At last night’s meeting of the Planning Board, Connelly Construction attended with their team of experts and presented their current plans and studies. These included a traffic study, another assessment of the tree that has been removed, a site section plan, and massing scenarios. Citizens were invited to speak at the end of each segment. A few did, and they largely challenged the findings and content presented.
The topic that received the most attention was the removal of the black oak. The tree is at the heart of a key issue in the development of the property. The reason is that Mr. Connelly is seeking a bonus regarding the floor area ratio (FAR). The Planning Board may award a bonus if “a development will preserve, if feasible, or replace in-kind, one or more significant natural features on the site and provide significant amenities to the public, the Planning Board may permit a bonus for a higher FAR. . . ” The tree was deemed to be a significant natural feature, but Connelly removed it due to safety concerns. One question, among several, was whether in fact it was unhealthy. If he took down a healthy tree, he would not qualify for the bonus.
Andy Felix, principal of TreeTech, the firm that removed the tree was present to give his opinion of the tree’s health. Mr. Felix did not make the initial diagnosis of the tree; his firm was brought in to remove the tree, and he was not present at its removal. However, he stated that it was his opinion that the tree was not structurally sound and he presented photos in support of his position. He noted the condition of the trunk was not the issue. He stated that all trees of that age have come decay in the trunk. The problem was with sizable decay in the limbs that make up the crown. “It’s not about life and death — it’s about structural integrity. . . [it's] too much of a safety issue.” The decay was significant in some very large limbs. The limbs could be pruned and removed, but he noted, “Trees are fed by leaves – [with removal] there is not enough leaf mass [for tree] to nourish itself.”
The discussion became contentious at times. Jackson firmly believes the tree could have been saved. He noted the assessment given by the arborist that the town retained, Mr. Largess. Largess stated in his report that the tree could be salvaged (NOTE: You can find Mr. Largess’s report along with statements from arborists contracted by Mr. Connelly here.) Peter Mullin, a Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member, also challenged Mr. Felix, asking about the location of the limbs as to the danger presented, questioning the lack of a written report, and stating that burden of proof was on the developer.
Member Duffy suggested that a vote be taken. Eventually Jackson made a motion denying the bonus, but the vote was split with Jackson and Duffy voting in favor of the motion (deny) and Whiteside and Innes voting against it. Duffy felt that feasibility could not be determined because the tree was gone. Whiteside took the testimony of Felix as that of a skilled arborist and argued that the bonus be considered. They debated further, but when it became clear a motion could not be phrased that a majority could agree upon, they tabled the issue until Bernie Lynch was present. Mr. Lynch was unable to attend last night’s session. Should the motion pass, Mr. Connelly will need to provide a natural feature that is “in-kind” with the tree that has been removed. You can find the zoning law pertaining to the Central Ave. development and the FAR bonus in the town’s Zoning Bylaws.(Section III. J.)
A traffic study was also presented, and it was challenged by Mr. Mullin. The engineer said that the building would increase some of the times from a B-C to a D. He did not say specifically what that meant in terms of wait times to get through an intersection. However, he said “D” is within acceptable state traffic limits. Mullin felt the study “grossly inadequate.” Traffic on Central Ave. was not measured. Mullin questioned the logic of parts of the report. For example, why would there be more traffic in and out of building in the evening than in morning (58 vs 30); is it reasonable to think there will only be 30 trips in the morning from a building that has 35 two-bedroom units? Mullin also pointed out that it is critical to know when the traffic study on Eliot St. was done, suggesting that if it had been done during the holiday week, it would not be representative of typical weekly traffic patterns. The traffic engineer will provide additional detail and return before the board.
The architects also presented two massing scenarios. One was the current design and one showed a public space area at the corner of Eliot and Central. (The plans illustrating these will be available on the Planning Board’s web site. You should be able to find them here, though they were not available at the time of this post.) The new scenario was slightly problematic in the opinion of Warren Daniels the architect, because it would create “dead end corridors” and have other adverse impacts on internal building layouts.
Cheryl Tougias, an architect who lives on Canton Ave, voiced concerns she has raised previously regarding the massing of the building and the design. She specifically called attention to the corner of the building on Central Ave and the MBTA stop. She said,”If we ever had a transit-oriented [commercial area] this is it.” She argued that the building should be designed accordingly and designed to accommodate commuters and the public using the bike trail. She said the landscape plan was competent but “not extraordinary.” Taking the massing, landscape design and other elements into consideration, she did not believe the bonus, which she said is “extraordinary,” was warranted with the existing plan. She said the heights of buildings were not noted and asked if a shadow study should be done. She offered suggestions to the design, which she distributed to the board. These included moving the building further back from the sidewalks, using “previous” paving for parking, having parking access off Eliot St. only, which would have commercial space running the continuous length of Central Avenue. The current design has parking access from both Central Ave. and Eliot St.
Mr. Daniel asked when a vote on the FAR might be expected. If the board declines to award the bonus, the building would need to be redesigned. The designs to date are based on the assumption that a bonus is going to be awarded. The next meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for February 9th. It is likely a vote will be taken at that time.
Reader comments