on that approach. As you look at the delay around the intersection, some of the approaches are operating better than the other approaches. For lack of a better term, you try and spread the delay around the intersections so that you are more efficiently processing the traffic. Chairman Karll asks how many trips Mr. Dirk thinks will be coming out of the project. Mr. Dirk explains that this project is going to produce somewhere around 30 peak hour trips between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM. That is why, as you look at the impact of the project, if you look at 30 trips over an hour, that is one vehicle every two minutes. Within a two-minute time period, that signal has cycled several times. It will process more traffic than this project is actually going to produce. Chairman Karll states his experience; he comes down Hollis Avenue between 7:30 AM and 7:40 AM every morning and takes a left onto Washington Street. He has a difficult time entering traffic when making the left for several reasons. People don’t want to let you in. There are a lot of cars coming both ways. The only lighter day is a Friday. Monday through Thursday, traffic is very heavy. Mr. Dirk explains that today that intersection is not operating efficiently. The analysis bears out the fact that there is added capacity there that could be better allocated to the approaches at the intersection. Chairman Karll clarifies that Mr. Dirk is talking about timing for the lights. Mr. Dirk states correct and explains that, looking at the way that the signal is operating and the equipment that is currently installed at that intersection, it is a question on whether there is opportunities to upgrade/replace the signal equipment so that it operates more efficiently. Chairman Karll ask who is going to do that. Mr. Dirk states they are proposing that as a potential condition if the Zoning Board was inclined to approve the project. The Applicant is suggesting a two-part condition relating to that intersection. The first would be re-timing the signal prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The second would be that they are committing to replace some of the signaling equipment. Chairman Karll explains that the Applicant would have to go through the Department of Public Works and maybe the state. Mr. Dirk explains that, as they prepared the Traffic Study, they worked closely with Town staff. There is an agreement that there are opportunities to do improvements at that intersection. As a part of this project and their analysis, they have looked at what those potential improvements would be. Mr. Dirk explains that Zoning would have to approve what those improvements are. They are making a commitment that prior to occupancy they adjust the timing and phasing to address the existing conditions that are noted. That would include Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 3 replacing signal equipment, if it is necessary, at the intersection. They are also committing that, within six months of achieving 80% occupancy, they will go back out and redo it. There is an improvement before any occupation occurs, but the most important part is, as the project gets constructed and we have residents living there and the traffic gets realized on the roadway, they will go back out to adjust the traffic signal again to account for those real traffic patterns. As people are getting used to the roadway and the access points at the site itself, that will change the traffic patterns at the intersection. Mr. Dirk states they have done, and the Peer Reviewer has done, our best to figure what those traffic patterns may be, but they are committing to actually adjusting the timing to reflect the actual traffic patterns after the project is actually occupied. This is a two-stage approach. Prior to occupancy, fix the conditions that are there today. Address the impacts of the project and do a further adjustment after you have some occupied units. Chairman Karll asks if the Applicant has thought about a shuttle service from the project to the T Station for people that take public transportation. Mr. Dirk explains they didn’t look at that as part of the Traffic Study, but it could be discussed with the Applicant and would be certainly beneficial to reduce the traffic volumes. There is bus service within walking distance that residents have access to. Mr. Dirk suggests that shuttle service could be discussed with the Applicant, as it would have a benefit. Chairman Karll reminds that the Quincy Adams T Station has opened an entrance on Independence Avenue. Mr. Dirk explains that they are certainly a proponent of anything that gets people to walk, bike or use public transportation for any project. It is a question on whether the cost to provide that service relative to the size of the project and the net reduction of trips that you are going to achieve. At some point it is disproportionate. The applicant has projects that are over 200 units, or a shuttle can be run as a shuttle service that serves multiple developments in the area. In discussions with the Town, there may be the possibility of discussing a shuttle service with other residential developments in the area. For a project of this size to run a shuttle service, it is probably disproportionate to the number of trips that are actually going to get reduced. Mr. Dirk expresses that they appreciate the review that was undertaken by both Town staff and the Review Consultant. The recommendations have resulted in a better project, with improvements that will be beneficial for the Town. Chairman Karll wants to publicly thank the Planning Department staff; they have put a lot of hours into this, and the Board appreciates their effort. There are no questions from Zoning Board Members at this time. Ron Muiller, Principal with Ron Muiller and Associates, the Traffic Engineering firm, and registered Professional Traffic Engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has done a pretty extensive review of the Traffic Study done in July. At the last meeting, one of Mr. Muiller’s associates did a presentation to the Board about their findings. One of the more important comments that they made in that review was the disparity between the traffic counts that they found between the July study and a study that they had done two years prior. The Applicant has since collected new traffic counts at all of these intersections in September and October and found that the current volumes are higher, certainly higher than the July counts as well as the December counts. Mr. Muiller advises that the Applicant has updated all of their analysis using these new counts, and he is comfortable that the methodology that they have employed accurately now reflects existing conditions and the impacts of the project. Mr. Muiller concurs with Mr. Dirk in his statement that what they found is, although that the project has an impact (every project has an impact if you add traffic), that impact is very small. Most notable, at the intersection of Elm Street/ Washington Street/Storrs Avenue, it is an existing failing location – meaning it is an F Level of service. It is very tough to get through that intersection during peak times. What has been suggested by the Applicant, in the signal timing adjustments that have been proposed as mitigation for the project, will in fact improve the operation of the intersection. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 4 Will it improve greatly? No. Will it offset the impacts of the project? Yes. As Traffic Engineers, what we need to look at is to mitigate your impact. Mr. Muiller believes they can do that with these changes. What Mr. Muiller recommends is that, before they go and make these signal changes, they prepare plans and submit those to the DPW for review and approval, both in the pre-occupancy condition as well as at 80% occupancy. Mr. Muiller suggests the Applicant submit plans for review at both of those scenarios. Mr. Muiller states, as mentioned by Mr. Dirk, they should do a thorough review of the intersection to make sure all of the signal equipment is working the way it is supposed to and designed and that every-thing is functioning properly. Chairman Karll asks if they will have to synchronize the timing of lights at Washington and Storrs with other lights up or down the road. Mr. Muiller doesn’t believe that it is currently coordinated. Mr. Muiller advises that, depending on the distance between inter-sections and the traffic condition, often it is a good idea to synchronize or coordinate traffic signals. That could be a further request from the Zoning Board to have the Applicant study that. At this point, Mr. Muiller cannot answer that because the Applicant has not submitted that information or proposed anything like that. Chairman Karll asks if Mr. Muiller has any thoughts on a possible shuttle service. Mr. Muiller advises that generally shuttle services work great when they are associated with transportation management services. These organizations exist throughout the state, but he doesn’t know if Braintree is part of one. Basically, they get together with existing businesses in the area to find ways to implement a shuttle service or to implement carpooling between business employees and residents. Those transportation management