Zoning Board

CITY OF METHUEN BOARD OF APPEALS THE SEARLES BUILDING 41 PLEASANT STREET METHUEN, MA 01844 MEETING MINUTES MEETING HELD via ZOOM WEB CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY, September 22, 2021 @ 7:00 P.M. 1. Roll Call. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm Members in Attendance Matthew D’Agostino, Chairman Present Laura Walta, Vice Chairman Present Vincenzo Pesce, Board Clerk Absent Philip Cultrera, Member Present David DiNatale, Alternate Member Present Ronald Pitocchelli, Alternate Member Absent Others in Attendance Jodie Geary, Zoning Board Secretary Felix Zemel, Director of Inspectional Services Petitioners and Representatives of Petitioners Chairman Matthew D’Agostino called for a moment of silence in honor of all American’s who have died for our country, then led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Old Business: Any correspondence referring to: a. Request to Withdraw a Petition on the Agenda: For the record there were none. b. Request for a Reconsideration of a Denied Decision: For the record there were none. c. Request for Significant Change on a Denied Decision: 2021-27 Applicant: Ali Kalem, 39 Linden Street, Lynn, MA 01905, Co-Applicant: Evan Silverio, a/k/a Diverse Real Estate, 10 S. Broadway, Lawrence, MA 01843 Special Permit required for a Restaurant in a Business Highway (BH) Zone at 91 Broadway, Methuen, per Section V-D of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Methuen. 1 Mr. Kalem explained that the changes to his plan were made to address the parking issue. He has made an agreement with a floral shop adjacent to his business to utilize their parking lot. His business hours will be 2:30 – 9:00 pm and closed on Monday. The restaurant will be the same concept of take out and delivery and no liquor sales. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino opened the floor for public participation. The following person spoke in favor: Linda Soucy, 10 Kirk Street: Mrs. Soucy said she sent in a letter for the record, requesting that this petition be approved. She’s going to take Mr. Kalem at his word that there will be no liquor license and that he will not seek to have one in the future. He’s made an investment in the neighborhood, and she’s interested in supporting him. For the record nobody else spoke in favor. For the record, nobody spoke in opposition. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino closed public participation. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino read into the record, an email in opposition to the petition, from Interim Police Chief, Randy Haggar. Chairman D’Agostino commented that the ZBA has never gone against the recommendation of Methuen Police or Fire because public safety is of utmost importance. Philip Cultrera commented that he was concerned about the Police departments opposition. Laura Walta commented that she felt that this type of restaurant did not generate a lot of vehicles that would create parking issues. She doesn’t think that the issues raised in the email are warranted under the conditions of the application. A takeout restaurant doesn’t need long term parking. Felix Zemel, Director of Inspectional Services questioned whether the owner of the floral shop had rights to allow parking. The parking agreement should be made with the owner of the building rather than a tenant. Laura Walta stated that her research showed the owner of the building to be Elana Reynoso, who is also the owner of the floral business. Chairman D’Agostino recommended that the applicant request a one month continuance in order to resolve the issues with the Police Department and any zoning issues related to the shared parking. Laura Walta noted that the request was a determination that a substantial change had been made to the plan. This new plan addressed the lack of parking that was the reason for the original denial. Then it would be incumbent upon the applicant to come back to the Board with new information to address other issues. Chairman D’Agostino responded that the Board needs to be sure that these parking spaces are valid. He also noted that he was unclear if this Board agreeing to a substantial change would lock them into an approval and unsure of the procedure required under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2 Mr. Kalem requested a continuance to the next meeting. MOTION: Laura Walta moved to continue this application to the October meeting. SECOND: Philip Cultrera DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Request for a time extension on a Granted Decision: For the record there were none. 4. New Business: 2021-24 YWCA of Greater Newburyport c/o Lisa Mead, Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC pursuant to G.L. c. 40B sections 20-23 for a Comprehensive Permit to construct 96 rental housing units at 10 and 12 Ingalls Court Lot 1 including Assessor’s Map 716-115-2A and 716-115-2. Lisa Mead, attorney for the applicant, gave an overview