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 16, 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 7:03 PM. Chairman Karll explains that there are three matters that will be taken up before getting into the 40B project. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition #19-40 48 Newton Avenue Paul Segota and Claire McCormick, 48 Newton Avenue, Braintree, MA 02184 for relief from Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135- 403,407 and 701 for 48 Newton Avenue (Plot 103) and proposed adjacent land (Plot 35), which are combined for zoning purposes due to common ownership and can be separate lots with zoning relief. Plot 103 (#48 Newton Avenue) would be 6,590 SF and maintain the existing single family dwelling. Plot 35 (vacant land) would be 6,443 SF and provide a new two story, single family dwelling (+/- 925 SF building footprint with 144 SF deck). The existing and proposed lots are deficient with regard to lot size, width and front yard setback. The applicant seeks a permit, variance and /or finding that the proposed project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The properties are located at 48 Newton Avenue and Plot 9, Braintree, MA 02184 and are within a Residence B Zoning District, as shown on Assessors Map 3050 Plot 103 and Assessors Map 3052 Plot 25, and contains a combined land area of +/- 13,039 SF. Connor Murphy, Zoning Planner, explains that the Applicants have requested a continuance on this matter until the Zoning Board Meeting on January 27, 2020. They have provided a letter summarizing this request. Chairman Karll introduces members of the Zoning Board and Planning and Community Develop-ment Department staff. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 1 Petition #19-41 95 Brow Avenue Sean Brooks, 95 Brow Avenue, Braintree, MA 02184, for relief from the Braintree Zoning Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135-402, 135-403, 407 and 135-701 to add a farmers porch (196 SF) to the front of the existing dwelling; expand the existing garage and add second floor; expand the rear of the dwelling and enlarge the second floor above to the existing non- conforming structure. The existing single family dwelling is non-conforming as to the required side yard setbacks on both sides. The existing lot is undersized per Residence B standards and is deficient of the required lot width. The Applicant seeks a permit, variance and/or finding that the proposed alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is located at 95 Brow Avenue and is zoned Residence B as shown on Assessors’ Map 2046 Plot 4 consisting of a land area of 9,412 SF. Chairman Karll explains sitting on this petition will be Chairman Karll, Member McDonough and Member Ford. The Alternate will be Member Walker. Chairman Karll is satisfied that the abutters and the abutters to the abutters within 300 feet have been duly notified. Chairman Karll states we will hear from the Petitioner and/or their representative, and he asks for the Petitioner to identify themselves. Bob Lawton, father-in-law to the Applicant, explains they are looking to put a second floor on the existing garage within the same footprint. The farmer’s porch that was mentioned is within all the setbacks, and the two-story addition in the back is within all the setbacks, as well. The only thing they are looking for is a finding for the room over the garage, which would be on the same footprint. Chairman Karll asks the Applicant if they are adding just one room. The Applicant clarifies one room and a bathroom over the garage. Chairman Karll asks Mr. Lawton if he is building it, and Mr. Lawton confirms he is. Mr. Lawton clarifies that Mr. and Mrs. Brooks are not currently living at 95 Brow Avenue; they are currently living with Mr. Lawton. Chairman Karll confirms that to approve the Petition, It is basically just a finding that it is not more detrimental to the area than what already exists. Member Ford has no questions, as it seems pretty straight forward. Chairman Karll states the Staff Recommendation states that the extension of the existing structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what already exists. Staff included two conditions, which are pretty much the standard conditions: (1) after the Appeal Period that the applicant obtains a certified copy of the Decision from the Town Clerk and files it with the Registry of Deeds; and (2) the Applicant provides an As-Built Plan when the house is complete. There are no questions from the Zoning Board members. Chairman Karll asks the public if there is anyone that wants to testify in favor or is there any opposition. There is none, and therefore, Chairman Karll closes the hearing. Member Ford MOTION to approve the Petition, subject to the conditions that the Planning Staff has added, which are normal; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0. (Karll, Ford, McDonough) OTHER BUSINESS (This matter will be tabled to the January 27th ZBA Meeting) Petition #19-36 107 Hancock Street and 99 Hancock Street Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 2 Arista Development LLC is seeking relief from the Zoning Bylaw Sections 135-407, 135-701 and 135-705 to construct a 4-Story, 35 Unit Residential Building on a 50,857 Sq. Ft. Development Site. The Residential Building and Site will not comply with the Density or Open Space requirements pursuant to 135-705 or the Maximum Number of Stories pursuant to 135-701. The Applicant seeks variance(s) to exceed these zoning requirements. The property owned by Hancock Realty Trust at 107 Hancock Street is 44,050 Sq. Ft. is zoned General Business and is shown on Assessors Map 1009 as Plot 68. The Property owned by B & F Hancock Street LLC at 99 Hancock Street is 6,807 Sq. Ft. is Zoned General Business and Residence B (See 135- 306) and is shown on Assessors Map 1009 as Plot 64. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi explains that for this matter of Other Business she wants to inform the Zoning Board that, at the Chairman’s request, for the deliberation over the decision for 107 Hancock Street and 99 Hancock Street we have an extension from the Applicant that extended the 100 day deadline for the Zoning Board to make their decision. That has been stamped in with the Town Clerk until January 27, 2020. It was noted on the Agenda as being tabled until January 27, 2020, and the Assistant Director wanted the Board to note this. Chairman Karll confirmed that it doesn’t need to be read into record. The Assistant Director reminds the Board that there has been some requests that the Hearing be reopened, which is up to the Zoning Board. Chairman Karll states this will be taken up at the January 27, 2020 meeting. Petition #19-42 11 Berwick St Ercilla F. Silvia, 11 Berwick Street, Braintree, MA 02184, for relief from the Braintree Zoning Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135-402, 135-403, and 135-701 to add a second floor above the existing structure that has a footprint of approx. 1,407 SF and is an existing non-conforming structure. The existing single family dwelling is non-conforming as to the front and side yard setbacks. The existing lot is undersized per Residence C standards and is deficient of the required frontage, lot width and lot depth. The Applicant seeks a permit, variance and/or finding that the proposed alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is located at 11 Berwick Street and is zoned Residence C as shown on Assessors’ Map 3050 Plot 132 with a land area of 9,000 SF. Chairman Karll explains sitting on this petition will be Member McDonough, Member Ford and Member Walker. The Alternate will be Chairman Karll. Chairman Karll is satisfied that the abutters and the abutters to the abutters within 300 feet have been duly notified. Chairman Karll acknowledges that this is just a Finding, and Planning Staff recommends that the proposed extension of the existing structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure. In rendering the Zoning Board of Appeals Conditions, staff wants to add two conditions, which are the standard conditions: (1) after the Appeal Period that the applicant obtains a certified copy of the Decision from the Town Clerk and files it with the Registry of Deeds; and (2) the Applicant provides an As-Built Plan after completion of the project. Member Ford will now chair this portion of the meeting, and he asks the Applicant’s representative to state his name for the record. Tom Trokie identifies himself as the building. Member Ford asks what the plan is. They are planning to add a second story to the existing structure; they will take the roof off and build up, right on the same footprint. Member Ford states, looking at the drawings, there is a large area that remains unfinished. Will that be finished in the future to add a couple more bedrooms? Mr. Trokie states that is up to the Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 3 owner and what they plan to do in the future. Currently, it is just going to be an open recreation room right now. Member Ford acknowledged that it was an interesting staircase. Mr. Trokie said it was pretty complex and they are probably going to be doing a straight staircase. Member Ford states you will need to change drawings on that. Zoning Planner, Conner Murphy, confirms that they will need to submit revised materials to the Planning Department. Member Ford asks the public if there is anyone that wants to speak in favor of this project or anyone that is opposed to this project. There is no response; therefore, Member Ford closed the Public Hearing and opens it to discussion by the Zoning Board Members. There are no further questions or comments from the Zoning Board. Member Walker MOTION to approve the Petition, subject to the conditions that the Planning Staff has added, which are normal; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0. (McDonough, Ford, Walker) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Karll states that brings us to our next matter, the Comprehensive Permit Application (Chapter 40B). Chairman Karll explains the first application is for the 70-Unit Multi-Family Residential Apartments, and the second application was for the eight (8) Townhouse Style Residential Units. 