services can be very effective, but he would have to agree with Mr. Dirk in that for a single project the size and economics don’t make sense, and there is bus service on Washington Street. Chairman Karll asks the Zoning Board members if they have any questions for Mr. Muiller. There are none at this time. Lieutenant Robert Joseph, Braintree Police Department, mentions that, with reference to the lights and the timing, the issue in the afternoon is the amount of people that get stuck in that intersection. It is not allowing enough time for them to clear out so that anyone from Storrs Avenue to come out. Another concern is how many people will be cutting through the project, when it is completed or during construction, to avoid the light. There is an issue with the safety of pedestrian traffic. There is a blind spot near Dependable Cleaners. Most people have to pull out onto the sidewalk to see if their path is clear. Lieutenant Joseph is not sure how much the timing of the lights will help in these situations. He points out that, in the afternoon, the intersection of Washington Street and Elm Street can back up almost to Common Street. It is a very congested area. People from Elm Street trying to make a left turn onto Washington get stuck in the intersections. This blocks people from Storrs Avenue from getting out, and the cycle repeats itself. Lieutenant Joseph states another issue is how the project will affect the neighborhoods, with the amount of people leaving and trying to avoid those intersections by cutting through neighborhood streets. Lieutenant Joseph asks about the number of parking spaces and the Assistant Director clarifies that the project is providing 149 parking spaces (128 spaces for the apartments and 21 spaces for the condominiums). The ratio for the apartments is 1.82, and the condos is 2.62. Lieutenant Joseph doesn’t think speeding is going to be a concern because of the congestion. It is tough now, not only for the residents but also for any emergency apparatus (police, fire, ambulance) to get through. Lieutenant Joseph doesn’t know what the answer is, but he is not sure how much changing the timing will help. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 5 Ron Muiller, Peer Review, states as part of that signal timing adjustment being proposed, he has also recommended they look and recalculate the signal clearance, which are the yellow and all red times, which are a part of every signal operation. Currently, they are too short given the distance between stop lines on Washington Street, which is caused by the offset intersection between Elm and Storrs. If they recalculate and increase the signal clearance times. It will give more time for traffic to clear the intersection before Elm Street and Storrs Ave. get the green light. Currently, what is happening a lot of times is traffic is still backed up through the intersection, and they don’t have anywhere to go. The effect of that will be slightly worse traffic operations because you are taking away green time, but the safety benefits of that outweigh other aspects. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi had some very initial comments on traffic and most of them have been satisfied through responses from Mr. Dirk and our Peer Consultant. She did have one question, which Mr. Muiller included in his report. It jogged her memory when Lieutenant Joseph brought this up. Early on, she requested that the applicant add to their plans the striping that is on Washington Street in the vicinity of the Parkingway. There actually isn’t striping out there. She thinks what is happening is that people are parking too close to that intersection. They are hanging half of the front of the car out into Washington Street. She would like the Board to ask the Applicant to look at that corridor and the Parkingway and to look at the approach to the Parkingway to come up with a striping plan that would present a safe and adequate approach. She explained that it was not just this particular project, the municipal lot and other dwellings in the back are there. This is so that people accessing that street can, in fact, see what is coming and make an approach onto Washington Street. That has not been submitted by the Applicant. Chairman Karll states there was a car there this morning blocking the passageway near Dependable Cleaners. Staff states this is not an effort to restrict parking on Washington Street. It is to have an understanding of where the spaces should be. Obviously, that would be reviewed by our DPW, as mentioned earlier similar to the signal work. Whether this project goes forward or not, the Town should implement this themselves. Staff mentioned that looking at this corridor was requested of the Applicant and has not been provided. She would ask Mr. Dirk to look at that and prepare something. Chairman Karll asks Mr. Dirk if he could look at that issue. Chairman Karll mentions to Lieutenant Joseph that, if this project does come to fruition, perhaps the Police Department can patrol that area a little further and issue some tickets so people know they can’t park where they are not supposed to. Lieutenant Joseph mentions, as far as the municipal lot behind there, on the overnight hours, they haven’t had any complaints from people in that municipal lot. The only people parking overnight in that municipal lot are the people that live at 381 Washington Street (the building adjacent to Dependable Cleaners). There are usually six cars in that lot at night. Chairman Karll is not talking about overnight parking; he is talking about people parking at an angle near Dependable Cleaners and blocking access to Parkingway. Lieutenant Joseph mentions that there is a large demand for services of the Police Department throughout Town. Lieutenant Joseph mentioned maybe there should be no parking along the side of the building. Member Ford asks Lieutenant Joseph if the Braintree Police have any concerns with response times in that area and/or do they keep track of response times in different areas of town. Lieutenant Joseph advises that the response time is good anywhere around town; obviously, it is more difficult during rush-hour times, but they do get through. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 6 Chairman Karll asks the Zoning Board Members for any comments at this time. There are no comments from the Zoning Board at this time. Chairman Karll asks for any comments from the public concerning traffic. Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, references a few words used by Mr. Dirk such as “marginally”, “access points” and “project of this size”. Mr. Leonard finds all of those fascinating. The premise of the traffic presented by the visiting team is based on the assumption that everyone from that project, which Mr. Leonard feels is not a good project, exits to Washington Street and Elm Street. Lieutenant Joseph mentioned a point that Mr. Leonard is most concerned about, which is when people use another way. With regard to “access points”, Mr. Leonard states that if he lived in that project after a couple of days he would realize you cannot exit onto Washington Street or Elm Street. Mr. Leonard does not think the Town of Braintree should change the lights to adapt to a real estate development. What is going to happen is the people that live there will find other access points. What are those access points? Cocheto Road, Oak Street, Parkside Circle. The area from West Street to Storrs Avenue will be negatively affected by this project. What are now quiet, residential streets are going to become the access points to this development particularly in snowy weather. Mr. Leonard discusses the Storrs Avenue intersection in the snow and mentions that people are going to seek other ways just for safety. If a project of this size is ever approved, it will change the traffic flow in this area (Storrs Avenue, Parkside Circle, West Street). Residential streets will become busy streets in the morning. Another thing that Mr. Leonard found puzzling was that it said 30 cars are going to exit between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM. How do you know who is going to live there? Generally, people moving into this complex are working people. If you have 150 cars, that means 120 cars are not going to move in the morning. Mr. Leonard doesn’t know how you can predict 30 out of 150 if you don’t know who is going to live there. Mr. Leonard states that piece of property is landlocked; there aren’t too many ways to get to that property. Mr. Leonard feels that people will realize very soon that to go out to Storrs Avenue/Washington Street is difficult, and they will start going the other way. Chairman Karll asks, if this project wasn’t approved, wouldn’t the traffic lights at Washington Street and Storrs Avenue need to be regulated anyway, as it is very poor. Mr. Leonard doesn’t disagree with that, but what he disagrees with is why we are doing it. The premise is that this is being adjusted to help the developer do something. He doesn’t think the Town should change laws or anything to help a real estate developer. The real estate developer needs to adapt to the laws of the Town. Chairman Karll thinks those lights have to be adjusted anyway. Mr. Leonard agrees. Peter Kurzberg, resident 42 Hollingsworth