of the project. She noted that they have received some feedback from city departments, some of which they have addressed and others they have not. They still have some documents to submit, and they are still waiting for peer review. The project is located at 10-12 Ingalls Court, the site of Element Care and Nevins Family of Services. They are seeking approval for the construction of 96 affordable rental units for seniors 62+. They will be constructed in two phases, on two parcels of land. One comprising 1.17 acres and the other comprising 2.18 acres for a total of 3.35 acres. the parcels are located behind the Nevins Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, north of the Spicket River at the end of Granite Street. Phase 1 will be the first building and include 48 residential units and be the new location of Element Care. Phase 2 will be to remove the existing Element Care building and build a new 48 unit residential building in its place. The two new buildings will not be visible from Broadway as they are significantly behind the Nevins Manor. There is a mixture of housing types in the neighborhood. There is the Granite Street apartment complex. The single family and multi family homes are down lower on Oakland Avenue. Currently the location consists of two lots. They will be proposing an ANR resulting in three lots. For the record, the applicant has met the threshold criteria to qualify for a comprehensive permit. • Site control – Executed purchase and sale agreement in effect • Local initiative project – letter of support from mayor and project eligibility letter from DHCD • Applicant is the YWCA of Greater Newburyport, a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization • Affordable housing was under 10% at date of submission and anticipated to be under 10% with new Census Bureau data. All 96 units will count toward the city’s SHI. They will be one bedroom units for independent living for seniors over the age of 62, all residents must be at least 62 years of age and all 96 units are reserved for seniors living below 60% of the Area Medium Income (AMI), or below $43,260 per year. Income and rents are based on current HUD limits and subject to change. The affordability distribution is also subject to change depending on when they are ready for occupancy. 3  • 48 units are reserved for seniors living below 30% AMI or $21,630 per year • 5 units are reserved for seniors above 30% AMI but below 50% AMI • 43 units for seniors living below 60% AMI Element Care will continue to provide services to residents of Methuen, Nevins and the new housing. The idea is to have a continuum of care, and easy access of care that Element Care provides, and services that are provided on site. T.J. Melvin, engineer for the project reviewed the Site Plan. Access to the site will be via Broadway, through Ingalls Court, which is the access to the Nevins parking, or from Granite Street. They plan to utilize the same driveway that is between Nevins and Element Care. The grades on site fall from north to southbound to the Spicket River. They are intending to keep the parking similar to what is already there. There will be 122 parking spaces provided both under the building and as surface spaces. They tried to match the grades the best they could, especially down to the access drive where the Nevins building is already in existence. The site is currently mostly paved and there is a large gravel parking area that will be within the phase one building. That area will become the building and they will final pave the surface. They are proposing a stormwater management system to collect, treat, infiltrate and discharge the runoff from the site. The utilities will run similar to what exists on site. The sewer for Element Care runs behind the Nevins Nursing Home building down to Broadway. The water for the project will come in through Granite Street, similar to what is now serving the Element Care building. They are also providing natural gas. The Spicket River runs along the property, and they will make sure that they meet all of the riverfront requirements through DEP. Attorney Mead noted that they would be submitting the stormwater report to the city Engineering Office and TEC in the next couple of weeks. They expect to have a review of that report in time for the next meeting. They have addressed other comments provided by the Engineering Department. They have satisfied the comments from the Fire Department relative to access around the site for their largest equipment. Michelle Apigian, architect for the project, reviewed the landscape plan, Phase 1 concept floor plans, Phase 2 concept floor plans, exterior view, west elevation, east elevation, north elevation, south elevation and typical unit layout that is functional, allowing people to age in place and meets DHCD guidelines. Attorney Mead noted that they gave a specific list of waivers as part of the application. It’s possible, as the plans are reviewed that the list may change; waivers being dropped or added. The current list is as follows: • Special Permit for multifamily use • Some dimensional requirements • Parking and loading requirements • Separate Site Plan Approval from the Community Development Board • Separate subdivision approval • Local Wetland Ordinance • Separate stormwater filing They will be filing with the Conservation Commission because of the proximity of the Spicket River. Developing affordable housing is a significant portion of the WYCA mission. They have 42 units that they manage in Salisbury in the renovation of an old school building and some property across the street from that. They also manage some housing in Newburyport. 