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 December 2, 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) Deborah Keller, Merrill Engineering (Peer Reviewer) Chairman Karll calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and introduces the attendees. 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 Applicant updates (if there are any), the Peer Review presentation and comments from Deborah Keller (Professional Engineer), the Stormwater Manager Cindy Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 1 O’Connell’s comments, any comments or questions from the Zoning Board, any comments or questions from the public and then we will talk about fire access. With regard to fire access, we will hear from the Applicant regarding access, and we will hear from the Braintree Fire Department, with an updated letter from Deputy Chief Sawtelle. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states that Deputy Chief Sawtelle could not be with us this evening, but he does have updated comments. He has seen the revised materials. Chairman Karll mentions that we will have comments and questions from the Board and the public, as well as follow-up from Attorney Murray and Assistant Director SantucciRozzi, if it’s needed. We will then go to the 40B waivers for the 70-Unit Rental project and the 8-Unit Condominium project. We will hear from Assistant Director SantucciRozzi with an overview of the waivers from the Staff Report. Then we will hear from the Zoning Board and the Applicant, with any comments or questions from the public. This will be followed by landscaping and lighting. Chairman Karll requested that speakers try not to duplicate what others have already said. Chairman Karll states that we will begin by hearing from the Applicant on any updates they would like to present. Lynn Sweet, LDS Consulting Group for the Applicant, states the Applicant has provided some updated documentation, including revised Site Plans addressing concerns with regard to drainage; in addition, they added on page 5 to the Site Plan some suggested parking on Washington Street, also “No Parking” along Parkingway and striping. They have also submitted a revised Landscape Plan so that the Landscape Plan and the Site Plan should match with regards to fire access. They have also provided a whole plan set, including the Lighting Plans so that you would have one set of plans. Ms. Sweet knows there has been some discussion with the Applicant’s Civil Engineer regarding the Site Plan, and there may be a few more tweaks to that. Ms. Sweet turns the discussion over to Jim Burke, from Decelle and Burke. Jim Burke, Registered Civil Engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with offices in Quincy, MA, states they did make some revisions to the plans, based upon a letter from Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors. Mostly the revisions included detailed notes, inverts and the like to tie everything up. There was one specific construction detail change related to water quality, and that was the inclusion of a cultec separator row beyond what they proposed originally. Basically, that is a row wrapped in filter fabric with an overflow for larger flow events to bypass that row and feed a manifold that feeds the overflow sections of the recharge basins. We continue to make these revisions. There are a couple of Scribner errors that we are discussing as late as today. Drainage itself is really getting tightened down. Mr. Burke states the benefit of the storm-water management for this particular site is significant. That hasn’t changed, and in fact, it has only gotten better since the Peer Review has provided another set of eyes on this particular design. The amount of storage that this site provides is over an acre. It will be noticeable, especially on Storrs Avenue. Mr. Burke would be glad to answer any questions related to the drainage or stormwater calculations. Chairman Karll has a question regarding Storrs Avenue. He knows it will take a lot of the subsurface drainage off of Storrs Avenue coming down from the project, but what about the problem that exists when it rains. There is still a lot of water that accumulates on Storrs Avenue as you come out of the driveway, in front of the field and across from the synagogue. Chairman Karll asks will this alleviate that problem. Mr. Burke responds stating at this point, there was an overflow originally connected to Storrs Avenue. They have since revised that, and they will have all of the stormwater connect to the 18 inch drainpipe that flows underneath the athletic field. For the Storrs Avenue flow that contributes to that low area, they will now intercept a significant amount of that, but as far as the puddling goes, it is the profile of the road. That vertical curve, as it comes down, it flattens out. It becomes less than ½% from that catch basin to the Applicant’s property corridor. It really flattens out. Mr. Burke states that 1% is generally the minimum gradient that he uses for Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 2 fortuitous concrete. This is less than that and for about 100 feet. It’s the way it was built, and the runoff from Storrs Avenue will create the puddle. Chairman Karll asks where the closest catch basin to that point is. Mr. Burke states it is 260 feet from the catch basin to the nearest drain manhole. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi wants to ask a follow-up question and states she appreciates the last-minute fine-tuning that occurred today with the Peer Consultant, Ms. Keller and the Design Engineer, Mr. Burke. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi refers to Sheet 7 and states for the drain line that Mr. Burke has coming perpendicular to Storrs Avenue along the westerly side of the condominiums tying into that drain manhole, are you eliminating that and going in the other direction into the 18 inch? Mr. Burke state that is correct. Mr. Burke states, in fact, the plan that he currently has is that revision, and with this revision the numbers actually got a little bit better. Deborah Keller, Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors of Hanover, MA, states, as mentioned, she and Mr. Burke went back and forth a couple of times today fine-tuning, and basically he has addressed all of the comments that Merrill has presented to the Town and to the Applicant. Ms. Keller states the one last remaining thing is to see the final plan with the overflow pipe switched from the connection from Storrs Avenue to the 18 inch drain line. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states, for the purposes of sharing information, there is already stormwater runoff from this site that is connected to that 18 inch pipe, correct? Both Ms. Keller and Mr. Burke state that is correct. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states essentially that is the current “overflow”, even though there is really not much of a system. Mr. Burke states it is all over land flow. Mr. Burke mentions that he also provided some snow storage on the plan that was provided as part of the last revision. As far as the snow storage goes, Mr. Burke would like to address the fact that they are putting it in locations or landscaped areas that will allow that snow to melt in that area and be collected into the stormwater management system. If there is no more room for snow storage to be placed as shown on the place, the Applicant is prepared to remove it and dispose of it offsite. There are local sites that are used specifically for stockpiling snow. It’s a fact of living in New England. Chairman Karll states we will hear from the Town of Braintree’s Stormwater Manager, Cindy O’Connell, next. Mrs. O’Connell doesn’t really have any additional comments; she knows that Merrill Engineers and the Applicant have conferred today based on the most recent revision, which we received this morning. Mrs. O’Connell’s concerns have been addressed; so, she would be happy to close off the additional discussion for the Stormwater System for the project. There are no questions or comments from the Board. Liz Page, Storrs Avenue, asks if the snow storage locations will be discussed at a later point in time or is this the appropriate time to ask about that. Chairman Karll states the subject was brought up by the Applicant, so you can ask. Mrs. Page asks where on the property will the snow be stored, does it take up any parking spaces and where will guest parking go during this period when we have snow issues. Mr. Burke highlights on the plan where snow storage will be located. Mrs. Page states, in her opinion, their snow storage is totally inadequate; she feels that the Applicant is putting a little snow in a variety of places. If we have a big snow storm or a very snowy winter, this isn’t going to work. Mrs. Page thinks it seems very haphazard and not like a true plan. Jerry DeGregorio, President and CEO of Braintree Masonic Temple, which is located at 403R Washington Street, states they sort of abut Storrs Avenue. Mr. DeGregorio states back in 2005 they were instrumental in their donation of a land grant to help with the flooding situation on Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 3 Storrs Avenue, which at the time was absolutely atrocious. People had 4-5 feet of water in their basements and in their garages. So, the Masonic Temple stepped up and provided a certain parcel of their land so that a water retention facility could be built. It should be on the plans. At which point in time, Archbishop Williams went forward with their plans for the fields. Mr. DeGregorio’s question is, in 2005 when that took place, those plans were probably antiquated because of the wheels of corporate America, and he is wondering if, in fact, for the provisions made then and the measures taken then, what additional stress will be put on this. Mr. DeGregorio states they did their part in donating that land and creating that “water retention facility”. He thinks somebody needs to address the fact that back before 2005 what the water issues were. Chairman Karll states he thinks we know what they were, and going back in history won’t do us any good for the present. Mr. DeGregorio’s question is whether the remedy from 2005 will tolerate the burden that we are adding on. Was that taken into effect because he cannot imagine that when it was engineered they would have considered 70+ additional homes hooking up to that system? Chairman Karll states Mr. DeGregorio’s point is well taken, but Chairman Karll reminds that the Applicant said the stormwater system they have developed is, at this time, the epitome of stormwater systems. Mr. DeGregorio states, in a situation where you have a project like this, there are obvious concerns about the groundwater interruption. Chairman Karll thinks, out of the whole project, the stormwater system is the best developed, and he thinks the Peer Review Consultant would agree. Chairman Karll states it remains to be seen whether it will work, and if it doesn’t he is uncertain of the answer to that, but we will ask the Applicant. Mr. Burke appreciates the comment about the stormwater management system and reminds to don’t forget about the water loop also – related to the fire protection redundancy, which is also included in this. Mr. Burke states, as far as the stormwater goes, the project is outside of that watershed. So, what happens in the Applicant’s particular watershed is that you have basically a paved site that flows into the 18 inch pipe, fills it up. The parking lot above the project misses the 18 inch pipe, flows into Storrs Avenue, and fills that up right now. What the Applicant is doing is catching that, storing it underground and releasing it in a controlled fashion that reduces the flow offsite. It actually helps out what was done in 2005. What they did in 2005 helped that area, but the Applicant is trying to make it better. Chairman Karll mentions that Mrs. Page had a good question about the snow removal and storage. Mr. Burke refers to the snow storm from three years ago. There were mountains of snow all over Braintree, which changed the landscape. If that situation existed again, moving snow would be required to be able to live in this particular development. That cost would be borne by the owners of both properties. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi wants to add comment, as a follow-up to a couple of comments from the speakers. Typically, we reference a Snow Storage Plan, and typically we state where snow needs to be stored and we go a further step and indicate where it cannot be stored. It prohibits storage in parking, access aisles, entryways and anything that blocks sight lines. You cannot have 15 foot mounds at your curb cuts. The trucking of snow offsite is a common condition that we use in a lot of our decisions written by the Planning Board. The Assistant Director did have a follow-up question for the Applicant. Were you able to calculate the volume of the snow that cannot be stored from what you are showing on the plan? Mr. Burke states he has not, but he can provide it. Kelly Moore, 46 Hollis Avenue, asks related to the snow removal/storage and the three areas that were pointed out, how much snow can be stored there before it has to be trucked off the property, and is the amount that melts throughout the winter taken into account relative to drainage. Also, given what is in the snow—salt etc.—will it have an adverse effect on the Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 4 landscaped trees and shrubs that are in area? That matters if beautification is a concern to the developer. Chairman Karll states we will hear from Mr. Burke on that, but as Ms. Santucci said, there are certain areas where it is going to be stored and there is a height limitation on how much can be put in one particular area before it has to be trucked off. Lynn Sweet states we don’t have the exact calculation today on snow storage, and Mr. Burke is going to get that for the Board. Ms. Sweet can speak to the melting, the sand and the salt, and the Landscape Architect will speak to that, as well. There are trees there and low shrubs. Typically in Decisions there is language that the landscaping has to be in conformance with the plans. Oftentimes there is a timeframe for when dead landscaping needs to be replaced, and the Applicant is amenable to that, as well. Chairman Karll explains that we will hear from the Applicant about their fire access regarding the letters from Deputy Chief Sawtelle. Peter Freeman, Attorney for the Applicant, refers to their Fire Safety Consultant, Kevin Hastings, who was at a prior meeting. Attorney Freeman mentions that at the last meeting there was a review of Deputy Fire Chief Sawtelle’s letter, and today they have received an updated letter from the Deputy Fire Chief, after reviewing the revised plans and landscaping plans that addressed his concerns. Attorney Freeman states, since the Deputy Fire Chief is not here, we will have Mr. Hastings comment on the letter and explain his view point and why he believes we do comply. Kevin Hastings, Professional Fire Protection Engineer, was asked to look at the fire access for the proposed development. He did have a chance to review the new letter that the Fire Chief provided today. Essentially, Massachusetts Fire Safety Code has criteria for providing vehicle access to the site. The two main criteria are that: (1) vehicles have to be able to get within 50 feet of a door of the building; and (2) they have to be able to get around the site so that they can park so that any point of the building perimeter is within 250 feet walking distance from the nearest Fire Department vehicle. That was the plan shown in Mr. Hastings’ letter, which included showing where the Fire Department vehicles could park. In the Deputy Chief’s recent letter, he talks about providing 20 foot fire access lanes, which is the dimensional criteria for vehicle access. The fire code doesn’t provide a dimensional criteria for the foot access. The 250 foot criteria is how the fire code defines the level of access you need to the building. It does not require the ability for a vehicle to drive around the full perimeter of a building. That was the main clarification that Mr. Hastings wanted to make regarding the Deputy Chief’s letter. Chairman Karll states, reading the Deputy Chief’s letter, his concerns are very troubling. ZBA Member, Michael Ford, asks if Mr. Hastings is or has ever been a Professional Firefighter. Mr. Hastings states “no”. Chairman Karll mentions that we have received the updated letter from Deputy Chief Sawtelle earlier today, and he is not certain if the public has had a chance to look at it. For the record, Deputy Chief Sawtelle has several concerns. One of which is the aerial apparatus placement here does not provide adequate space for the deployment of the stabilizers. The aerial cannot be positioned far enough from the building to provide a safe climbing angle. Placement of the apparatus in this location endangers fire personnel in the event of a building collapse. The four placement of any piece of apparatus in this location also blocks any access to that side of the building. Chairman Karll concludes that those are the four issues that Deputy Chief Sawtelle still Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 5 has concerns about, and they are troubling. Mr. Hastings has a comment on that and refers to the bottom left-hand corner or green area on the plan; he explains that is an area that has been designed to be a reinforced drive line and the vehicles can go there. If the Fire Chief doesn’t want to utilize that, it is the Fire Department’s call. There are other portions of the building perimeter where you can locate a ladder far enough away to get it up on the building if you needed to. If Mr. Hastings understood the Fire Chief’s letter correctly, Mr. Hastings believes the Fire Chief was referring to the bottom left green area. One other point that Mr. Hastings wanted to make was that, as part of their proposed plan, they could store ladders in an enclosure around the perimeter of the building, rather than firefighters having to drag their ladders around the building. Obviously, that would be something worked out with a fire official regarding what type of ladder they might want to put there. Chairman Karll mentions that the Zoning Board feels deeply concerned about fire safety, not only for the tenants, but for our Fire Department. Deputy Chief Sawtelle’s letter is concerning. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi wants to make a couple of follow-up comments. She did have an opportunity to speak to Deputy Chief Sawtelle today, and he still does remain opposed. The Assistant Director mentions that she, Deputy Chief Sawtelle, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board have always required a minimum of access to three sides of a building. Sometimes we get four sides, which makes the Fire Department extremely happy. The locations that the Applicant is showing on the plans of where they say the fire Department is going to put their apparatus, the truck needs to be in that location in order to meet that 250 feet distance. If the Fire Department isn’t comfortable coming down the Parkingway and making almost a 90 degree turn and parking their apparatus adjacent to the building, what other locations are you going to show on this plan that will meet that 250 feet? Mr. Hastings explains that has to be an area available for the Fire Department to park in, and they can choose whichever truck to park there. Mr. Hastings states they have provided that green area so that the Fire Department can reach the entire building within 250 feet. The Assistant Director points out the Fire Department has already expressed that they are not comfortable using that location and they wouldn’t put the truck there. The Assistant Director asks how the Applicant’s representative will meet this 250 foot requirement where the Fire Department is comfortable putting their apparatus to make that rescue, if needed. Mr. Hastings states they could have an additional conversation with the Chief about this, but he points out the plan complies with the State Fire Safety Code in terms of access. The Assistant Director states it complies with text, but we are trying to have a real application, with real people and real vehicles coming to a site; so, again, how are you going to meet that 250 feet if that vehicle location is not shoe-horned in next to the building, like you are proposing? Mr. Hastings states they would have to look at other alternatives, but currently that is the plan. It would have to be altered in order to accommodate the Fire Department. Attorney Freeman brings up a point that was mentioned last time. In one area where there was concern, we could remove the parking spaces that are there. Attorney Freeman thinks there may be three spaces. Another thing, which gets a bit legalistic, there is case law, which Attorney Murray can explain, which states a local Fire Chief does not have unfettered discretion to basically veto a 40B project if he has concerns where the Applicant has a fire expert saying they do comply. Attorney Freeman expresses that they certainly want to make this as safe as possible, but some things like the practice of having full vehicle access on three sides is local. Those are exactly the kinds of things that 40B is designed to over-ride unless there is demonstrable proof that it creates an unsafe condition. Attorney Freeman expresses that they have a very credible and reputable expert that says that is not the case. Attorney Freeman states, for the record, it is Zoning Board of Appeals of Sunderland vs. Sugarbush Meadow LLC 464 MA 166 2013, Supreme Judicial Court Case, which tries to balance what a state code Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 6 requirements are and how it works in relation to 40B. Attorney Freeman thinks it is relevant to know this; however, again, they are in no way saying they don’t care about fire safety – just the opposite. Member Ford thanks Attorney Freeman for his comments, but adds that Mr. Hastings did say in his comments discussing truck and vehicle access to different sides of the building that it is the Fire Department’s call. That was the Applicant’s expert saying it is the Fire Department’s call, and Member Ford is going to take Mr. Hasting at his word for that. Chairman Karll adds that if our Deputy Fire Chief says there is an issue, he will wait for the Supreme Court to tell him there is no issue because to him public fire safety is well within the Zoning Board’s purview. Chairman Karll opens the discussion up for public comments. Jerry DeGregorio, President and CEO of Braintree Masonic Temple, 403 Washington Street, wants to add a comment, which may sound redundant. Mr. DeGregorio adds that the Fire Code hasn’t been revised since when and in 2013 when that decision was made, and he wonders if anyone has heard about all the cities and towns and the problems that they are having with all their new fire engines and how much bigger they are. They don’t fit in their firehouses. He is wondering if the Fire Code takes into account the size of fire engines, which seem to be growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis. Mr. DeGregorio mentions that the Fire Station in Braintree Highlands had that problem with a fire engine that was too big to fit in the station. Every-thing was given for a captured moment, but we have to use common sense otherwise. Dan Clifford, 265 St. Claire Street, former Braintree Town Councilor, states what he just heard from the Applicant’s attorney was distressful. The operation was a success, but the patient died. This project has been met with a lot of resistance from the get-go from the residents. It would seem to Mr. Clifford that it would be in the