Avenue and also President of Temple B’nai Shalom located at 41 Storrs Avenue diagonally across from the proposed project, wants to make a couple of comments on traffic; he knows many people have spoken about it before. Dr. Kurzberg comments on the issue that just came up tonight about changing the signals and thinks we should just do it now if it will improve that intersection without the project. It seems like that would help everybody out. Dr. Kurzberg mentions that traffic is currently a problem in many parts of the Town, including Braintree Square. Morning and afternoon commute times, which continue to be extended at both ends, make it more difficult to navigate the square, forcing frustrated drivers to take routes speeding through neighborhood roads. Dr. Kurzberg knows the Town is working on slowing down cars using various types of speed bumps; he also cannot imagine people living in a complex with 70 units trying to get out of the main entrance on Washington Street through a two-lane narrow street, which seems more like an expanded alleyway. Having to turn right would seem to be the only feasible way to exit the property. The Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 7 alternative is to get out on Storrs Avenue, turn right and hope to get through a light that will have to be adjusted to allow more cars to go through, further causing congestion that already exists at the intersection. An alternative is to turn left and work your way through the neighborhoods to get to your destination. Again having to make a right turn would seem to be the only feasible way to exit the property without tremendously over-burdening the neighborhood. Neither option for exiting the apartment complex seem very attractive or functional. The owners of the condominiums are not much better off trying to figure out the best way to leave their home. Dr. Kurzberg would only say that, just because the buildings can be constructed on the site and the developer may be able to do so under the 40B provision, doesn’t mean that they should be built. Dr. Kurzberg states the project is too big for the site and doesn’t belong there. The scope of the project proposed is 3 ½ times what the Zoning Bylaws call for, and despite whatever excellent engineering plans may be developed for traffic or other issues that will be discussed later, like drainage and water, the extent to which they will work will not be known until the project is completed, in addition to any problems that will come up during excavation and the construction phase. Dr. Kurzberg asks what the options for the Town are: (1) continue to present the case that it has met the requirement to prevent a 40B project from moving forward through the courts, if necessary; or (2) work with the developer and try and negotiate a compromise to reduce the number of units being proposed and come up with a solution that does not drastically impact the area and the Town negatively while still allowing the developer to make a reasonable profit. Everybody won’t get everything that they want, but it is somewhat of a win-win situation rather than winner-take-all situation. Short of that, Dr. Kurzberg would as the Zoning Board to place as many conditions and restrictions as possible within your purview to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood and the community. Chairman Karll presents questions to future speakers based on Dr. Kurzberg’s discussion. One question is related to compromise; he realizes everyone will have a different opinion. Chairman Karll asks what would be a fair compromise. Dr. Kurzberg states somewhere between what the bylaws allow and what is being proposed. Liz Page, Storrs Avenue, feels that sometimes you can compromise but wonders why it is that residents have to adhere to Zoning Bylaws but no one else is expected to. Chairman Karll states Chapter 40B. Mrs. Page states that is unfortunate that it gets used this way. She is listening to so many people speak tonight, some of which have good points, but other statements are making her crazy. She refers to the intersection at Washington/Elm/Storrs and states maybe we can move the streets because that is really what needs to be done, as they are not aligned properly. She states the timing has been adjusted several time; this isn’t rocket science. Nothing that is being proposed here tonight hasn’t already happened before. This isn’t a real solution. Until you can realign the streets, you will always have these problems. With regard to realigning the parking along Parkingway, she feels, once again, that the small businesses in Braintree Square will get the short end of the stick. Everything is being done to accommodate this one, big, mammoth project. Mrs. Page asks where the visitor parking is for this project. Is it the municipal parking lot? Storrs Avenue? When she listens to Traffic Engineers, she recognizes that they are well intentioned, but when they say Thayer Academy is the big impact on this neighborhood, she realizes they don’t even know this neighborhood. There are residential elementary schools within the neighborhood that are impacting the traffic. That is why the traffic count is different from July. It is not necessarily because of Thayer Academy. This tells her that the people determining how to make this work are not familiar with the neighborhood. Mrs. Page feels that the number of cars coming from the project between 7:30 and 8:30 AM seems so inaccurate. Half of the neighbors on her street have 3 cars in their driveway. Mrs. Page thinks that there are so many issues coming into this whole traffic Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 8 discussion that aren’t being adequately addressed. She mentions that this is creating a whole new thoroughfare going from Parkingway to Storrs Avenue. You are now creating a “cut- through”, and people will use that instead of the light. She concludes that there are so many issues arising from this that have not really been addressed, and she hopes that we stop and consider them all. Kathy Mosesso, Colby Road, was puzzled when the Traffic Engineer mentioned Thayer Academy and didn’t mention Flaherty, Hollis, Monatiquot, East Middle, the High School and four nursery schools. Buses travel these road, kids walk to school, and parents drive their kids to school. There is a ton of traffic in that timeframe. Mrs. Mosesso sat in front of Dunkin Donuts and watched how many cars stopped on the sidewalk near Dependable Cleaners because they could not get into traffic and how many times they blocked the sidewalk. People walking dogs or baby carriages or just pedestrian traffic had to walk either in front of or behind the car because the car couldn’t get out. Mrs. Mosesso cannot believe 30 trips are generated from 78 apartments and 140 parking spaces. This does not provide for two spaces per apartment, and she questions where are visitors going to park or what happens if each unit needs space for two cars. Mrs. Mosesso asks, with the lights being adjusted, what if it doesn’t work after that adjustment. She thinks that the Applicant should perform a test letting 30 cars out of that parking lot during the morning timeframe now with the light adjustment; this should be done before the project is complete to see if it works. Once the project is built, we have no recourse. Jill Coyle, Parkside Avenue, would like to address the Peer Review. Her first comment is related to the 1.86 cars; she has been a financial forecaster for medical manufacturers. She cannot sell 1.86 machines; she rounds up to the next whole number, which is 2. That alone would help with the parking situation and possibly prevent those from using the municipal lot and impacting the local businesses. She would like to make a suggestion related to revisiting the traffic signal when 80% occupancy is achieved; she suggests, as an additional condition, that the same review occurs once 100% occupancy is achieved. Mrs. Coyle states that a prior speaker mentioned replacing signal equipment, if needed, and she does not see that in the Peer Review. Mrs. Coyle mentions a pet peeve around the size of parking spaces. She realizes that not all spaces will be at 23.5 feet, which is the proposed size. The bylaw size is 24 feet, and she hopes we can make the spaces the required size of 24 feet. With regard to the stop signs required for Parkingway entrance, she doesn’t know where they will go because if you have them too far back the driver has no sightline. If the stop signs are too far forward, you will have cars blocking sidewalk and impacting pedestrian traffic. She doesn’t know how to determine where they will be placed so that they are effective for the driver and safe for the pedestrian. Her last comment is pertaining to the Hastings Consulting, which was a follow-up question on the Peer Review. The comments were to make sure that the Fire Department confirmed that the plan was adequate for them. Mrs. Coyle states, just looking at what was prepared, she could not believe that what was placed on a plan was a dotted red line going around the inaccessible parts of the building and called a fire path. They were calculated so that fully-equipped firemen, carrying manual equipment because they have no access, would literally have to almost walk into the building so that it