4 Laura Walta asked about traffic and noted that Granite Street is very close to Oakland Avenue and there’s a light there. She said that sometimes it can take a long time to get out on to Broadway because of the traffic patterns. She wondered if there were any alternatives to Granite Street. She also had concerns of additional impervious surfaces on the site. Attorney Mead responded that they have hired a traffic engineer who will be submitting a traffic memorandum and presenting it at the next meeting. She will make sure that those specific things are addressed. She noted that much of the site is pavement right now and those issues will be addressed in the stormwater report. T.J. Melvin added that they intend to capture and treat all of the runoff from the site. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino informed Attorney Mead that they have correspondence from the Police Department expressing concern about the Granite Street congestion. Mayor Neil Perry expressed his support for the project because he feels that there is not enough of the affordable housing for senior citizens in Methuen that this project will provide, and he wants to make sure that this stays senior housing. He wants to be clear that he doesn’t want to influence the Board, that they should decide on the project’s merits. The one thing he would like to see with the plans is some green space. He asked if the project required approval from the Historic District Commission. Attorney Mead responded that this project is outside of the Historic District. Kathleen Colwell confirmed that the project was outside of the Historic District Commission but that the Department would be looking at some of the architectural details and making sure that they are in keeping with the neighborhood. She also noted that TEC, the City’s peer review engineers, are in the process of reviewing the plan. They will also be reviewing the stormwater management plan and the traffic memorandum. David DiNatale asked what the process was for renting a unit. John Feehan, Executive Director of the Newburyport WYCA, responded that there is a regulatory process to obtain tenants. They work closely with the Commonwealth to develop an affordable fair housing plan and that’s the plan they use to market the property and let as many people know about this opportunity as possible. As people submit applications, ballot numbers are assigned to them, and then there is a lottery. That then becomes the wait list. Once the building is operational, they will maintain a wait list that is based on a first come first served basis. They work with the local housing authority to make sure their tenants are aware of the project and encourage them to apply. The screening process includes a preliminary background check, a landlord check through the housing court, a credit check, and personal reference checks. They also screen for income eligibility. Laura Walta asked about a Methuen preference. Mr. Feehan responded that the Commonwealth will allow a local preference to be put into the lottery system. They cap the number of units that can be reserved for local preference. You have to make sure that the local preference meets the ethnic and racial diversity of the larger area. The local preference only applies to the initial lottery. They are committed to working with Methuen Council on Aging, Element Care, and Elder Services of Merrimack Valley. All the local partners would know about this project and be providing applications on a regular basis. That’s how they ensure that local residents get into the project. Attorney Mead noted that it is not at all unusual to have a condition regarding local preference and the applicant would be more than happy to have that condition as part of the decision. 