best interest of the developers to go an extra step regardless of what the law says. To hear the attorney say that they are in conformance with the law, when we have our Deputy Fire Chief say that they are distressed with the way it is set up, Mr. Clifford hopes the developer and their attorney will reconsider their words and go the extra step to make this work for the Fire Department, as well as the residents within that building. Liz Page, Storrs Avenue, states it is very upsetting to sit here and listen to some of these comments that are being said that are really being dismissive of some truly valid concerns. It is so common to hear stories on the news about a firefighter that died in the line of duty. Ever since the beginning of this process, she has had this awful vision that there are some areas where the fence is six feet wide and the angles of the ladder will not work. If that building ever collapsed, those firefighters would be trapped in between the building and the fence. They have nowhere to run in the event something goes wrong. You don’t want to assume this is going to happen, but you have to be prepared. This does not leave us any wiggle room at all. It is a tragedy waiting to happen, and Mrs. Page doesn’t think that someone who might be an expert but doesn’t have any practical experience should outweigh Deputy Fire Chief Sawtelle’s expert experience from years of practical experience. Chairman Karll states again that the Zoning Board is very concerned with public safety and firefighter safety. Jim Burke, Engineer for the Applicant, wants to address one thing. As far as the ladders go, the Applicant did an analysis, which is on the plan. OSHA requirements call for the ladder to be at a 75 degree angle. For 36 feet, it is out 9 feet, and he shows that on one of the fire access plans with a profile showing the ladder against the building. Mr. Burke asked Deputy Chief Sawtelle about the 40 feet ladders a couple of weeks ago, and the Deputy Chief said he doesn’t carry those, and that was what the impetus was to put the 40 foot ladders in the back of the building. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 7 Kelly Moore, 46 Hollis Avenue, appreciates the opinions and the facts brought forth by the professionals. Mr. Moore would consider the weight of the Deputy Chief’s opinions to be greater. Mr. Moore states one thing we are not taking into account here, in this project, are the people that would actually be living there, which could be anywhere between 250 and 350 people, and their safety. If a truck cannot access the back area for set-up, there may be 300 people that need to be rescued. That needs to be considered. They cannot do that effectively because they cannot access the back of the building. Bruce Parks, Milton Road, had a question because he was trying to figure out some numbers. He asks about the height of the building. Is it at 40 feet or four stories? Mr. Parks states, if there is a fire in the top floor in the back, the firefighters would get up there with a ladder. It is his under-standing that we don’t have a ladder to reach that at the angle we have. Mr. Parks thinks we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Just because you can make the round hole bigger doesn’t mean you should put the square peg into it. We are trying to make sure things fit, when actually they don’t really. Common sense says you shouldn’t do that project. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi clarifies that at the highest point the building is 47 feet. There are some lower sections along the rear, which would be the section abutting the field and also the other rear portion abutting the Masons. There is a plan with a red dotted line, which was submitted before the last meeting, which shows the placement of the bottom of the ladder on the ground in relationship to the building. The portion of the site that is adjacent to the field, gets tight back there. Since the last meeting, the Applicant has also prepared (and supplied in Board packets) is they have located two 40 foot ladders at the building. They have located one along the field side and one along the Mason side. The idea behind that was, if people have to deploy going down the building on foot, they don’t have to hold a ladder. There will be one there. This was discussed with Deputy Chief Sawtelle, and he wants to reserve his comments on this. He doesn’t know what they are made of and whether they are going to be inspected frequently. Member Ford has a vision of a Braintree Firefighter or two climbing up 36 feet on a 40 foot ladder with a two-inch hose, turning it on and going for a ride down the 36 feet a lot quicker than he came up. Member Ford is not sure what the pressure is coming up a firehose, but he wouldn’t want to be standing at the top of the ladder turning it on. Lynn Sweet, for the Applicant, would like to speak to that point. She certainly would want to hear from the Fire Department about the kind of material and type of ladder that they want hung there. It is her understanding that in these types of building there are fire inspections on a yearly basis, if not more often, and therefore, the ladders on the back of the building, that will have enclosures on top of them and be accessible only by Fire Department personnel, should be inspected on an annual basis if not more often, just like the rest of the building. Chairman Karll states we will move on to the next issue, which is waivers for the 40B rental and condominium units. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states, before we move on to the waivers, she did mention in the outline a question from a couple of meetings ago about Water & Sewer. She quickly wants to read a statement into the record from Lou Dutton, the Water & Sewer Director for the Town of Braintree: Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 8 “Melissa, in reviewing the plans for the Parkside Apartments, Water & Sewer has the following comments. The department has the capacity for water and sewer for this project, at this time. The department requires that all units and common areas be metered separately for billing purposes. We do not allow a single master meter. Backflow device will be needed for fire suppression system. Type of system will dictate what type of device is to be installed.” Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains that at the last meeting there was a Waiver Analysis. She has updated the analysis done last time for the apartments based on the revised plans and re-orientating of where the frontage is. Both lots clearly front on Storrs Avenue. Those figures have been updated, so the analysis has also been updated. The Assistant Director explains the sections in green are the ones that changed from last time. The items in red are the ones that are outstanding in the nature that we need more information from the Applicant (for example: Standards for Emergency Access). There are some other things that are also highlighted in red, and those are sections of the Ordinance that talk about when you are in the Village Overlay and you cannot meet the parking requirements that there are other things that can be done there. One of them is making payments and/or improvements and the setting of a fee that should be paid in the absence of meeting the parking requirements. This section has never truly been formalized. The Planning Board has never really utilized this section. People still go through the Zoning Board of Appeals and obtain Variances for things, but willing to note that there have been some items in the application package that talk about mitigation in the form of improvements to the municipal lot. The Assistant Director felt this was important to include. In the Staff Report for the townhouses, obviously not seeking as many waivers as the apartments, some of the procedural waivers are identical to those that we spoke about at the last hearing. There is some different commentary in the sections in which the waivers are being sought primarily from Section 705 as it relates to density and to the open space requirement. The Assistant Director states this can be done in however manner the Zoning Board wants to review them, and she explains that you really want the waivers to be related to your final plan and a plan that addresses all the comments that have been raised that far. The Assistant Director states, respectfully, we don’t have that plan in front of us right now. We still have an issue related to fire access, and she doesn’t know exactly how that is going to be resolved. Whether the Applicant is going to make some plan revisions to satisfy Deputy Chief Sawtelle so that he is comfortable that if he arrives at this property he can do what he is trained to do. Whether or not that is going to happen, the Assistant Director has not seen that revised plan yet. She is ready and willing to discuss any of the waivers and answer any questions that the Board has, but she is not sure how you want to go about these. Chairman Karll doesn’t think we have to go over each and every waiver that is put on this plan. The Assistant Director states it is totally up to the Board. Chairman Karll thinks we can go home and spend time looking at it because it is a pretty comprehensive piece of information. Chairman Karll thanks Mrs. SantucciRozzi for that and states it makes it a lot easier for the Zoning Board to look at. Rather than looking at it now, he knows it is also available for public review for them to look at between now and the next meeting. Chairman Karll wants to go over future meeting dates, and he recognizes that every time we have a meeting we have less and less people. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi asks if any of the Board Members have specific comments or questions on anything. Chairman Karll asks the Zoning Board if they have any comments or questions regarding the document provided by the Assistant Director. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 9 Attorney Freeman, for the Applicant, states they appreciate the thorough job done by the Assistant Director. They are in essential agreement, and they will incorporate the additional waivers added by the Assistant Director in their revised list. Attorney Freeman doesn’t really see any real controversy or sticking points between the way she sees things and the way the Applicant’s team sees things. Attorney Freeman mentions that there is some information that the Assistant Director notes she would still like, and he believes they have provided some of that (regarding cutting and filling). The Assistant Director mentions that everyone is treating it like a site, but it really is two separate projects; as a result, there are some follow-up questions so that we can keep the matters to the various projects. She explains there are some questions that she would like to get answers to through the Chair. Some are from last time, and she would like to get them fully resolved. Attorney Freeman mentions that they did submit some information regarding garage access and fire safety. He mentions that they will provide details on the location of the minimum 5% landscape area. If it is less than 5%, they will need a waiver. Attorney Freeman states, in a nutshell, they will provide what will be their final list and any further information as requested by the Assistant Director. Chairman Karll opens the discussion to the public for comments on the waivers. He mentions that there is one more meeting, which will give the public the opportunity to comment. There are no comments from the public. Chairman Karll mention that landscaping is the next topic. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states, if the Applicant has their Landscape Architect here to talk about the type of plantings in certain location because the first plan was a beautiful plan, but it presented some conflicts for fire access. While we want the landscape to be bountiful and plentiful and look really nice, choosing the right species and plantings in certain locations at this particular site is a little more important. Chris Regan, with LeBlanc Jones Landscape Architects, explains they prepared the planting design plan, which is on the screen. He will talk specifically about some of the revisions they have recently made along the southern edge of the property where they have created a narrower planting strip. They have reduced the planting strip to a foot to accommodate some fire access requirements. They have introduced large shrubs (viburnums, witch hazels, deciduous plants), which should not outgrow that plant bed. In general, looking at the planting design for the project, they thought about this as a way to increase the tree canopy of the community, which is one of the goals of the regulation. They have designed in different groupings and groves of trees through-out the project and related some of the species to the Honey Locusts along Storrs Avenue and the adjacent property at the Athletic Field. Between Buildings B and C they have incorporated some Cherry Trees as a grove that creates a nice courtyard effect. Between Buildings A and B they have introduced some Swamp White Oaks, which are native. Most of the plant materials on the plant list are native or adaptive species, so they all help provide some environmental benefits for wildlife and help with water reduction because they require lower irrigation and lower maintenance. Along the entry drive, they have incorporated some red maples, and that is an area where the snow piling was suggested. As a part of the maintenance in the spring, they typically will flush out those areas and provide some aeration in the lawn where the snow piling is being done in the winter if there is a storm event. Most of the plant material is a native, it is drought tolerant, it can take the salt, and it can take some snow piling. They may reconsider some things on what the final plan is for snow piling, but Mr. Regan thinks they have a solid planting design that responds to New England climates, and they have created a planting design that helps contribute to some of the goals of the Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 10 community, with providing an ecological balance. They have lots of planting materials that have berries and flowers that support the wildlife. At Building A, they have incorporated some flowering trees, which will add interest throughout the season; some have fruit that will support the wildlife. Overall, Mr. Regan thinks this plan contributes to the goals of the community and he is happy to answer any specific questions about the planting design. Chairman Karll thanks Mr. Regan and mentions that Mr. Regan answered his question about the salt and the road. Chairman Karll can only assume that if snow is piled on a plant and it dies, the plant will be replaced. Mr. Regan states that will be a part of the maintenance program; plants that do not survive will be replaced, but they have tried to select plants that can take snow piling. Some of the plant materials are native grasses, which can take snow piling. Mr. Regan thinks they have tried to address that in the planting design. There are no questions from Zoning Board Members about the Landscape Plan. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi asks Mr. Regan to talk a little bit more about the area that he revised. When that is mature, how is that going to be groomed, how is that going to be trimmed? Please discuss whatever needs to happen there because it is already fairly narrow. She does appreciate the revision of the species that were there before, but she would like Mr. Regan to talk a little about why he chose them. Mr. Regan states they looked specifically at the southeast corner and the southern property edge, as well as the western edge of Building A. Those were access paths that were narrower. They have increased the minimum width to be 10 feet, for a clear width. They have an 8 foot bed at the southern property line. The plant material they selected should reach a mature size that should be within that plant bed and not encroach on the clear width of that path. In their earlier version of the plan, they had larger evergreen arborvitae trees that would have required more maintenance, but they thought it made sense, because that edge is a wooded, overgrown area on the neighboring property, that they create a nice buffer using this deciduous materials. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi confirms that basically the goal is that everything – all the landscaping - is maintained within what you are showing here. Mr. Regan states exactly, and on the western edge we have a ten foot clear lawn space without a planted edge. Deb Keller, Merrill Engineering-Peer Reviewer, has one quick question. She always looks at it from a drainage perspective. There are a couple of islands in the car entry way or the horseshoe area. With regards to the plantings put in those two islands, you want to ensure that they don’t have deep roots and end up impacting the subsurface system that is below that area. Mr. Regan states they have called out deciduous shrubs in that area that should have a shallow root system. They actually wanted to plant trees in those beds, but realized that there was a cultec infiltration system below there, so they coordinated with the engineers on what they are proposing there. Chairman Karll opens the discussion to public comment. Liz Page, Storrs Avenue, was under the understanding that in a 40B Project there was supposed to be an area for recreation for children. Is this included in this plan anywhere? Attorney Carolyn Murray confirms that it is an overall requirement. Yes, that is a component of a residential development. Attorney Freeman feels everything is “guidelines”, but he wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a requirement. Chairman Karll asks if there is a waiver