by Frank Schroth
The Board of Appeals (BoA) continued the hearing on a comprehensive permit for the development of an apartment building at the site of the Hendries building last Tuesday. Mr. Hurley, acting chair, identified 4 issues that required further discussion and review: traffic, parking, fire safety, and open items with the Conservation Commission.
Peter Freeman, attorney for Carrick Realty, the developer, and various members of the developer’s team responded to these issues. With regard to traffic, there had been discussion of the need to conduct a study to to determine if signalization would be needed if building went up. Both the Chief of Police and DPW believe there will be. Freeman said that the traffic situation, as had been mentioned at previous meeting, was a pre-existing issue and should not be the sole burden of this developer. He maintained that the development was not creating a safety issue. Later in the meeting there was a discussion about the funding of the study and installation of signal if needed. While specific amounts were not discussed Mr. Freeman said the developer would be willing to look at providing funding assistance to the study.
Chair Hurley said the parking issues in the area were “staggering” as a result of the new restaurant Steel & Rye. Hurley further said he remains skeptical that there is sufficient parking for the number of units. Mr. Freeman said that the parking enforcement could be managed in different ways. For example, residents might be required to have stickers and cars lacking them would be towed.
With regard to the Conservation Commission, their was discussion of a waiver of the local environmental bylaws. Freeman maintains that the bylaw is no more stringent than the state DEP laws. Hurley if it is no more stringent then what is the harm in it? He believes the fewer waivers they need to grant the better. Freeman said that the waiver would relieve the developer of the need to go through another application process, one they believe unnecessary. It is an open question for the BoA if the Con Com would agree that the local bylaw is less stringent. Freeman said that there some are differences between local and state bylaws but that those differences aren’t material as: a) they didn’t apply or b) were going to be complied with (e.g.Freeman said that the developer would get a permit with the DPW for storm water management.)
Peter Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering joined Mr. Freeman to discuss fire safety issues. At the previous session Milton Fire Chief Grant had expressed concern with the inability to get fire apparatus on the north side of the building, the side that faces the MBTA tracks. He also had concerns with the Central Avenue side that abutted the town own portion of the land. It is not known what the town will do with the property. Any structure on that parcel will make access to the Carrick portion difficult as they are building right up to the property line.
Mr. Sullivan said that the access provided by Eliot Street and Central Avenue complied with current fire prevention code and that access from the MBTA track side was not necessary. However, it was acknowledged that the Fire Chief had some discretion in this.
Hurley stated that the “Fire chief says [the situation] is unsafe . . . [and] can’t get to MBTA side with apparatus and can’t use ladders. . . How do we resolve that tension? How do we tell the fire chief he is wrong about fire safety?” Member O’Brien said “I wholeheartedly agree. The fire chief’s comments really really troubled me.”
Mr Sullivan replied that either road could meet the minimum requirement. Asked if he saw a safety issue, Mr. Sullivan said “I did not look at this a dangerous condition.”
The developer team also confirmed what had been reported at the last meeting with the Conservation Commission — that the site is environmentally clean and there are no use restrictions. The monitoring wells and oil tanks will be removed post demolition. It may be a bit of a moot point regarding contamination as the suspect soil will be removed regardless given that is where the planned parking lot will be located. If it proves to be contaminated then the necessary precautions and regulations will be followed, said the Carrick team.
The hearing will be continued on December 16th @ 7:30.
The next session may be the final session of the hearing. Regardless, Mr. Hurley said that it was unlikely that they would go directly into deliberation after the hearing is closed. He said it was more likely that there would be a ~2 week period to allow all members of the BoA to fully digest and review all the materials that have been submitted.
Resident and member of the Conservation Commission Craig mcNaught asked a couple questions. He wanted to know if the MBTA had signed off? Freeman did not have an answer for that but did say it together with tow they would be coordinating that. He also asked if they anticipated going into ledge for underground parking. The Carrick engineer said that they expected to skirt the ledge condition. McNaught’s concern was if ledge was encountered it could extend the time the T would need to be diverted and associated cost. He asked who would pay that. Stephen Connelly of Carrick Realty said that his firm would absorb that cost if needed. Lastly, McNaught asked it they were going to use a crusher to pulverize concrete with the concern being for noise and dust. That issue may be addressed at next session though it is not clear that the methods used during demolition are under purview of this hearing which if for construction of and impacts related to the 40B development. Issues of demolition are being discussed at Conservation Commission. Mr. Hurley expressed suggestion that it might be good idea for Conservation Commission to join in their next session.