would look like it was under 250 feet to comply with the law. Mrs. Coyle comments that was absurd and mentions on the other side of the building it was 232 feet, provided no one parks in their way and the truck is exactly where you have it on the plan. Mrs. Coyle finds that insulting to our public safety officers. Mrs. Coyle is hoping the Peer Review can clarify the turning movements in the A.M. at Storrs Avenue. Mrs. Coyle recalls there was a comment pertaining to having a “No Left Turn” there. If this report is stating that 18 cars will go left, they are basically saying that 100% of the cars coming out of there are going to take a left turn. At 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning, Mrs. Coyle would like to know why an assumption was made that commuter time vehicles would be taking a left on Storrs Avenue and not going right Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 9 to get onto Washington and subsequently to get to the highway. If there is a reasonable explanation, fine; otherwise, that would have to be adjusted to move that number into the right- hand turn and then the entire summary would have to be recalculated. She would venture a guess that the LOS would be even more undesirable than it is now. Mrs. Coyle is hoping that she gets a response to the left turn on Storrs Avenue. Gail Sacony, 33 May Avenue (on the corner of Hollis), walks to Dunkin Donuts on Washington Street on a regular basis, and she has almost been hit by a car a number of times by cars exiting parking alongside Dependable Cleaners. She has also had problems in the crosswalk going to the convenience store on the opposite side of Washington Street. Her big concern, in addressing the Storrs Avenue issue, is the West Street issue. Because of the Storrs Avenue problem, certain times of the day and Hollis Elementary School she has counted 30 cars from West Street back towards Storrs Avenue, completely gridlocked. She recognizes that we spoke about accessibility for firetrucks at the project location; she would also like to ask, in a situation where there is a shooting incident which we are hearing about more frequently, how would a team be able to get form the Police Station down into that Parkingway access. There is nowhere for cars to get out of the way in order to have access in an emergency of that nature. She realizes that one of the things that can refute the 40B proposal is public safety. She brings up that there are public safety issues around police accessibility, fire accessibility and school access because of lack of mobility. Mrs. Sacony states the issues are not related to just Storrs Avenue; there are public safety issues up through West Street. John Sullivan and his wife have lived at 10 Abbott Street, which is at the end of Storrs Avenue, for 35 years or so, a football field away from the epicenter of the proposal. As someone who frequents the South Shore quite a bit, driving all over the place, he can say with some dismay that Washington Street from Braintree Square to South Braintree Square (including Elm Street going down to St. Thomas Moore Church) is by far the worst traffic on the South Shore that he has encountered on a regular basis. The idea of dropping a project of this size right into the epicenter of this traffic quagmire is mind boggling to residents. When the word “marginal” comes up related to its effect on traffic, you are already talking about a situation that is beyond maxed out. This will result in a situation that is going to be untenable for neighbors, who are trying to protect what they have. The feeling of tenseness and agitation that we feel when taking a left onto Washington Street to get from one place to another is not something we want to address on a daily basis, if they can help it. Mr. Sullivan states, as Dr. Kurzberg had suggested, maybe there is a compromise that has a balance to our neighborhood, which we will need if the project goes forward. Judy Karll, 60 Rita Road, attends the Temple on Storrs Avenue. At the first meeting, she approached the builders and asked them if they might like to consider donating the land to the Temple and to Archbishop Williams. Mrs. Karll refers to being in that area on a Saturday or a Sunday when there is a football game, with a visiting team. She wonders where all of these people are going to park. She imagines that there will be parking on both sides of Storrs Avenue, and she concludes that there will be difficulties for fire apparatus to get through. She thinks, with some kind of consideration, that you have to recognize that there are people that have existed there for a period of time. Some consideration has to be made for them. Mrs. Karll understands that the Applicant is from the Town, and requests that they have some thoughts for people that have been living here, like the Applicant, and what they are supposed to do when you overwhelm the community with your project. Mrs. Karll acknowledges that the Applicant’s projects are extremely well-built and are beautiful properties, but there is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps this isn’t the place to build that large property because it is not going to fit in the community in that area. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 10 Josephine Salloway, who has lived at 57 Cochato Road off of Storrs Avenue for about 48 years, states that her street has become a cross-through, and Storrs Avenue has become a raceway. She watches the children, as they come back from Flaherty School as they try to walk up the hill. It is an area that we have to be concerned about. There are a lot of neighbors that have lived her for a long time, and we like the quiet. Unfortunately, you don’t have sidewalks on both sides of the street. So, if you try to walk on the broken sidewalk, you have to walk on the road, and it is not safe. Mrs. Salloway states we have to think of quality of life for everyone who is living there. When we talk about adding so many people to an area, she discusses the situation with lack of water and inability to water lawn. She asks if these new residents are not going to use water or are they going to bring their own water. What will they use for washing machines, dishwashers or drinking water? Mrs. Salloway thinks this is something we have to consider, as it is a serious issue, as well as safety. Mrs. Salloway states that safety is also a serious issue, as we have cut-through traffic and we will have more. Mrs. Salloway discusses an incident when a child was killed due to a speeding car. She asks if we need more of that in order for people to understand, and she asks that the Board and Applicant please think about it before they take any aggressive action. John Haran, 141 Walnut Street, hopes that parking is part of the traffic discussion and states that someone had mentioned a compromise involving the athletic complex and keeping the parking lot there so that they can continue to use it. Mr. Haran would note that the parking lot is currently used by Archbishop Williams for football, track, lacrosse and soccer games and practices almost year-round. If that parking lot was lost, those cars would need a place to park. If they park on Storrs Avenue, Cochato, etc. that would create a public safety hazard. Mr. Haran would suggest that if you are going to make a compromise, keeping the parking lot for the use of that field, the Baptist Church and the Synagogue would be helpful. Chairman Karll mentions that we do not have authority to keep it, as it doesn’t belong to us. Alan Weinberg, 19 Windemere Circle, is very familiar with the traffic and traffic plans and those things that supposedly work. Unfortunately, in real time during peak periods, he doesn’t think there is a way to stop traffic. Emergency vehicles are always important. When you look at traffic issues, you want to look at high peak times, and as a previous speaker said, there is an expansion of what peak times are and they may be from 3:30 PM to 7:30 PM. Mr. Weinberg states changing the signalization may work for part of the time, but he doesn’t think it will work for all of the time. One of his suggestions is to take ten additional vehicles from each intersection exiting the site onto Storrs Avenue and exiting the site onto Washington during those peak hours and do a trial after the signalization is changed. He feels signalization only works for a while. He mentions that Five Corners has had a signalization change, and it is a big problem. Chairman Karll mentions to Mr. Dirk that the question he asked earlier was did anybody actually drive in that area during September, October or November, rather than stand there and count. Mr. Dirk states that he drove in the area multiple times during the morning and evening peak periods on multiple days and at different times during the year. He is familiar with everything that is described, but he feels the question is are there improvements that can be made to improve the flow of traffic. The answer is “yes”, there absolutely is. What the analysis is showing is that the intersection can operate much more efficiently. As we look at what is going on in each of the approaches to the intersection, what it is saying to us is there is the opportunity to improve the way that the traffic signal is operating, so that is what