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. Assistant Director Melissa SantucciRozzi explains that she didn’t do an outline for this evening. There is basically one primary focus, as the Board and the public are aware. The Applicant, Mr. Holland, appeared very briefly at the last hearing on December 4th and requested the hearing be continued to this evening in order for Mr. Holland and his team to try to revise the plan to address the concerns raised by the Fire Department. Those plans were submitted and circulated to the Board, as well as shared on the Website, as well as vetted by the Fire Department and discussed. There are some comments from Deputy Chief Sawtelle who is here this evening. Mr. Holland is here with some of his team members and would like to make a brief presentation regarding that plan. Then, we would like to hear from Deputy Chief Sawtelle. Then, Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 4 potentially, we would like to have some dialogue around that, as warranted as questions come up. Staff has talked with the Applicant, and obviously the Zoning Board is not going to be closing this evening. The Applicant has agreed to an extension. Our next 40B Public Hearing will be January 6, 2020; we have an extension that will take us through to January 9, 2020, in the event that January 6th happens to be a snow event. We would have to re-post that cancelled meeting that would be on Monday, January 6th on that Wednesday evening, January 8th. That paperwork is in place. The department has booked the evenings that Cahill Auditorium is available in January. The Assistant Director will share those dates and come up with a schedule. The dates are January 8th, January 13th, January 22nd (the Assistant Director is not available this evening) and January 29th. These dates haven’t been fully vetted with Carolyn and the Board Members, but we have them reserved in case we need them. She will have some updates schedules going out to the Board over the next week or so. For now, at the conclusion of tonight’s discussion, a mutually agreed extension has been provided and will be signed by the Applicant, as well as the Board. We will make sure that is filed appropriately with the Town Clerk. Chairman Karll states, in that case, we will hear from the Petitioner. Lynne Sweet, LDS Consulting Group, states their team is grateful to the Town of Braintree Planning Staff and ZBA Members for their time and effort to reviewing this application to date. Despite the applicant’s belief that the original plan submitted meets all state fire code regulations, following the December 2nd meeting, the Applicant’s team worked to create a third side to the building to try and satisfy the local concern of Deputy Chief Sawtelle. On December 10, Assistant Director Melissa SantucciRozzi coordinated a meeting with Deputy Chief Sawtelle and members of the Applicant’s team and the Town’s attorney to discuss the potential new configuration of the site and review a new plan prepared by our Civil Engineer, Jim Burke. The Applicant wants to thank Melissa for her time on that. Following what the Applicant team viewed as a positive discussion, on December 11 and 12, the Applicant submitted electronic copies and hard-copies of an alternative plan for ladder placement and a drawing that shows the configuration of ladders near the building. Therefore, this afternoon, the Applicant team was really disappointed to receive a negative letter from Deputy Chief Sawtelle at 2:10 PM this afternoon, raising new issues and not acknowledging the efforts of the Applicant to address the Department’s concerns. To date, the Applicant has provided the following to address fire safety and access: fully-sprinkled residential buildings; the engineer has outlined fire-lanes and turning radii or fire department vehicles; they have located on-site fire hydrants; they have worked on the landscaping plan to provide additional clear and hard surfaces for trucks and personnel; two ladder-ports with 35 foot ladders along the rear of the building, along with fire department only access; they added a lock-box access to the garage so that the Fire Department could safely access the garage in the event of an emergency; they committed to a snow-removal plan that would ensure that the fire lanes would remain clear; they also provided a parking/no-parking plan along Parkingway and along Washington Street to clear fire lanes; lastly, as noted previously, they provided an alternative building plan to allow access from a third side of the building. Based on Ms. Sweet’s conversation this afternoon with the Applicant’s Fire Code Specialist, Mr. Kevin Hastings, who was here at the last meeting or at the meeting with the Fire Chief, Ms. Sweet wants to briefly address some of the concerns from the Deputy Chief, and then she will turn the microphone over to our Civil Engineer, Jim Burke, to walk you through the alternative plan and answer any questions that you might have. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 5 Ms. Sweet continues, in consideration of the Deputy Chief asking the Applicant to place trucks on the plan, the Applicant complied. It is disingenuous of the Deputy Chief to criticize the Applicant if the Deputy Chief does not agree with the Applicant’s placement of the vehicles. The Applicant is only required under the code to show fire lanes, not where the Fire Department will put its vehicles. The placement of trucks was done as a courtesy, but criticized in the recent letter. Ms. Sweet continues stating that they are not aware of a fire code or building code requiring to provide Fire Department ladder access to the roof of a residential building, or any building for that matter. The building and fire code obviously allows for the construction of buildings that are taller than any ladder truck can reach. The