by Frank Schroth
During their hearing last Thursday, the Board of Appeals heard from town department heads regarding their concerns with the proposed 40B apartment proposal for the Hendries site. Kathleen O’Donnell, an attorney retained by the town to assist with the town’s presentation and submission to the board, represented the town at the meeting. She was joined by several department heads including Fire, Police, Inspectional Services, and the DPW, who outlined their issues with the proposal.
Chief John Grant of the Fire Department discussed issues with accessibility to the structure in event of a fire. As proposed, the building will not permit fire apparatus or a ladder of any kind on the side facing the trolley tracks. He also identified the east and north sides of the building that face the town property. It would be difficult for any effective operations in event of a fire, should the town choose to build anything there. The reduced setbacks are the reason: the setback from the town property is 5 feet. “I can’t do anything with that. I need at least 20 feet,” he said. He said the building would be spinklered, but that does not negate the need to be able to respond with fire department personnel.
Building Inspector Joe Prondak reiterated Chief Grant’s concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed building to the trolley tracks and the “alleyway” that would exist “should another building be built.” There also was a discrepancy in the square footage of the property. Ms. O’Donnell said earlier that there is no signed survey, and Prondak also raised this issue. Brian Hurly, BoA chair for the hearing, asked why they were only hearing about this now. The proposal indicates a lot size larger than they Hurley and O’Connell believe it to be, and the lot may therefore be smaller than what is represented due to how parking works.
Prondak issued a demolition order many months ago and said, “The demo from my perspective can’t come soon enough [as it is] a a serious threat to safety by virtue of its existence.”
Peter Freeman, attorney for Carrick Realty, the proponents of the 40b application, said that the onus of responsibility is on the town or future owner regarding any new building that is proposed for the town-owned parcel and that the owner would have to deal with the zoning for that parcel. He also maintained that Carrick does have a stamped survey. Issues of height and grade have been problematic in part due to varying requirements and bylaws for commercial and residential lots. Portions of the property are zoned differently: the western portion is residential; the eastern is commercial.
Police Chief Richard Wells raised concerns with traffic and parking. He said that if the proposal goes forward, it will be necessary to take a look at signalization at the intersection of Eliot and Central. He was not attributing all the potential traffic congestion to this one proposal, but he said that this project is attempting “to put 15lbs of potatoes in a 10lb bag.” Chair Hurley said that this might not look well on appeal. Citing the developments at 36 Central Ave. and Milton Hill, he said, “You [the town] haven’t done a darn thing about this (i.e. traffic) – you can’t put it on the back of this developer.”
There was discussion on the merits and unintended consequences of installing a signal (e.g. longer queues) at Central and Eliot. Jennifer Conley, a traffic engineer retained by the town to provide a peer review of the work by Gillon Associates, reiterated her agreement with Mr. Gillon’s analysis. When BoA member O’Brien asked if there is disagreement across the board with the Chief, Wells noted, referring to letter he submitted, that “there is not a recommendation in there” regarding putting in a signal, but he did believe analysis would be critical if the proposed structure were built.
John Kiernan, Chair of the Conservation Commission, also spoke. The proponents need to get approvals from this commission also, and Mr. Kiernan recommended that the boards coordinate their efforts. He was concerned that the BoA might approve a permit that the Conservation Commission could determine is on a contaminated site, for example. There are three approvals pending before the Conservation Commission for the property. Kiernan identified the following concerns: a) the possibility of contaminants in monitoring wells which have not been tested for 17 years, and he explained, “we don’t know what’s there;” b) where will water used in and contaminants resulting from the demolition go? c) pending an enforcement order of May 11 regarding the removal of a tree, “we said, ‘don’t cut down that tree’ and they did.” The enforcement order stated that nothing should be done until there is resolution about the tree removal. Kiernan said there is a need “to preserve open space – that is where we need the tree replicated.”
Kiernan suggested a joint meeting between the Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission. BoA Chair Hurley replied saying that if they (BoA) approve the permit it would be conditional upon getting the necessary Conservation Commission approvals. Kiernan reiterated that he did not want the demolition to “make things worse. . . We need to know what’s down there. . . 20,000 gallons (of waste water)… that is a significant issue for us.”
Both BoA chair Hurley and member O’Brien voiced concerns over being directly involved in ruling on environmental impacts that they view to be outside their jurisdiction.
Environmental impacts were also a concern for John Thompson, Town Engineer. He said he had a “major concern with the storm water analysis.” The property poses challenges due to its proximity to the Neponset River, because runoff will eventually find its way into the river. At issue is how water is collected and managed prior to reaching the river. Thompson said, “it is our opinion that more information on existing drainage patterns are and will be.”
O’Brien noted that the peer review of the storm water management proposed by Carrick’s engineer provided at a previous session “was favorable. Do you disagree?” he asked Thompson. Thompson confirmed that he did disagree and that the DPW was not consulted for the review. Attorney O’Donnell said that the “assumption is currently [that] all the water is draining into the town system. [We] can’t know that.”
Carrick Realty’s engineer stated that the storm water requirements would be met.
The discussion took a confusing turn regarding waivers. O’Brien and Hurley questioned whether the storm water issues were not better adjudicated by the Conservation Commission. “I have a concern about getting it wrong [and do not] want to usurp another board,” said O’Brien. Hurley asked, “Are you asking to waive the local wetland bylaw?” This raised questions for this observer regarding whether asking for the waiver of the BoA would require a BoA ruling on the environmental impact, which they did not seem inclined to want to do as it is an issue better addressed by the Conservation Commission. If they need to grant or deny a waiver Hurley said, “we have to make a determination based on evidence.” The developer must meet the state wetlands laws, but it is unclear whether state laws are more or less stringent that town bylaws. If they are equal to or more stringent than town bylaws then requesting a waiver from a local board may be moot.
The hearing will be continued on November 25th.