we are doing. Mr. Dirk states, as they had mentioned, they are going to do that before they occupy the site and then they are Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 11 going to go back, after we have constructed the site and have residents living there, and improve it again to the extent that it is necessary. It is something where they are putting the proof before the project gets built and improve the operation before they even have residents at the site. Then, they will go back and adjust it after they have people living there. Mr. Dirk states that it is true that the corridor is not operating efficiently. It is not just this one intersection. There are multiple intersections along that corridor that could be retimed to operate better. What it comes down to is that it is time and money to go and do that. At this intersection in particular, you have an applicant that is going to spend the money to have their Traffic Engineer redesign the traffic signal. It sounds like an easy thing to do, but to take Town resources and have them undertake the design that will be necessary to make those changes or repair broken signal equipment, is all time and money that the Town doesn’t have. This project will have impacts at that intersection, and the Applicant is stepping forward and saying they will address those impacts through these improvements at the locations both before and after they occupy. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi would like to address two items, and she mentions that there has been a couple questions about 70 units, the number of parking spaces, where do we arrive at 30 vehicles. The Assistant Director asks Mr. Muiller, the Peer Review Consultant, to provide an explanation of how a traffic engineer arrives at these numbers, as that might be helpful. She also states, on a separate project that Mr. Muiller happens to be working on related to two developments in Braintree (one is apartments and one is condominiums), he recently has actually physically counted the driveway. One project is four years old, and the other is over ten years old. Mr. Muiller explains that the Applicant came up with trip estimates for the project using what we call the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. It is a national publication where they have counted numerous different land uses (including apartment and condominium developments) and compiled that information and developed trip rates that can be applied per unit that these types of developments generate. Mr. Muiller states what he found, as part of another project where his firm did traffic counts at two existing developments at 20 Pond Street and 147 Hancock Street, is that they generate almost identical to what the ITE Trip Generation Manual says it should generate. It goes beyond those two counts that he just conducted last week. He has done his own studies at existing condominium and apartment developments over the 30+ years, and he has consistently come back to find that these projects generate either what the ITE Manual says or actually slightly less than that. There is a tremendous amount of data collection that has gone into developing these rates, and he has to believes, based on what he has seen over the years, that the numbers are, in fact, accurate. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states the second thing she would like to bring up is that there has been a lot of talk about Archbishop Williams and the parking lot. She had an opportunity to go back into the files related to permitting around the field that the Zoning Board of Appeals put stipulations on Archbishop Williams that, if it felt as though it was required, they were to use their lot up near the school and shuttle people. Based on the discussion this evening, with or without this project, the Assistant Director thinks it might be time for the Town to engage Archbishop Williams, remind them of their obligation and to put them on notice that these stipulations are, in fact, in your approval that is related to parking and they may have to invoke them and follow through on. That is a condition of a Variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it can be stipulated, exercised and enforced through Zoning, if needed. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi wanted to point that out and make the audience aware of that, for the record. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 12 Julia Flaherty, 11 McCue Drive, and she is the Councilor Elect to District 1, wasn’t planning to say anything tonight because she feels the residents can be counted on to bring up all the issues that matter, but there is one thing that nobody has touched upon that she wanted to add to the mix. In her canvasing, she walked up and down Common Street. The top of Common Street, where it intersects with Washington Street, is a really busy intersection, a lot like Storrs, except it is closer to the highway. The residents at the top of Common Street have raised a concern a few times about the amount of exhaust particulate that they are breathing in their yards or anytime they come in and out of their homes. The residents tell Ms. Flaherty that there have been some studies about the buildup of exhaust at that particular intersection. She has not seen that data, but the residents are very concerned about it, and it is not very distant from the intersection of Storrs and Washington. Ms. Flaherty knows the traffic study suggests impacts are marginal, but she is aware that a marginal impact can be more substantive in creating a critical mass than it seems like it would, especially with concern to air pollution. Ms. Flaherty states, if you are going to add this traffic to this already busy intersection adjacent to numerous other busy intersections, she thinks that you should be paying some attention to the kind of impact air quality is going to have. Chairman Karll states we are now going to hear about fire access, and we will first hear from the Applicants. Chairman Karll reminds the audience, before presentation and arguments are made, that we are operating under a Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40B, which is something the Town has to deal with. We may not like it, but it is something we have to deal with. Chairman Karll knows the legislature in Boston have been trying to amend or modify it, but obviously it hasn’t been in many years. If people are really concerned about 40B, Chairman Karll strongly recommends that they contact our legislator and/or other legislators in the area about Chapter 40B because it is something we have to live with until amended or modified. Attorney Peter Freeman, representing the Applicant, states that they were not aware that Fire Department issues were one of the topics tonight. If they had been aware, they would have brought Mr. Hastings. Attorney Freeman states that the Zoning Board has Mr. Hastings’ memorandum that was submitted; it has already been referred to by one of the speakers of public commentary. Attorney Freeman states they will rely on the Memorandum, and their Engineer, Jim Burke, can say a few words about it and would be happy to answer questions. The Applicant is certainly interested in hearing from the Fire Department. The Applicant got a recent letter just the other day, and they don’t have a specific response because there wasn’t time. They reserve the right to bring extraneous things to the next hearing, if necessary. Jim Burke, Professional Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, mentions that he had a meeting a while ago with Fire Prevention Officer Sawtelle and Planning Department staff. What was requested at that particular time was to generate a plan that showed, not only the right-turn access into the site, but also the left-turn access, as well as additional detail at the intersection of Storrs and Washington on how the fire truck would be able to maneuver taking a left turn down Storrs Avenue with traffic. Mr. Burke states they generated that plan and submitted it to the Planning Board for review. In addition to that, they also provided a plan that showed the lateral access around the building for placement of ladders in a safe manner. Lastly, they have a letter that Attorney Freeman mentioned from a Professional Engineer and an expert in building and fire access that states that this building is designed in compliance with those regulations. Chairman Karll asks Mr. Burke if he has seen today’s letter from Deputy Fire Chief Sawtelle, and Mr. Burke states that he has not, but would be interested in seeing it. Chairman Karll strongly urges Mr. Burke to look at it. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 13 Deputy Fire Chief Steven Sawtelle, Fire Prevention Officer for the Town of Braintree, is in receipt of the letter from Mr. Hastings that Mr. Burke sited. Deputy Chief Sawtelle wants to touch base about this letter and references NFPA 1-18.1.3.1 – Fire Apparatus Access and quotes “Plans for fire apparatus roads shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction.” Chief Sawtelle sites the NFPA 1 2015 Edition, but states that clause is in the 2011, 2015 and the newest edition of 2018. Secondly, the term “Fire Access Road” is misleading. According to the revised plans, they site Fire Access Road, but it is not really a road it is a path. On the left side of the building, which the Fire Department will not have access to, with the new landscaping they have, they create a fire path that is eight-feet wide. Deputy Chief Sawtelle states, if he throws a ground ladder, you need to have the butt of the ground ladder at least 9 or 10 feet away from the base of the building. So, they will be climbing up through the arborvitae to get to access the ladder. The other issue is that it will be on an incline; there will be a grade. The front of the building will be at a higher point than this part of the building. The tallest ground ladder carried is a 35 foot ladder. He understands that the Applicant says fire response can walk around the building. One side of the building is 245 feet, and the other side of the building is 248 feet. We are going to be carrying ladders, internal gear and ventilation equipment. It is labor intensive and takes a lot of manpower. We are not Boston Fire. We are going to have 11-13 guys; one guy is going to be the incident commander. You take him out of the count. Now you have 10-12 guys. Deputy Fire Chief Steven Sawtelle states they will be in a ladder on each side of the building. Braintree does not have that kind of manpower. He also mentions that the rear of the building is 15 feet wide. That being said, if they traverse one side of the building (the Masonic Temple side) and get to the end, he is not sure they will be able to go to the back side of the building with the 35 foot ladder. So, they will have to turn around, come back and exit to the other side. In the revised plans, Chief Sawtelle believes the paths are not paved on that side of the building. You are looking at these situations in pristine conditions. What happens when there is snow? What will access be? Chief Sawtelle discusses Chapter 3, Fire Department Access Roads, “the road or other means developed to allow access and operational set-up of fire-fighting and rescue apparatus”. Chief Sawtelle states it is not merely a path; they have to have room to work. You have to have working clearance, and at eight feet on that side of the building, we are taking down a firefighter and a resident on a ladder. Chief Sawtelle mentions that there was a fire in Quincy at The Falls on Falls Boulevard. There was not enough working access, and a firefighter fell down an embankment. Chief Sawtelle doesn’t want to see that happen to a Braintree firefighter. As far as the apparatus placement in the traffic circle, Chief Sawtelle is not going to commit a piece of apparatus to the traffic circle. Chief Sawtelle stated that in the previous meeting. Once you commit a piece of apparatus, you are done. If you placed it wrong, you cannot undo it without it being time-consuming. Chief Sawtelle discusses the plan where it shows fire apparatus can take a left from the Parkingway and place the apparatus on a grassy knoll area, and he states he is not going to take the apparatus off hard pavement. He cannot raise the aerial there. The outriggers go out each side 7.8 feet. He needs 15 feet for the outriggers and the width of the truck. You are looking at 25 feet minimum that the truck will take. Plus you have to be offset from the building to create a safe climbing angle. Chief Sawtelle is never going to put the apparatus where it is shown on the plan in the grassy side of the building. You cannot take the front side of the building in the traffic circle because you have to allow for fire suppression to attack. Firefighters have to be able to access the building. The other place he is not going to put the apparatus is on the Storrs Avenue side where the parking garage is. He is not going to commit the apparatus to parking spaces 31 to 34. He is not going to commit to the parking circle because, he can technically reach the right side of the building, but now he is coming off perpendicular off the side of the ladder truck, which is the most unstable portion to extend the ladder truck off. It is unstable and puts the most stress on the outriggers. Chief Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 14 Sawtelle mentions, by chance, he attended a wedding in Vermont, and he stayed at a hotel that was a similar shaped building as the Holland Project. He took pictures of the building, not to say there is access to every side of the building, to show a little perspective. He can provide these pictures to the Applicant and the Board. It is to show where firefighters will have to traverse in this project to get into the building. It is an angled building and will illustrate what the firefighters are up against as far as a fire path and what that means. The hotel was paved all around, but that is not what he is looking at. He wants to show the shape of the building and what they would have to traverse to access this building. Those are his concerns as far as fire apparatus access to this building; he doesn’t think there is. His opinion is that the building does not conform to the size of the lot. Where it is placed, it is impossible to have firefighter access. With regard to traffic, on a First Alarm assignment, he questions: Where am I going to put apparatus? Where am I going to stage? Depending on time of day, am I going to stage on Washington Street? How is that going to impact traffic? Am I going to bring the apparatus onto the Parkingway? There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. From a fire standpoint, Chief Sawtelle is not comfortable with the size and scope of the building as far as the lot that it is on. Chairman Karll asks if Chief Sawtelle thinks this is a serious public safety concern. Chief Sawtelle thinks it is an extreme public safety concern. He understands that the building is sprinkled, but fires still happen in sprinkled buildings. He cites one at The Falls in Quincy; the fire started outside the building. There was an arsonist in Weymouth; the development was under construction and sprinklers were not activated, but the local Chief said the difficulty in fighting that fire was that space was tight. You couldn’t get in. Chief Sawtelle mentions a fire at Lenox Farms. The fire started inside the wall, caused by a gusset plate in contact with an electrical wire. There was a sprinkler system, but the sprinkler plastic failed. Either way it was not going to extinguish the fire. The fire grew until the fire department had to open the wall and extinguish it. Firefighters were there for four hours. Chief Sawtelle mentions a fire at Grove Manor Estates which started outside the building. The fire suppressant sprinkler system is not going to put that fire out once that gains entry into the building. Luckily, the fire was detected early by someone inside the building. It was simply caused by a resident’s cigarette. When fire department showed up, the fire was from the basement to the third floor of the building (Alzheimer’s Wing). If that fire gets into the building, there is serious trouble. If the fire starts at the outside of the building, the sprinkler system can go off but, because the fire has reach such magnitude, it is not going to extinguish it. The water supply for a sprinkler system is designed for 10% of the total number of heads inside that building to operate. That is the water supply. So, if you have 400 sprinkler heads inside a building, the water supply is for 40 sprinkler heads. If the fire is big enough, the water supply is not sufficient to extinguish the fire. All the heads don’t go off at once; one head will go off above the scene of the fire. Sprinklers are designed to give residents time to get out. They will contain fire, but firefighting still has to go in to extinguish, overhaul and clear the building. Under the building code, sprinklers allow for greater means of egress to an exit. Chairman Karll concludes, as design Chief Sawtelle has serious public safety concerns. Chief Sawtelle states he has concerns about fire department access, particularly with the aerial apparatus. There are no questions from the Zoning Board, at this time, for Deputy Chief Sawtelle. Attorney Peter Freeman, representing the Applicant, states, although he is not a fire safety expert by any means, to the extent that his team was obtuse and should have had Mr. Hastings here, he apologizes. Attorney Freeman wants to thank the Deputy Chief and states that the Applicant does take concerns seriously. Perhaps, there has been a disconnect between his team and what they have done so far to make modifications that apparently do not satisfy the Deputy Chief. Attorney Freeman cannot promise that they can do everything the Deputy Chief Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 15 needs them to do, as he is not the expert. But, they will certainly address it and look at it. The last thing they want is to create an unsafe situation. The last thing that he, as an attorney, and Mr. Holland, as a developer, or any of their engineers want is to ask and expect you to approve a project that has real safety issues. He is sorry that he can only be general at the moment, but he wanted to reassure the Zoning Board and the Deputy Chief and the public that they will look at these issues, try to have the plans reviewed and meet with the Deputy Chief. They will try to do this before December 2nd. Attorney Freeman thanks