fire code does not require fire lanes to be located outside the potential collapse zone of a building. Last, the revised plan shows a dead end of 150 feet to allow for fire apparatus to go behind the building, as they said on a third side. They did not give the fire lane more than 150 feet because they are aware that, if you have a dead end of more than 150 feet, you need to provide a turning radius. This was done as “belt and suspenders” because the distances behind the building that the Fire Department personnel would have to travel along the perimeter are still within the 250 feet fire lane. To sum it all up, it is the Applicant’s belief that both of the plans (the one that was submitted with the application and the alternative plan that the Applicant submitted in the past few weeks and will be showing tonight) are compliant with both building and fire codes. As Melissa mentioned, since we spent our time working on the new plan, the engineer did not have time to address the comments that were made at the last December meeting. Some of the comments were very minor changes to the drainage, and some of them were calculations needed for the waivers. The Applicant is absolutely willing to give the extension to January 9, 2020, as Melissa stated. The Applicant will do their best to get all the remaining documentation in by the end of the week, depending on where the meeting goes tonight. Ms. Sweet turns the microphone over to Jim Burke, Engineer for the project. Jim Burke, Engineer for the project, states he is going to be brief. They looked at this particular design to see if they could get access to a third side. All he really did was slide that building up 20 feet, west to east, and reduce the landscaping in front. What that did was eliminate a lot of the parking along Archie’s field side to provide access for the emergency vehicles. They did a little bit of regrading and added some parking spaces where there was once landscaping. For the parking spaces that were originally proposed, the count still remains the same in this design. Mr. Burke provided the turning movements for emergency vehicles, as well. Those continue to work. Mr. Burke did place the emergency vehicles at certain points to show ladder access, and he did a lot of online research with regards to accessibility for these vehicles to the roof. Mr. Burke wanted to make sure that the placement made sense for what he was learning, but he recognizes that he is no expert. The placement that he shows on the plans before the ZBA are based on the research that he has done to provide access to the roof. It was done to see if it would alleviate some of the concerns of the Fire Department; however, the Deputy Chief still has some concerns based on the letter Mr. Burke received today. Chairman Karll asks the Board Members if anyone has any questions so far. There are no questions. Chairman Karll states we will hear from Deputy Chief Sawtelle. Deputy Chief Steve Sawtelle wants to clarify a point. At the December 10th meeting, he does appreciate the effort that the Applicant put forth. He also wants to make sure that the Applicant knows that at that meeting Chief Sawtelle stated the Fire Department’s continued concern that he thinks the building is too big for the parcel that is there. At no point did he express that they were going to be in agreement of a plan. Chief Sawtelle appreciates the effort for the 20 foot fire Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 6 access road in the back, but he will point to the definition for fire access. The Fire Department access states “the road or means developed to allow access and operational set-up for firefighting and rescue apparatus. It is not just a means to get there. The Fire Department has to be able to perform a task. Chief Sawtelle want to address the fact that there is nothing in the fire code to having access to the roof of a residential structure. Getting to the roof of a residential structure, or any kind of structure, is to ventilate the building, to make it tenable for the forces that are inside performing to act with the conditions of heat and smoke to provide a little visibility. That is strategy that is taught early on in the Fire Academy. They do need access to the roof. The Fire Department is opposed to these plans. The Fire Department is not disputing the lack of roof access, but limited points of access. The submitted plans show three ladder locations. Chief Sawtelle appreciates the Applicant putting them on the plan, but it also illustrates that the space is confined and does not allow for much more access than those three spots. The Fire Department refers to these three locations as Location Number 1 at the front of the building, Location Number 2 at the side of the building at the garage entrance and Location Number 3 at the rear corner of the building. Location 1 and 3 are the only really acceptable locations, as far as how they can position the truck and be able to go off at the proper angle to provide stability form the apparatus. However, the Fire Department concern is “what if the fire is not close to these locations?” The objective of the Fire Department is to be as close to the fire as possible to remove the products of combustion from the building, in order to make it tenable. It is not based on how far they have to go to ventilate the roof, it is how far they