5 Mr. Feehan responded to a question about turnover of the units. He stated that they don’t have any exact figures but noted that two tenants of their Market Street, Newburyport project have lived there more than 25 years, but those were younger tenants. Laura Walta asked if there could be a veteran’s preference. Lisa Mead responded that she doesn’t know that answer, but she will look into it. They follow the Fair Housing laws. Attorney George Pucci, representative of the Zoning Board stated that everything the applicant has presented is correct, but he cautioned the Board to not think they have tremendous control over the local preference. It really is subject to the approval of the subsidizing agency. The amount that the Board can condition and require local preference is limited. Nat Coughlin, representative of the applicant, noted that based on their previous projects, with the way the outreach happens, you tend to get a strong response from the local community. In response to questions, Attorney Mead noted that you have to go through the lottery process, so it’s not just a segue from the Nevins Home. The idea is to have services available offered from Element Care and the other services that Nevins offers. Mr. Feehan added that they are hoping that model works because it then supports affordable housing, Element Care and Nevins and for the participant, it gives them a better quality of life. Joyce Shannon, Nevins CEO gave an overview of Nevins and their programs. They have been in Methuen since 1906 and they are a nonprofit organization, and they exclusively serve elders. This project will be an extension of their nonprofit care for moderate to low income elders and it’s a part of Nevin’s nonprofit mission. She also explained that most of the residents have Medicare, and some are eligible for Medicaid, so that if they can be served on the campus when they require additional services. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino opened the floor for public participation. Linda Soucy, 10 Kirk Street: Ms. Soucy has several concerns • Have the petitioners had spoken to the neighbors behind them to find out what their interests are – are there any buffers or trees, fencing or green space • What is the percentage is for local preference. • Concern about parking • The modern building design does not fit with historic Nevins building • What happens after the waiting list • Do the 40B requirements for age and income restrictions expire. Margaret McCarthy, current board president of YWCA of Greater Newburyport: Ms. McCarthy expressed the full support from the entire board for this project. The YWCA has been providing affordable housing to the community since 1890. In 1998 they began serving homeless households, and in 2019 they greatly expanded their service area by providing 42 units in Salisbury. They see this mission as directly connected to their mission and stand in full support. 6 For the record, nobody else spoke in favor. For the record, nobody spoke in opposition. Laura Walta asked at what level the Newburyport WYCA was working with other Y’s, for example, the Lawrence YWCA or YMCA. Ms. McCarthy explained that their Board is so committed to this that they had to revise their bylaws to expand their service area from the Greater Newburyport area to the whole of Essex County. Mr. Feehan stated that he had spoken with the executive director of the Lawrence YWCA and she’s fully supportive of this project. They worked collaboratively together and with other service providers in the area. Laura Walta asked what the YWCA’s financial connection was to this project. Mr. Feehan explained that generally, they would be looking to the Commonwealth of Mass., through DHCD to fund this project. They will be using a host of funding sources that apply through the one stop application, the biggest of which is the low income housing tax credit. A for profit corporation is created, investors invest in that for profit corporation, and that is what provides the equity to build the project. For that, they get a large tax credit. They then assign the YWCA to be the managing partner. Beyond that, if there are any profits, they are controlled by a contractual agreement so that most of the profit stays within the project. Some of the profit goes to the YWCA because they are managing the project. If there is more profit, it goes back to the equity partner. Attorney Lisa Mead asked for a continuance to the October 20th meeting. Their goal is to address the concerns raised tonight. The Board and Attorney Pucci discussed the safe harbor timeline and the timeline in which to render a decision. Attorney Pucci cautioned the board that a safe harbor assertion would go back to the date of the application. DHCD did not declare the city in safe harbor prior to the application. The Board would have six months to complete the public hearing, which opened tonight, and 40 days to render a decision. If the Board wasn’t ready to close the public hearing in six months, the continuance would be subject to an agreement. Attorney Lisa Mead noted that their application was filed on August 18th, and she got information from the Department that DHCD determined that the city went over the SHI on August 25th. Attorney Pucci noted that this is an eligible 40B applicant because of the project eligibility letter that Attorney Mead referred to. He advised the Board to substantively act on this application within the six month time frame and render a decision within 40 days thereafter. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to October 20, 2021. MOTION: Laura Walta so moved SECOND: David DiNatale DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7  Roll Call Matthew D’Agostino, Chairman Yes Laura Walta, Vice Chairman Yes Vincenzo Pesce, Board Clerk Absent Philip Cultrera, Member Yes David DiNatale, Alternate Member Yes Ronald Pitocchelli, Alternate Member Absent Felix Zemel asked if Mr. DiNatale was serving as a voting member in place of Mr. Pesce or someone else, where he seconded the motion and he is an alternate member of the Board currently. Attorney Pucci noted that Mr. Zemel made a good point about seconding or voting on a motion. He recommends that the eligible members vote on the application. Chairman Matthew D’Agostino again called for a motion to continue the public hearing to October 20, 2021. MOTION: Laura Walta so moved SECOND: Philip Cultrera DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS Roll Call Matthew D’Agostino, Chairman Yes Laura Walta, Vice Chairman Yes Vincenzo Pesce, Board Clerk Absent Philip Cultrera, Member Yes David DiNatale, Alternate Member Yes Ronald Pitocchelli, Alternate Member Absent Felix Zemel asked if one of the members missing tonight, misses more than one meeting and is no longer eligible to vote under the Mullin Rule, can the Chairman then appoint Mr. DiNatale to replace that person or does that appointment have to happen tonight. Attorney Pucci explained that it’s really preferable to know who your voting Board is at the commencement of the public hearing. He stated that if two voting members are missing tonight, we just have to make sure they don’t miss another one. One way to deal with that is to continue the public hearing to a night that the voting members will be present. He also noted that because the Board is meeting remotely, a roll call vote is required. 2021-25 Anthony Vito Lafata, 26 Jasper Street, Methuen, MA 01844 Variance required under Section VI-D of the City of Methuen Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in a RB (Residential B) Zone to subdivide a parcel of land in to 2 lots, and to construct a 26’ x 48’ single family dwelling, leaving both lots without the required area & frontage at 26 Jasper Street. Mr. Lafata explained that he wants to split his lot like his neighbors have done. Chairman D’Agostino asked if he was planning to build two houses. 8 Mr. Lafata stated that he only wanted one house. He would leave the other lot like it was. He mentioned that it is the same size lot as his next door neighbor. Laura Walta noted that the plan said that the existing house is to be removed and asked if the plan was to pick up the house and move it to the Jasper Street lot so that the house would be on one lot instead of straddling two lots. Mr. Lafata confirmed that was his plan. Laura Walta noted that his neighbor had a similar sized lot but others further down the street had longer lots. Not all of the neighbors have similar lots, just a couple on Jasper Street. She asked what he was planning to do with that back lot. Mr. Lafata responded that he was going to keep it as an empty lot. Laura Walta asked why he needs to subdivide if he was keeping the back lot empty. Why not leave it as one lot that is a legal lot. Mr. Lafata responded that it is his ex-wife’s lot. Ms. Walta pointed out that there is also a tiny lot just to the left and to the rear. She asked if he considered purchasing that lot. Mr. Lafata responded that he may or maybe there’s another house that could want it. Chairman D’Agostino asked why the house doesn’t look the same dimensionally, if he is moving the existing house as opposed to building a new house. Mr. Lafata explained that he would be putting an addition on to it. Laura Walta pointed out that there may be a reason that this house was placed where it is. There appears to be a lot of piping beneath the lot. Chairman D’Agostino asked when the existing house was built. Mr. Lafata responded that it was built in 1995. Philip Cultrera noted that Jasper Street was very, very narrow and wondered if the street was accepted. Felix Zemel noted that there is currently a septic system there and it looks like the plan is to keep that septic system there. He asked if a Title 5 inspection and a recent soil test had been done to make sure that the septic system complies with new construction standards. Mr. Lafata responded that the Health Inspector and the Engineers did that for him. Felix Zemel stated that his concern is that the property on Jasper Street is 9,300 square feet and the property on Enfield Street is 4,700 square feet. The property is in an RB zone, which requires a minimum of 25,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. Even with the two lots combined, it is undersized, and neither lot has 100 feet of frontage. Right now, it is a non-conforming lot with a structure on it. If the Board approves this, they will be creating two non-conformities, or making one of those lots unbuildable. 