by Frank Schroth
The Condominium Working Group got to work on a draft article for a general condominium bylaw when they last met on March 11th. They did this despite misgivings voiced by one member of the group who questioned whether such a bylaw was needed.
The bylaw was presented by the co-chair of the committee Bryan Furze, who is also a member of the Planning Board. Moving through the document and keeping the committee focused on that task was a bit of a challenge. After an hour and a had they had made it to the third page. Despite the slow going the fact they had finally begun to review a draft was viewed as progress by the principal proponents Mr. Furze and Cheryl Tougias. This was the group’s fifth meeting
Their intent is to determine if a bylaw can be written that will satisfy a number of sites in town that are in different residential districts. To date Milton has subscribed to site specific zoning. Mr Furze noted that such an approach results in projects that flow from the pen of a developer rather than the pen of the Planning Board. The most recent example is a residential development that has been approved for the St. Pious property. The site was identified by the developer Northland Development, a well regarded home builder. However, while there was input from neighbors, there was never much doubt as to who was in control of the site. The developer noted that if they were unsuccessful in their bid to put in townhouses they would opt for a 40B. They got townhouses.
This segues to the other development at this meeting. The committee voted not to recommend the citizen’s petition article on the annual warrant that proposes a general condo bylaw. The consensus was that the article was too open ended and would fail on the floor of town meeting. This recommendation by the committee to the Planning Board will likely ripple through to the floor of town meeting and the article will be defeated or be recommended for further consideration by the Planning Board. Whether the developer of a parcel on Hillside which would have been addressed by the bylaw will want to wait is not known. The consequence of this is the parcel may possibly be sold to a church or be slotted for a 40B. The developer is exploring both of those options.
On the matter of 40Bs the Board of Appeals recently resumed their hearing for an apartment complex at 711 Randolph Ave. The hearing was thorough and methodical. The primary topics covered was storm water management and traffic impacts.
The principal issue with storm water management pertains to the type and quality of the soil on the site. The strategy proposed calls for infiltration systems under the building. A peer review expert testified that the strategy would work but only it would depend on the quality of the soil. If it is sandy then what is being proposed would likely be successful. The soil that has been tested is a C on a rating of A to D with A being the best. The peer review expert, Scott Turner of Nitsch Engineering, said there was not enough information to determine if it does or does not conform to storm water management requirements. The soil is currently being tested to determine if the storm water management system being proposed will work. Turner voiced a number of comments and concerns but storm water was the most significant.
Jeffrey Dirk, a traffic engineer with Vanasse and Associates, performed a peer review of traffic impacts. He had numerous comments (e.g. widening the sidewalks to 5′) most of which could be addressed. Perhaps the most significant was the “tight” vehicle flow on the property. The issue being the the ability of fire apparatus to navigate the property. There is also only one means of entry/exit. No second means of egress may be problematic. The hearing will resume on March 31st.