have to go to get off of the roof in the event of an emergency. If the roof starts to fail, it gets spongy. What if the roof collapses? How do they get off the roof? What if they can’t get back to the existing ladder truck? What is their avenue of escape? The ladder truck has been committed, and the replacement of the apparatus cannot be performed quickly, if it can be performed at all. That is why the Fire Department operations the initial placement of the aerial with a ladder is critical to a successful fire ground operation. Would another ladder or aerials have to be deployed? The answer is yes, but the question is where. With the interior tact engine and the water supply engine already positioned and on scene and working, there would not be another location nor would there be access to the property. Location 1 coming in from the Parkingway pretty much blocks off the Parkingway from entrance by another vehicle. You cannot get around that curve. Once that ladder parks there, it is committed. It blocks any additional apparatus from entering the property at this point. Any additional apparatus responding, including an ambulance, would then have to respond by coming in via Storrs Avenue. Location Number 3, at the rear of the building, probably provides the safest in terms of positioning and stability. It also keeps both entrances to the property open. But what if the fire is along the Masonic Temple side of the building? Now they are traversing all the way across the building. Deputy Chief Sawtelle continues, firefighters working a scene are working in adverse conditions. The visibility is poor. Inclement weather is going to be a factor, as well as a hazard for firefighters. The Masonic Temple side of the building has a boundary line that tapers down from 23.1 feet to 13.5 feet. They raised a point about the 35 foot ground ladders. The base of the 35 foot ground ladder is going to have to be 9 feet from the building. Now you don’t have a 35 foot ladder; you are down around 26 feet. These ladders are not going to give us access to the parapet or access to the windows. At the meeting on December 10th, the Deputy Chief explained to Mr. Burke that they would place ladders if they are going to make a rescue out of the ladder. If they are going to enter the room, there are going to be two or three rungs inside the window. If they are going to ventilate the room, it is going to be as high as the top of the header, and they will be next to the window. So, when they pull a window out, the glass falls to the ground and does not injure the firefighter. Where this point narrows down to 13.5 Feet, if you are raising a ladder, you have 9 feet away from the building. Now you are talking about a 4 foot Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 7 working clearance behind you. Chief Sawtelle states it doesn’t provide space for many of the operations they need to perform. If the building starts to fall or the roof collapses, the firefighter is trapped in a 13.5 foot space. The rear of the building now provides a 150 foot, 20 foot wide Fire Department access road. Chief Sawtelle would argue that it does require a turn-around because it is longer than 150 feet. They don’t just place the apparatus in the corner of that building. The access road to that point is still going to be part of the access road, either coming in from Storrs Avenue or coming in from the Parkingway. It is still longer than 150 feet. Within the Deputy Chief’s estimation and opinion, it would require a turn-around still. As Deputy Chief Sawtelle has stated at previous meetings, they are not going to put a piece of apparatus in a 20 foot spot right next to the building because with the close proximity it is close for radiant heat, it is in a collapse zone, and it would endanger the apparatus and the firefighters. At the December 10th meeting, the Deputy Chief did say to Mr. Burke that they may put a piece of apparatus back there depending on the type of fire. If it was a small outside fire, a car fire or a fire on the landscaped hill, they may put a piece of apparatus there, but they will not put a piece of apparatus there at that location for a structure fire. Again, that access is basically for an engine only. It does not have enough room to deploy the outriggers for an aerial. As the Deputy Chief stated in a previous meeting, with the outrigger deployed, it measures 24 feet. You cannot fit 24 feet inside of 20 feet. The Fire Department has maintained from the beginning that a piece of apparatus would not be placed that close to the building. The building access for these plans are based on perfect conditions. There is no inclement weather. There is no illegally parked cars. There is no intangibles. No fire is the same. A Fire Department will follow known tactics and strategies. The placement of apparatus will be dictated by the location of the fire in each instance. Deputy Chief cannot stand before the ZBA today and say where apparatus will enter and where they will be deployed. That decision will be made by the Incident Commander based on the information he has available at that time, information such as the type of fire, how much of the building is involved, are any residents trapped and information being provided by individual working inside the building describing what conditions they are facing. The Fire Department opposition to this