requested for this. Attorney Freeman states “no” unless there is a local bylaw requirement. Mrs. Page states that she was under the understanding that with a 40B project, because they are supposed to provide homes for families with children, that there is supposed to be some sort of a recreation, open- space area. In addition, Mrs. Page has a follow-on question about traffic that was asked at the Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 11 November 20th meeting. The question was previously asked by Jill Coyle, who could not attend tonight. She asked to have someone do a review of the turning movement onto Storrs Avenue. During the buildout plan, it showed that approximately 90% of the residents of the Parkside Apartments would be taking a left-turn during the AM Peak out of the parking lot onto Storrs Avenue. The question was how they arrived at this. The Assistant Director questioned 90%. Mrs. Page states it was a significant number – 17 out of 23 perhaps. Chairman Karll doesn’t understand turning is this direction, as he thought it would go the other way. Mrs. Page agrees, and states that is why the question was asked. If that is not correct, what impact will that have at the level of service at the intersection of Storrs, Washington and Elm? Mrs. Page states it seems to defy logic, and that is why the question was asked. Chairman Karll is not sure we can answer that question at this time. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states she didn’t bring all of the Traffic Reports this evening, as she didn’t think we were going to have those questions, but we will get an answer hopefully for December 16th. Chairman Karll asks that Mrs. Page pass this information on to Jill Coyle. Chairman Karll asks if there are any other comments from the public on what we have heard so far on the waivers or planting schedule. Seeing none, Chairman Karll moves on to the lighting discussion. Lynne Sweet states that Mark Major, the architect, will talk about lighting, and she is locating the plan. Mr. Major states unfortunately Ms. Sweet doesn’t have the November 18th plan on her computer—the photo-metrics plan. Mr. Majors explains that the engineer prepared a site-lighting plan. The plan consists of all LED lights; they are 16 foot pole lights – one approximately every 75 feet within the parking area and driving access aisles. The standard for a residential parking lot is to provide approximately one foot candle average over the whole access and parking area. The average they provide is 1.25 foot candles over the whole parking area, which is slightly over the standard. The standard varies from 1-2 foot candles average. Two-foot candles are used if you have a high security issue, which they don’t feel they have. Therefore, they are closer to the lower average. On the rear of the building, they put some wall lights that are also LED; they are hooded to provide light around the rear of the building at all times for security purposes. All the lights are “so-called” dark sky lights, so all the light is pointed down and does not spill upwards. If you look at the photo-metric plan, as soon as you get off the site the number of foot candles is zero. There is not lighting spill onto adjacent properties. Chairman Karll asks if they have their own generator, in case the lights go out. Mr. Major explains that the project does not have an emergency generator, but emergency lighting and fire alarm emergency systems are on battery backup. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi would like to ask a follow-up question. She was going through the packet of the fixtures, and she asks if the Applicant has chosen one of the lanterns. Mr. Major explains they would lean towards whatever Braintree wants for the decorative head. Mr. Major explains this just shows the locations and the lighting levels. The actual design of the fixture head is up to Braintree, if you have a standard. The Assistant Director asks if these are a particular color; Mr. Major confirms they are black. Chairman Karll asks if the Zoning Board or the public has any questions. Seeing none, he will go over the projected schedule. The next meeting is on Wednesday, December 4th. We will talk about the Approval not required, some of the waivers, storm water wrap-up, fire access, which is still a very important issue for both public safety and the Fire Department’s safety, the 40B Waivers for both condominium and rental units and then wrap-up any other outstanding items. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 12 Chairman Karll explains the question is whether we are going to close the public hearing on that date because we do have another date (December 16th), which is our regular Zoning Board Meeting night. Chairman Karll mentions that, again, we invite the public to attend. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains, as it stands now, the deadline to close the hearing is Thursday, December 7th. In the absence of any extensions, we would be holding meetings to deliberate the decision on December 16th and then, if needed, on January 6th. The meeting rooms are very scarce. If the hearing is closed on Wednesday, December 4th, the decision needs to be filed with the Town Clerk by January 13th. Chairman Karll stresses that there is a strong possibility that the last time we may be able to hear from the public could be Wednesday, December 4th. Chairman Karll mentions that we know the displeasure of a lot of the public, but again, this is a 40B project. People here know what a 40B is, but we try to educate everyone else on what a 40B is. If there are no other questions or public comments, Chairman Karll looks for a motion to continue this hearing until Wednesday, December 4th, at 7:00 PM. Member Ford MOTION to continue this 40B hearing to December 4, 2019; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0 (voting: Karll, Ford, McDonough). The Board adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 13