by Frank Schroth
Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Planning Board, reviewed a new special permit he drafted for a mixed use development at the site of the Hendries Building (131 Eliot St). Consistent with the history of this problematic development, there are issues.
As Whiteside recounted last evening, the Planning Board denied a special permit submitted by Carrick Realty for a mixed use development stating it did not fully compy with Milton’s zoning bylaws. The principals of Carrick Realty, Jerry and Steve Connelly, elected to pursue a 40B development, have received a letter of eligibility, and there is currently an ongoing hearing before the Milton Board of Appeals to grant a comprehensive permit.
Separately, there is an effort to re-open the possibility of a mixed use development on the site. For this to happen two major issues need to be addressed: 1) the town needs to come to agreement with Carrick on terms for transfer of the town owned parcel at 0 Central Ave and 2) the Planning Board needs to approve a special permit application for a mixed use development that addresses the issues identified with the permit that was denied. It is something of a hand in glove situation further complicated by a longstanding demolition order issued by the Building Commissioner.
Whiteside reviewed a draft of the new special permit and associated plans. Whiteside said that “height and story issues are solved.” Member Bryan Furze was not so sure. Regardless, Whiteside raised two significant and related issues which received a fair amount of discussion but no clear resolution.
The first is with regard to the parking that would sit on the west side of the property between the residences on Eliot and the mixed use building. That portion of the property is partially zoned residential and partially zoned business and each has different zoning requirements regarding parking set backs. What to do? The proposal calls for 29 spaces. Residential zoning requires greater setbacks for parking areas with more that 19 spots. They do not have enough space to do what they want. The unique characteristics of the property are also presenting challenges. Whiteside is arguing that there is essentially no rear lot line as the property has trolley tracks running alongside it. The issue, as Palnning Board members discussed, raises a number of questions: Can the parking spots be made smaller (a la compact cars), should affordance be made for car sharing services, can relief be granted because it is a transit oriented development, can some of the spaces be shared? The last question seques to the second issue.
The proposal calls for two “hybrid” units. These would be home office units on the second floor. Again, the board discussed a number of questions regarding these units. Would these units need to satisfy business parking requirements or residential unit requirements? How would they be taxed? (The Planning Board seemed inclined to let the Assessors worry about that). Arguably the most important dimension to the issue relates to affordable housing. The proposal calls for 10% affordable units. If the hybrid units are business the number of affordable units is less than if they are counted as residential. A number of numbers were bandied about. At one point it was stated that the difference was between 35 and 38 units. Using 10% that would mean a difference of 3.5 or 3.8 units. Member Innes assumed that, rounding up, this would mean 4 affordable units. Whiteside argued for 3 in part due to discussions he had with the developer.
Whiteside said, “We really do need a plan for parking” and felt everything fell out from that.
Member Furze questioned the height of the units. The first floor calls for an 11′ height. Furze noted, “That may not be enough . . . [it] needs to be a discussion point.” The upper floors are 10″ and Innes confirmed that was a floor to floor measurement, not floor to ceiling which would dramatically increase the overall height of the building.
Lastly, there was some confusion over the size of the lot. The permit as drafted states the qualifying lot is 35,525 square feet, yet in dicussion Mr. Whiteside said the lot was 36.859 sq ft. Planning Director Clark said the issue was how or if a component piece of the site owned by an unknown party and 1200 sq ft in size was factored correctly into the permit. He will confirm.
And so it goes.