by Frank Schroth

The Board of Appeals resumed a hearing on Carrick Realty’s comprehensive permit application to develop a 57 unit apartment building at the site of the old Hendries factory Tuesday night (09/30). At a previous session the board had requested peer reviews of engineering and traffic/parking impacts. Those reviews were completed, submitted to the applicant for comment, and presented and discussed last night. The consultants performing the peer review, Janet Bernardo of the Horsley Witten Group, and Jennifer Conley of Conley Associates, largely concurred with the plans, methodology, and analysis of the Carrick Realty’s team.

Ms. Bernardo presented her report on storm water management. It was noted that  that this development is governed by the Wetlands Protection Act due to its proximity to the Neponset River and that compliance with that is the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Bernardo reviewed 10 standards that needed to be addressed by the plans. In conclusion she said, “I am comfortable with their design. [There are] no substantive issues at this time.”

There was some discussion about the connection to town systems. The Carrick team included a representative from the engineering firm Allen & Major Associates who said that there were two permitting processes for the  management of the storm water. One was the Conservation Commission which will require an order of conditions for discharge into the Neponset and the second was a physical connection to the town system that would likely be coordinated through the Building Inspector.

You can find the complete text of Ms. Bernardo’s peer review here.

Janet Conley of Conley Associates performed the peer review of traffic impacts. She said that the math was done orreclty, their were adequate site lines and that there was no need for signalization at the intersection of Central and Eliot as traffic was flowing at a “reasonable level.” She said that parking was generally available and that it was within walking distances of businesses though not necessarily as convenient as drivers might like.

In conducting the analysis Conley looked at traffic data, traffic projections, and the impact of the development on the area. She said the level of service impact would be very slight.

In her memorandum regarding her peer review of the traffic impacts of the development as reported by Jack Gillon of Guill of Gillon Associates, Jennifer Conley writes:

Conley Associates, Inc. reviewed all sections of the June 19, 2014 TM from Gillon Associates, Inc. and found no errors in methodology or analysis results. It appears that a previously proposed access point on Central Avenue has been eliminated in order to address project concerns. The current proposal has two site drives on Eliot Street. The most recent building program (residential only) is expected to generate fewer trips than previously estimated in the December 2011 TIA, largely due to the removal of the commercial portion of the project.

In addition:

However, Conley Associates, Inc. cannot speak as to the adequacy of on street parking without a survey of on-street parking or additional information from the proponent’s traffic engineer.

And lastly,

Comments from the Police Chief included a request for signalization of the intersection of Eliot Street at Central Avenue. Based on the intersection analysis, the intersection is operating at acceptable levels of service. The delays raised by the Police Chief are likely caused by interactions adjacent to the intersection, such as pedestrian crossings and parking maneuvers. These items add delays to intersections regardless of the form of intersection control. However, no traffic signalization analysis was provided in the TM.

You can find the complete text of Ms. Conley’s peer review here.

Board of Appeals Chair Brian Hurley said it was “counter intuitive to think that this proposal will have zero impact.” Member Frank O’Brien agreed. Resident and Town Meeting Member Peter Mullin noted that there was a “huge change in the neighborhood” from the time that Mr. Gillon originally collected his data in 2011. Since that time The Plate and Steel & Rye have opened, 36 Central Avenue condominiums went in, and the new apartments at Milton Hill are about to open for occupancy. Mullin also requested that documents submitted in the process of this development such at the peer reviews etc be posted in a timely manner so that residents have the opportunity and time to review them and prepare any questions they might have in advance of a hearing session. (Note: those document have since been posted to the town’s web site. You can find a calendar of actions related to 131 Eliot St here.)

Hurley said he had no intention of closing the hearing that night. He asked that the data be updated with an analysis of current traffic patterns. He also voiced skepticism that 72 parking spaces for 57 units would be enough and that while ITE (the accepted standards for traffic analysis) are guidelines, “they are not always right”.

Town Meeting Member Peter Jackson said there were many deficiencies in the traffic report including a lack of acknowledgement of the slope of Eliot street which can be hazardous in the winter, no discussion of ancillary vehicles (e.g. moving vans, delivery trucks, trash removal etc), and that the parking was insufficient. Carrick’s attorney Peter Freeman stated he did not believe those concerns were accurate.

Keith Mills, proprietor of Esprit du Vin, and Town Meeting Member, said that “We feel passionate [about this development] because this is our neighborhood.  .  .  [We want] to make sure this is a project that works for everybody.”

Town Meeting Member Gene Irwin voiced his opinion that Steve Connelly (a principal of Carrick Realty) has been made a “whipping boy” during the process and that the same 4 or 5 people are “holding the entire town hostage.” He questioned where was the griping when the Plate and Steel & Rye were being considered and that a double standard was in effect and unfair.

Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Panning Board, raised the issue of keeping affordable units “affordable in perpetuity.” The units fall off the affordable list after the thirty year term of the financing with Mass Housing is over. MA Housing will monitor the affordable component for the life of the loan. Whiteside advocated for an agency to ensure that the affordability would remain in place and be monitored.

Hurley concluded the hearing by reminding the audience that the board only hears the evidence it is presented. “We can only act on what we receive. We are not a planning agency. [Please] keep our role and function in mind.”

The hearing will be continued on November 6th at 7:30 in the Blute Conference Room. At that time they expect an update from Mr. Gillon on traffic impacts. “The bellwether issue here is traffic,” Mr. Hurely said.