the Deputy Chief for offering to send the pictures of the building in Vermont and states that would be great. Chairman Karll mentions to Attorney Freeman that if they need more time, the Zoning Board would be glad to give them more time. That being said, prior to starting the public comments, Chairman Karll would like to take a five minute break. Chairman Karll calls the meeting back to order. Chairman Karll states, before we start on the public’s input on the fire issue, he wants to thank Deputy Chief Sawtelle for his work on this. The Applicant did not get a chance to see the letter that the Board saw tonight that Deputy Chief Sawtelle submitted today; so, he would like to give them an opportunity to look at it so that they can comment on it the next time on December 2nd. Chairman Karll would like to ask the public to hold the fire discussion until the next time, as he thinks we all know that the fire protection is a very important issue and public safety concern. Chairman Karll would like to give the Applicant a chance to look at it and comment. Chairman Karll advises that the next topic they have listed to take up tonight are the 40B waivers for the 70 Unit Rental Project. There are quite a few, and he does not know the best way to attack this tonight. One may be to go over some of the items that are not in dispute, if there are any, and save the ones that are in dispute for the next meeting when we can take up the fire discussion and the waivers and then open it up generally to the project itself. One other thought is to have a consensual continuance to give everybody a chance to review these. Attorney Freeman states we don’t have to do it tonight, and we don’t need a continuance of the hearing process for that. Attorney Freeman states if Chairman Karll thinks it is best to put this off until the next hearing, we can do that. In terms of any continuance after December 4th, Attorney Freeman mentions that Chairman Karll is hoping and expecting that we would conclude, but the Applicant would understand if the Chairman feels something is absolutely necessary they would consider a request at that time. As to the waivers, Attorney Freeman briefly discussed with Mrs. SantucciRozzi, and he thanks her for sending a very thorough Staff Report that she put together. Attorney Freeman’s thought is, in part because of the lateness of time, but also in part because (without promising what kind of changes they can make in response to the fire department letters or anything else remaining on stormwater or anything else) the plans may not be quite final and that could affect the detailed aspects of the waivers. Attorney Freeman’s thought is to give a flavor as to the ones there is agreement, that they are procedural and not controversial in any way and just highlight some of the things that the Applicant already said they would work on with staff, between now and the next hearing, which they will definitely have time for even with the Thanksgiving break. They could discuss dimensional things or whether the Overlay District that applies or the General Business District or a couple of questions that he has or some of the grading things. Attorney Freeman states this discussion might take about 10 or 15 minutes. Chairman Karll is turning the discussion over to Assistant Director SantucciRozzi to go over the ones that are really no controversy about because he thinks we have lost a lot of the audience. Chairman Karll asks the Assistant Director to start with the non-controversial waivers and explains that 40B means that the Zoning Board of Appeals gets the whole picture. It doesn’t go Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 16 to the Planning Board; it stays with the Zoning Board of Appeals; there is a 40B Massachusetts General Law which the Zoning Board has to comply with. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states, as the Board can see and as noted by the Applicant as well, she has taken their request for waivers (they had submitted an original request with the application back in February 2017; it was updated on November 3, 2019), she took the Zoning Bylaw and went through section-by-section with the plans and she came up with a list of waivers that are the ones that should be requested by the Applicant. To note, there are some things requested on their list that, due to their read of the bylaw and not knowing our interpretation and how we apply that, the Assistant Director feels they don’t need. Those are at the end of her section of the report. The Assistant Director mentions that there was one item, as referenced by Attorney Freeman, and highlighted in her report in big letters “WILL NOT BE WAIVED”, and she can explain that. That section is basically the standards for grading and what the expectations for grading are, and she would hope that the Applicant would comply with those. She can meet with Attorney Freeman or the Applicant off-line and go through those. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states the first section of the report is related to the waivers for the Subdivision Rules and Regulations pertaining to the subdivision of land in the Town of Braintree. Again, as Chairman Karll had pointed out, the Zoning Board of Appeals is a “one- stop” shop under the Comprehensive Permit Law in Massachusetts Chapter 40B. For these three waivers: (1) one is for the application submission and fees – the ANR was submitted with the Comprehensive Permit and will not be filed under a separate application with separate fees; (2) the second waiver is the review and decision process – that talks about submitting to the Planning Board and how that happens, which will not happen because it is part of the Comprehensive Permit; (3) the third waiver is the extension for the 21 days – that does not apply under the Comprehensive Permit timeframe. The ANR Endorsement requires 21-day action by the Planning Board. This ANR Endorsement will be by the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to the timeframes and deadlines that we are working on. She has noted in the column, not to minimize anything, “no comment; it’s procedural in nature”. The second page of the Staff Report calls out several waivers in the columns, so they are easily identified by any reader. The first waiver is that any Building Permit issued by the Building Department is for a plan and premise in use that complies with everything in the Zoning Bylaw. Well, they wouldn’t be here with a Comprehensive Permit if they complied with everything in the Zoning Bylaw. So again, “no comment; it’s procedural in nature”. The second section talks about the Special Permit/Site Plan Review and the fact that is done through the Planning Board. Again, we are not going to the Planning Board. So again, “no comment; it’s procedural in nature”. The Zoning Board of Appeals is acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority and Site Plan Review Entity under the Comprehensive Permit Law. The third section talks about the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this particular case, you are the Comprehensive Permit Granting Authority, and that is a procedural waiver. Section 302 talks about uses and structures to comply with use requirements. Again this is not applicable in this scenario; it’s “procedural in nature”. Section 135-401 talks about the Permit Granting Authority; once again, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Comprehensive Permit Granting Authority; this is “procedural in nature”. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 17 Section 135-407, Variances, as this is a Comprehensive Permit, no Variances are required. Any waivers and deviations from the Zoning Bylaw are granted through the Comprehensive Permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals; this is “procedural in nature”. Section 135-502, Site Plan Review Requirement, is not applicable; everything is reviewed through the Comprehensive Permit; this is “procedural in nature”. The same thing is applicable for Section 135-503, Special Permit Procedures; everything is done through the Comprehensive Permit; Special Permits are not required; this is “procedural in nature”. Section 135-601, Table of Principal Uses, if we look at that table and you go to General Business District, where this property is located in, multi-family properties require a Special Permit; everything is done through the Comprehensive Permit; Special Permits are not required; this is “procedural in nature”. Section 135-613C talks about the Overlay District and the applicability of that and what permits that might require. As this is done through the Comprehensive Permit, this is “procedural in nature”. Section 135-613D, Village Overlay District-Permitted Uses, Use Special Permit is applicable given the General Business and the Village Overlay. Again, the Comprehensive Permit applies, and that is “procedural in nature”. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains that is essentially the first two pages of the report; she is going to skip the third page, which is a little beefier. Attorney Freeman touched on this in his comments in the beginning. She doesn’t necessarily agree with the way that they are interpreting the configuration of the property. She would like to discuss this matter with the Building Inspector and follow-up with the Applicant. For the most part they can skip page three, making a note there is one procedural waiver, Section 135-613G, Village Overlay, which talks about the submission of materials and what is required. Again, nothing separate is being filed. Everything is filed under the Comprehensive Permit. Again, this is “procedural in nature”. She will re-evaluate the waivers we skipped over based on any revisions to the plans and discuss that with the Board at a later date. Section 135-702A-3 and B, we have some buffer zones in our ordinance when you have certain districts abutting other districts. In this particular case, it is General Business District abutting Residence B, which requires a 10 foot buffer, and there are portions of the building and physical improvements that are right up to the property line, including a retaining wall. The Assistant Director advises that the Applicant has submitted a Landscaping Plan that hasn’t’ been reviewed yet. When she gets a chance to take a look at that, she can give additional comments to the Board. The Assistant Director thinks we can skip over the rest of the page and wait for the revised plans. A lot of these deal with the buffer zone and Section 135-705, which is the multi-family section. Obviously, they are requesting some substantial waivers from that Section. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 18 Going to the middle of the fourth page, Section 135-711 B, C, D and E, these are the Site Plan Review requirements for multi-family. There will not be a separate Site Plan Review under the Comprehensive Permit. Section 135-802 talks about the applicability of the parking requirements to the project, not the specific ratios but stipulation in general. That is “procedural in nature”. The last two on this page deal with parking and fire access, and she thinks we can circle back to those at a later date. Section 135-812B is the requirement to provide snow storage. The Assistant Director would like to point something out for the record. The Applicant should put together a Snow Storage Plan and present that, given the concerns by the Fire Department. Given the concerns about aisle widths, the Snow Storage Plan is very important in all cases. She would like that to be submitted in an extreme timely manner. The Assistant Director states we can skip over the next few. They deal with landscaping interior to the parking areas. Halfway down the page, we have Section 135-815-1E, which is the stipulation that in the Village Overlay District the Planning Board can institute a fee for lack of providing adequate parking onsite. In this particular case, if something like that was to happen, it wouldn’t be the Planning Board. It would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. That is a “procedural waiver”. The last few sections relate to grading. Some of them are “procedural in nature” because they talk about different timeframes that the grading needs to be complete. It talks about submitting a separate Grading Permit. Again, all this is done under the Comprehensive Permit. Then, there are the last few things on the grading section that need some waivers, but they are temporary waivers for excavation. The Applicant has requested this last waiver that talks about the set-backs. This was raised by a member of the public at one of the last meetings. It says you have to be a certain distance from the property line to cut and fill over a certain vertical distance, but then a few lines down in that same section it says that can be waived if you put in a retaining wall. Using a wall at the property line is suitable; grading your property in a steep slope into your neighbor’s isn’t necessarily suitable. The Applicant is providing retaining walls along some of the property boundaries; that is something we should look at in more detail. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states essentially running through these, it is a lengthy document with a lot of columns, but a lot of the items are because it is a Comprehensive Permit. For the other items, she can see what we get for revised plans, see what comments are addressed in the near future and this can be updated. She will also have the list for the condominium development for the next meeting. You will probably expect to see the same procedural waivers and maybe some different commentary about the dimensional waivers on that particular side. For example, they are meeting the parking on that one. There are some different waivers and applicability, given the design and scope of the project. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states, if there is anything in her document that the Board has significant concerns about or something that they feel as though they would not be inclined to waive, that should be discussed sooner than later. Chairman Karll thanks Assistant Director SantucciRozzi for her hard work. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 19 Attorney Freeman thanks Assistant Director SantucciRozzi and states that was very helpful in going through the document tonight in that fashion. Attorney Freeman advises that they will work “offline” with staff, as the Assistant Director suggested, between now and December 2nd. Chairman Karll thanks the Peer Review Consultant, Ron Muiller, for the work he did on behalf of the Town. Chairman Karll thanks the public for attending the meeting, and he urges them to attend the next meeting on December 2, 2019. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states she has spoken to Mr. Holland’s representatives and reminds that we need all the revised drainage plans submitted as soon as possible. She thinks the Applicant is close to submitting those. We need to get those out to our Peer review Consultant, Deb Keller, in order to give her adequate time to look at those, as well as the Town’s Stormwater Manager, Cindy O’Connell. They are both eagerly awaiting receipt of those materials. The Assistant Director’s plan is that those materials are submitted very soon, and we can get our Peer Reviewer to take a look at those in advance of the December 2nd Meeting. Chairman Karll concludes that the next meeting is December 2, 2019 at Town Hall, and he urges the public to attend. Attorney Carolyn Murray advises, with the holidays upcoming, you have December 2nd and December 4th, which are your last two hearings on this matter before our current extension will expire, unless there is a further extension. After that, we go into deliberation mode, and you only have 40 days to deliberate. So, assuming we close out the public hearing on December 4th, then our 40 days to deliberate, discuss, draft and approve a decision will bring us to January 13th, and with a number of holidays between now and then, we might want to look at reserving a date in December for deliberation purposes or in case there is a need for a modest extension. Chairman Karll asks if we will have to ask the Applicant. Attorney Murray advises that if you are just reserving a date for deliberation, it is within the Town’s purview. She mentions that we will definitely know by December 2nd or 4th whether we are ready to close the public hearing or not. Attorney Freeman mentions that Attorney Murray had courteously discussed this with him before the meeting, and he is glad that she remembered to raise this issue. They had discussed the date of December 16th, which the Applicant is available for. If it is convenient for the Zoning Board, it does make great sense to schedule it as either deliberation or hearing, as determined by Attorney Murray. Attorney Freeman feels we can at least establish that date. Attorney Murray states, at this point, we should at least reserve it as a meeting date. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi mentions that we have combed the Town for Conference Rooms and looked at various schedules, and December 16th (looking at Mondays and Wednesdays) was the only day that worked in December. We also have two dates in January during that 40 day period. The second date is Monday, January 6th. There are three regular cases for the Zoning Board’s regular meeting on December 16th, which can be heard first. Then, we would take up matters related to the 40B hearings. Chairman Karll states that is fine with him. The Assistant Director concludes that right now December 16th will be scheduled as a meeting, and we can determine the mode of that meeting at our meetings on either December 2nd or 4th. Attorney Freeman states that is fine. Chairman Karll’s request to the Applicant would be that perhaps an extension would be helpful to everybody, especially in light of what the Fire Department discussed today. Attorney Freeman is not saying “no”, but states since we are going to meet relatively quickly on December 2nd, we can see if the Board feels we need an extension at that point. Attorney Freeman states they are going to be reasonable about it and will address it on December 2nd. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 20 Member Ford MOTION to continue this 40B hearing to December 2, 2019; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0 (voting: Karll, Ford, McDonough). The Board adjourned the meeting at 9:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes November 20, 2019 21