9 Chairman Matthew D’Agostino opened the floor for public participation. For the record, nobody spoke in favor or in opposition. For the record, Chairman D’Agostino closed public participation. Mr. Lafata stated that he would like the same consideration from the Zoning Board as the properties to the right and left of him, which are identical properties. Chairman D’Agostino pointed out that none of that was done recently and asked if a new septic system would be necessary if he were to move his house. Felix Zemel responded that Mr. Lafata said that the Septic Inspector determined that the soils could withstand the current septic system, other than putting in a two compartment tank. He asked why Mr. Lafata is putting in a two compartment tank, which is generally when a garbage disposal is installed. Mr. Lafata responded that the house would be on a slab, there will not be a garbage disposal, and the Septic Inspector wanted it that way. Mr. Zemel stated that he doesn’t want him to invest in a two compartment tank unless there’s a reason for it. He noted that the house is going from a three bedroom to a three bedroom, so the septic system should not be changed dramatically. A deed restriction will need to be put on so that there cannot be a garbage disposal. Mr. Lafata agreed to a deed restriction. Mr. DiNatale asked if all of the proper documentation is in hand for the septic system. Mr. Zemel responded that a building permit would not be issued without it. He also pointed out that if the Board is to grant this subdivision, he would be required to go to the Community Development Board for a frontage waiver. Mr. DiNatale asked what happens with the other lot that nobody can build on. Mr. Lafata stated that it will be vacant. There won’t be any buildings on it. Felix Zemel asked if Mr. Lafata’s ex-wife is a co-applicant on this petition. Did she give her authority for this subdivision? The Board discussed the entities listed on the deed and whether Mr. Lafata has standing to apply for this variance. They looked at whether these were currently two separate lots and if the split of the two lots, according to the Separation Agreement, recorded at the Registry of Deeds, was ever implemented by the Community Development Board. The Board would like further information in order to make a decision. Mr. Lafata requested a continuance to the next meeting to provide the Board with additional information. MOTION: Laura Walta moved to allow the petitioner to continue to the next meeting. SECOND: Philip Cultrera 10 DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2021-26 Kamalkant M. Patel, 16 Valley View Way, Methuen, MA 01844, Co-Applicant: Julio Romero, 30 Pearle Avenue, Lawrence, MA 01841 A Variance is required under Section VI-D in a RR (Rural Residential) Zone to construct a single family dwelling without the required area, frontage, & side setbacks at Map 410-Block 125- Parcel 23D Hampshire Road, Methuen, MA 01844. Correspondence was received from the applicant requesting a continuance to the next meeting. 2. Acceptance of Minutes: 9/23/2020, 10/21/2020, 12/8/2020, 12/16/2020 & 8/25/2021 MOTION: Laura Walta moved to approve the minutes of 9/23/2020, 10/21/2020, 12/8/2020, 12/16/2020 & 8/25/2021. SECOND: Philip Cultrera DISCUSSION: None VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Adjournment: There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Matthew D’Agostino entertained a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Laura Walta so moved. SECOND: Philip Cultrera VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chairman Matthew D’Agostino adjourned the meeting at 9:28 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy P. Hudson Community Development Confidential Secretary NEXT ZONING BOARD MEETING: OCTOBER 20, 2021 Anyone needing an access accommodation to participate in City of Methuen programs or services, please contact Gene Walsh, ADA Coordinator at 978-983-8625 or GWalsh@ci.methuen.ma.us at least 2 weeks in advance, or 2 business days before any Board or Commission meeting. This notice is available in alternative formats upon request. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting/public hearing will be conducted via remote means. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so on their 11 televisions by turning to Comcast Xfinity Channel 8 or Verizon FiOS Channel 32 or view on a computer or cell phone via LIVE Stream on https://www.methuentv.org/methuen-government-tv-live- stream/ No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only. If the public would like to participate in the public hearing, please email your questions/comments by noon on the meeting day to jgeary@ci.methuen.ma.us. The questions/comments will be read during the proceedings and responded to accordingly. Members of the public who wish to speak during the public hearing can register here: https://www.methuentv.org/govmeet/ by noon on the meeting day. 12