project is based on a concern for potential residents and responding fire fighters. Chairman Karll thanks Deputy Chief Sawtelle for his comments and expertise in this matter, and he asks the Zoning Board Members if they have any questions. Member Ford mentions that we are talking about the need for a turn-around with a 150 foot length. As Member Ford looks at the approach coming in from Storrs Avenue, that has to be close to 400 feet. Deputy Chief Sawtelle confirms that and states add that to the 150 feet they are showing at the rear of the building because you can’t get to the 150 feet without coming in through Storrs Avenue or coming in from the Parkingway. In the Deputy Chief’s estimation and opinion, that his part of the Fire Department access. Chairman Karll asks if the Applicants would like to make a further comment. Lynne Sweet, on behalf of the Applicant, thanks the Chairman for the opportunity but states they are not going to respond. They are going to have their fire expert, Kevin Hastings, respond to the Deputy Chief’s letter by the end of the week. Chairman Karll will now open the discussion to the public, and he would like to reserve comments to the main issue tonight, fire. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 8 Patrick J. Leonard, Jr., 27 Parkside Circle, states when he hears people say this is in full compliance with all the state laws, as a History teacher, he is reminded that when the RMS Titanic sailed on April 10th, 1912, the ship was in full compliance with all admiralty laws. He is sure the people who died that night were more comfortable knowing that they died on a ship that complied with the law, even though it didn’t provide for public safety. It is confirmed that Mr. Leonard was a History teacher – head of the department. Mr. Leonard identifies himself and states that he is against this project. There is something very grim and very bad about what has been going on at these meetings. Mr. Leonard senses it more and more at every meeting. He sensed it in what was said at the December 2nd Meeting, which Mr. Leonard saw on television. Part of what is grim and bad is the sense which is projected that the developer has already won their point. Chairman Karll asks where Mr. Leonard gets that sense from. Do you get it from the Board? Mr. Leonard states this is a 40B project; therefore, no matter what the citizens of Braintree or Braintree town officials say or do, the real estate project for profit of the developer is somehow already approved. Chairman Karll states that is entirely incorrect, sir, and Chairman Karll would like to say that Mr. Leonard is wrong. Chairman Karll stresses that public safety is a key issue. Mr. Leonard states that is an issue that he wants to talk to. Chairman Karll states “let’s get to it”. Mr. Leonard senses that “this is 40B, this is 40B” in a sea of waivers for the developer. Everyone knows the project is in the wrong place; everyone knows it is way too big. Everyone knows it will radically change traffic flows and change the quiet neighborhoods, putting the lives of children in danger. Everyone knows the millions of gallons of wastewater that this massive project will generate will someday will create massive problems. Mr. Leonard does not think that anyone at the meeting or at home really cares what kind of bushes or shrubs they are going to plant on the tiny patches of open land or that somehow this project is going to help benefit the wildlife in Braintree Square or how many foot candles there will be in the parking lot. What is the real question here? Is this a good project for Braintree? The answer is “no”, and everyone knows that too. What is the very grim and very part of this project? It is that this project is really about just two things: power and money. Who is telling who what to do? What is this project being built for -- not to provide affordable housing? That is just a weapon used by the developer to coerce the people in the town. These projects are being done to make money for developers. That is the only reason. Mr. Leonard believes the true intent of the 40B law is to provide affordable housing for good people. Mr. Leonard does not believe that it was ever meant to be used as a legal weapon to override the laws of our cities and towns for the sole purpose of making real estate speculations profitable, especially when the speculator and the developer knew in advance that their projects would not succeed under the existing zoning laws unless those laws were changed to advance their personal financial interest. The laws were made to protect people against predators of all types, not to arm and empower financial predators against the people. The most disturbing thing, which Mr. Leonard may have heard at any meeting, was said at the meeting on December 2nd, which he did not attend but saw on BCAM. This is when the real issues of power and money over the public good were clearly stated. Many dangers related to this massive project have been mentioned in these meetings by many people. Mr. Leonard would like to thank Chief Sawtelle, a man who risks his life in his profession. How many people go to work every day knowing that it might be their last day? That’s Deputy Chief Sawtelle. The representative of the Braintree Fire Department, in particular, has said this is a dangerous project and has given many professional reasons. When this was brought up again at the December 2nd meeting, the representative of the developer summed up the whole power struggle when he said “the local fire chief cannot veto this project”. 