Ned Corcoran, attorney for the Sullivan family which is seeking to build a new apartment building on Eliot Street, reviewed changes made to address community feedback and specifically addressed recommendations made by the Revitalization Committee. He stated that they did not believe a shadow study was necessary nor a traffic study.
The developers acknowledged that the north side would be in shadow and that it would require attention particularly in the winter months. They are committed to prompt snow and ice removal from sidewalks. Regarding traffic, Corcoran argued that the developer should not be responsible for traffic analysis that did not pertain to their development. The Committee wants a comprehensive traffic study that factors in all the recent development and/or proposed development (36 Central, 131 Eliot etc.). John Zychowicz of the Revitalization Committee spoke. He said it was nice to see the majority of recommendations being addressed. The balconies still seem too be a bit of a sticking point. Mr. Zychowicz said that the committee is still not in favor of the balconies. The committee has expressed concern that they will collect clutter. “They are a disappointment.” Mr. Whiteside acknowledged, “They are a disappointment, but I think we are stuck with them.” He went on to suggest that Mr. Zychowicz consider coming to the board with alternative design treatments. A resident from Waldo Road also spoke, taking exception to the look of the building. He argued for a brick structure in keeping with the historic buildings in the area. Chairman Whiteside informed him that a great number of meetings had taken place and factored in neighborhood feedback. “I still think we can do better,” was the residents response.
The landscaping was also reviewed. Whiteside said”The landscaping is satisfactory.” A motion was made and passed to accept the landscaping design.The hearing will continue on 10/11 at 6:45PM.
The board also discussed two articles to appear on the warrant for fall town meeting. One is a citizens petition to enable a landscaping business owned by Thomas Coulter to continue operating. The business is in a residential zone (919 Blue Hill Avenue) , has been for over 30 years and is seeking zoning relief to stay in operation at that location. An abutter, John Lydon, has challenged Mr. Coulter’s business and the land court ruled in the abutter’s favor. the decision is being appealed but Mr Coulter is seeking a zoning change for his business as the appeal is pending and outcome unknown.
A number of residents spoke in support of Mr. Coulter stating that he was a “wonderful” neighbor, kept a very clean well kept operation and that in enforcing the existing zoning the board is not preserving something but rather removing something that would affect the 16 families of Mr. Coulter’s employees. At one point Mr Corcoran said it amounts to a special permit and that Mr. Coulter would abide by the rules of the permit dictating that it remain a landscaping business. Whiteside disagreed stating that a special permit applied to buildings not uses.
There was general agreement that this was an instance of spot zoning. Mr Corcoran, Coulter’s attorney, argued there was precedence for this and that the strength of Coulter’s relationship with his neighbors all of whom support him with the exception of Lydon who lives out of state should support his (Mr. Coulter’s0 article. Mr. Whiteside questioned whether this was legal spot zoning. He said Town Counsel Flynn should be consulted as to whether this was justifiable spot zoning. Duffy made a motion to approve the recommendation of the article. The issue was important enough to Mr. Whiteside that he voted to abstain from passing the article. Mr. Kelly also abstained as his driveway is plowed by Mr. Coulter’s firm. Mr. Duffy and Ms. Innes voted to recommend the article. Member Bernie Lynch was absent.
The other article concerns a zoning overlay for assisted living facilities. However the article is restrictive. Cheryl Tougias spoke about her concerns with the article. In her opinion it favors a particular model of assisted living and would not permit another operator to come in with an alternative model. Whiteside, who write the article, said that was accurate. A different model would require an amendment. “We don’t want undue flexibility.,” he said. Tougias responded by saying that in her 25 years as an architect she had never seen requirements written so specifically as this. Whiteside said that had Tougias brought in her ideas earlier it might be different. Town Planner Bill Clark said she had and that Whiteside’s opinion then was the same.
The board agreed to strike the minimum number of units and passed the article. The Warrant Committee of which Ms. Tougias is a member, reviewed the article at their most recent meeting and voted “no recommendation” on it.