by Frank Schroth

Last Thursday in a crowded Blute Conference Room the Milton Board of Appeals opened a hearing on the comprehensive permit filed by Carrick Realty Trust to develop an affordable apartment building at the site of the Hendries plant at Eliot Street and Central Ave under Massachusetts General Law 40B.

Chapter 40B permits developers to apply for waivers exempting them from certain local zoning bylaws when building residential buildings that provide some portion of units as affordable. This development will consist of 57 units (49 2BD and 8 3BD) of which 25% (15) will be affordable.

The waivers Carrick is applying for as stated in their application include but are not limited to:

• Allowing a multi-family residence in a Residence C district and a district zoned for business.(The property straddles two different zoning districts)
• Allowing a 3-5 story building with a maximum height of 65′. The business district zoning permits 3 story buildings of 45′.
• Reduction of property setbacks. For example, waving of rear yard requirement for minimum setback of 20′ in business district and 30′ in residential district

The Chair for the hearing is Board of Appeals (BoA) member Brian Hurley. He is joined in this hearing by BoA members Ted Daiber and Frank O’Brien. Mr. Hurley introduced the project, read the legal notice, and reviewed what the written record consisted of. He noted that the MBTA which is an abutter had not been notified of the hearing. The decision was to proceed and ensure they received certified notice going forward. Hurley stated the purpose of Chapter 40B was to promote affordable housing, that the board would be reviewing the evidence presented, adhering to statutory requirements and regulations — “it’s fairly complicated.”

The board made and passed a motion to retain an outside firm, Horsley Witten, to peer review the submitted application including civil engineering, traffic impacts, and a technical review. Hurley concluded his introductory remarks by saying that, while not a court proceeding, this was an adjudicatory process and “I will take strict control of how this process takes place.”

The process that evening consisted of a series of presentations on various aspects of the project by the Carrick team: civil engineering, architecture, and traffic impacts. After each component presentation Mr. Hurley invited questions from board members and the public. The component presentations were prefaced by an overview of the proposal from Peter Freeman, attorney for Carrick. He reviewed the three key components that he claimed were met: There is a limited liability organization (131 Eliot Street LLC) that has been formed, they have control of the site per P&S between Carrick and 131 Eliot and deed transfer, and they have eligibility from Mass Housing Partnership.

Peter Mullin, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 2, asked about the transfer of property between two entities controlled by the Connellys, Carrick Realty Trust and 131 Eliot Street LLC. The former transferred the property appraised at $474K to the latter with a transfer cost of $2 million. Mr. Freeman said all has been reviewed and approved by the Mass Housing Partnership, the subsidizing agency.

Questions and concerns voiced by residents at the session included the following:

• Matt Zahler asked why commercial retail wasn’t considered. Mr. Freeman said it was due to fundamental profitability. Asked if there was a market study to substantiate that Freeman said “dollar for dollar” there was not room to take away from the units.
• A number of residents voiced skepticism and concern about traffic and parking. In general, they doubted parking would be sufficient. Keith Mills, a local merchant, said that on week end nights parking was often taken up by people visiting friends at 36 Central Ave. Another resident who acknowledged liking Steel & Rye said the valet parking filled residential side streets in the neighborhood with cars. The location of the egress to the building’s underground parking off Eliot was also questioned. It is ~80′ from the intersection (30′ from the crosswalk). Neighbors voiced reservations about noise (trash removal), trucks, moving vans, and whether there was adequate space for them to navigate. The presentation on traffic by Jack Gillon of Gillon Associates was hard to hear by the audience and Member O’Brien said he found it hard to understand. He said, “The public are just not accepting of your argument.” 
• Member O’Brien also asked about a lighting plan and noise issues such as that produced by air conditioning units.
• Steve Morash, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 2, asked about the impact on town services and associated costs of providing those services and if the board could do an analysis of that. Chair Hurley responded that collecting information was not the responsibility of the board. They are there to hear the evidence and information presented them.

Chair Hurley concluded the session stating that he was “tabula rasa . . . I knew nothing about this before being appointed chair” He said that the next steps would be to have the peer review performed, provide the development team with the peer review findings and give them an opportunity to respond. The hearing will continue on September 30th at 7:30.