40B is designed to override this type of objection. If developers can override the concerns of a fire chief Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 9 for public safety so that they can make money on their speculative projects, what else can they override? The concerns for public safety were expressed by people who dedicate their professional lives and risk their lives to save other people. The ability to override these concerns by professional fire fighters for public safety is supported by legal counsel and a fire safety expert who has never been a fireman. Mr. Leonard states that if his house catches on fire, he is not going to call a fire safety expert, and he is not going to call his lawyer. If concerns for public safety can simply be overridden in favor of corporate profit, then we are really in danger as a community. Financial gain over human life is wrong. Mr. Leonard asks the Zoning Board of Appeals to vote unanimously against this project and let the developer appeal to a higher authority to try to override the people of Braintree and the government of the Town of Braintree. Mr. Leonard states if we surrender our authority to developers while we still have the power to say “no”, then all of these meetings will have been for no purpose and there will be no end to massive projects like this one. No person, no company and no law has the right to override public safety for private gain – not now and not ever. Thank you. Chairman Karll thanks Mr. Leonard and states his remarks are well thought out and taken with seriousness by the Board. However, Chairman Karll takes exception to Mr. Leonard’s first two paragraphs that this is a foregone conclusion. Jill Coyle, Parkside Avenue, states she will be speaking to what has been going on tonight, but she did want to bring up something from a prior meeting and then move on. At the November 20th hearing, Mrs. Coyle asked for clarification on the Signalized Intersection LOS and Vehicle Que Summary Table, specifically Table 10R prepared by VAI, the last section Storrs Avenue, at the project site access, 20-26 build, showed that almost 90% of the vehicles leaving onsite during the AM peak hours would take a left turn onto Storrs Avenue. Mrs. Coyle was not able to attend the last meeting, and this question had still been unresolved. Staff has since asked the Peer Review Consultant to review this concern. Staff advised that Ron Mueller did in fact find errors in the data and provided a report correcting and clarifying that data. Mrs. Coyle has not seen the response; however, staff did advise that it did not affect the LOS and that Mrs. Coyle would be receiving a copy. Mrs. Coyle just wanted to ensure that the Board had received this information, as well. Mrs. Coyle reviewed the revised plans provided for tonight’s hearing, which moved the apartment building forward. By moving a building forward and to maintain the current 149 parking spaces, this has created further potential for safety issues on the site. The initial plan had six spaces which were required to back out onto the site’s throughway. They were located further north on the site, and away from the main travel entrance to the site and the main travel entrance to the building. The revised plan now has 16 spaces required to back out onto the site’s throughway that stretches from the site’s entrance. The additional movement caused by the placement of the spaces promotes a very unsafe chaotic situation. The first three spaces, not only conflict with the throughway traffic but also conflicts with the main entrance traffic to the building. The nature of the movement, driving in reverse, would negatively impact the safety of both drivers and pedestrians. As prior speakers have mentioned during these hearings, this site may very well become the “cut-through” solution to avoiding traffic on Washington Street. Mrs. Coyle can only imagine what will happen with vehicles moving forward and backward with their attempt to avoid gridlock elsewhere. Mrs. Coyle continues to support the position of the Braintree Fire Department. When a 40 year veteran of the Fire Department states that he wishes to keep the residents of Braintree and his fellow firefighters out of harm’s way, Mrs. Coyle believes him. She finds it extremely difficult to give any credibility to someone who has never fought a fire in his or her life. Mrs. Coyle was unable to attend the December 2nd Hearing due to a prior family commitment. After reviewing the meeting, Mrs. Coyle noted a case referred Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 10 to by the Applicant’s attorney. The case was Sunderland vs. Sugarbush Meadow LLC in which the courts upheld the HAC decision to issue a Comprehensive Permit. There were five claims made by Sunderland, one of which was related to opposition from the town’s fire chief related to fire access. The claim stated that the town needed to acquire a ladder truck to access the roof of the buildings in the proposed project. This claim was denied because the town could call upon a neighboring town for equipment and because the town’s existing bylaws allow for a building of the same height. Mrs. Coyle is not an attorney, but in her humble opinion, comparing this case to what is before us in Braintree is like comparing apples to oranges. Restricted access pertains specifically to the roof of buildings and lack of equipment to access them not to restricted access for proper equipment deployment on two sides of the building. For the lack of a better analogy, the Applicant is trying to put 100 lbs. of apartments into a 20 pound bag, leaving almost half of the apartment building inaccessible to a Fire Department that has the equipment needed but does not have the room to deploy that equipment. The safety and well- being of many should never be compromised for monitory gain of a few. Mrs. Coyle believes parking was also discussed at this meeting as related to the Village Overlay District. Although 135-815 provides for a fee in lieu of providing sufficient parking, this will do nothing for the existing business owners in Braintree Square. Parking is already at a premium, and land does not exist to simply build a lot. With insufficient parking for this project, again, other business owners and residents will suffer for monitory gain of a few. Mrs. Coyle respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny this application, as it provides zero benefit to the Town of Braintree and has the potential to cause serious harm to the Town and its residents. Mrs. Coyle thanks the Zoning Board of Appeals for their consideration. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi asks to follow-up on one point related to the first item that Mrs. Coyle discussed. The Assistant Director has received something back from Ron Mueller; however, she just hasn’t had the chance to review it and follow-up with any questions; she wanted to do that before she shared it with anybody in case there was any kind of follow-up needed. Chairman Karll asks if there are any other speakers from the public. There are none. Lynne Sweet, representing the Applicant, states, at this point in time, the Applicant is going to revoke the alternate plan and go back to the original plan that was filed. It doesn’t appear that there is an opportunity to come to agreement on this new fire plan. The Applicant tried and has spent a couple of weeks on it, and, unless there is something they haven’t heard from the Board or the Planning Department, the Applicant needs to keep moving at this point in time. Chairman Karll confirms that they are revoking the revised plan and going back to the original plan. Ms. Sweet expresses that they feel they don’t have any other choice, and they have spent time on it. They have had meetings. Staff has spent time on it. The Fire Department has spent time on it, but they don’t feel like they have moved the ball any closer to the finish line at this point in time. Chairman Karll asks staff if that leaves us with January 6, 2020 Meeting. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states yes, when we had met last week with the Applicant team, the smaller outstanding things that the engineer owes us were put on hold because they were focusing on this particular plan. They wanted to see if there was any merit to the revisions that they made, and obviously they don’t feel there has been. They are going back to the original plan, but they still need to make a couple of revisions to satisfy the drainage peer review. Then, they need to take a look at the waiver analysis that was completed and either agree with that or dispute that and submit that for the record. As the Assistant Director had stated at the previous meetings, the Applicant missed some waivers, but they also requested several that they don’t need, and Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 11 that was based on their reading the bylaw and not really understanding how we interpret and apply those sections. Once all of those materials come in, everything will be looked at again. At that point, the Board will need to decide whether it is time to close the hearing because there is not going to be any new information submitted. Then, we would need to schedule some meetings to deliberate the decision. Chairman Karll states, that being said, the next scheduled meeting will by January 6, 2020, and if it is snowed-out, the meeting will be Wednesday, January 8, 2020. Member Ford MOTION to continue this 40B hearing to January 6, 2020; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0 (voting: Karll, Ford, McDonough). Chairman Karll states, quite honestly, if the conditions were ready this evening, he would be ready to take a vote on this matter, but they are not. So, we will wait until January 6, 2020 to get all the waivers and things of that nature, and then we will schedule a hearing where the conditions can be looked at and reviewed. Then, we will make a decision on whatever date that is. Assistant Director SantucciRozzi states she will circulate the dates to make sure that they work for the Board Members. Chairman Karll announces that the meeting is continued; he thanks everyone for coming and invites everyone to attend again. Member Ford MOTION to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Member McDonough; voted 3:0:0 (voting: Karll, Ford, McDonough). The Board adjourned the meeting at 8:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Louise Quinlan Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes December 16, 2019 12