HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-3-29ZBA Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
www.nantucket-ma.gov
Commissioners: P,d Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Nlara, Kerim Koseatac
Alternates: Mark Poor Geoff Thayer Jim Mondani
MINUTES --
Friday, March 29, 2019 "
4 Fairgrounds Road, Public Safety Facility Community Room — 4:30 p.m.
Called to order at 4:38p.m. and Announcements made.
Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator;
;Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani
\])sent: O'Mara, Poor_
']'own Representative: Ed Marchant, 40B Advisor; George Pucci, K&P Law, P.C. co
\ Venda ado ted hx unanimous consent
APPROVAL1. OF
1. None
11. OLD BUSINESS
20-18 Surfside Crossing, LLC Surfside Crossing 40B Hanley
ORIGINAL APPLICATION: The Applicant is seeking a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with TM.G.L. Chapter 40B, pursuant to
a project eligibility letter issued by MassHousing, in order to allow a multi -family project consisting of 156 for -sale dwelling units
comprised of 60 stand-alone single-family cottages on fee simple lots and 96 condominium units in 6 multi -family buildings, with 25°'0
(39 units, 15 cottages and 24 condominium units) designated as affordable units, with a total of 389 bedrooms. The existing lots will be
subdivided into 60 fee simple lots, 4 open space lots, and a 3.6 -acre condominium lot. Off-street parking will consist of 2 spaces per
cottage and 148 spaces designated for the condominiums. Infrastructure and amenities will be provided; however, the proposed project
is proposed to connect to municipal water and sewer infrastructure.
MODIFIED PROPOSAL under consideration: The Applicant is seeking a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with JLG.L. Chapter
40B, pursuant to a project eligibility letter issued by MassHousing, in order to allow a multi -family project consisting of 100 for -sale
dwelling units comprised of 40 stand-alone single-family cottages on fee simple lots and 60 condominium units in 5 multi-famil}
buildings, with 25% (25 units, 10 cottages and 15 condominium units) designated as affordable units, with a total of 285 bedrooms. The
existing lots will be subdivided into 40 fee simple lots, a 3.3 -acre condominium lot, a 0.5 -acre community lot, and 2.8 acres of open space
lots. A total of 244 parking spaces will be provide consisting of 80 off-street parking spaces (2 per cottage), 124 spaces for the
condominiums, 20 spaces for the recreational community building, and 20 overflow on -street spaces. Infrastructure and amenities will be
provided; however, the proposed project is designed to connect to municipal water and sewer infrastructure.
The application and supporting materials are available for public review at the Zoning Board of Appeals office at 2 Fairgrounds Road
between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Locus is situated at 3, 5, 7 and 9 South Shore Road and is
shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcels 336, 336.9, 336.8, and 336.7 and is shown as Lots 4, 3, 2, and 1 on Plan Book 25, Page 50 as
recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The total lot area of the combined parcels is approximately 13.5 acres. Evidence of owner's
title is recorded in Book 1612, Page 62 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The property is located in a Limited Use General 2 (LUG -2)
and within the Public Wellhead Recharge District
Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Mondani
.Alternates Thayer
Documentation PowerPoint® presentation, correspondence, and 40B Comprehensive Permit application documentation.
Representing Paul Haverty, Blatman, Bobrowski & Haverty, LLC
Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc.
Marianne Hanley, Reade, Gulhcksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent
Josh Posner, principal
Page 1 of 7
Public
Discussion
ZBA Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Paul Derensis, attorney for Nantucket Tipping Point
David Iverson, 21 1\1eadowview Road
_JacquesZimicki, 3 Wherowhero Lane
Cormac Collier, Nantucket Land Council (_SLC)
Linda Derensis, Nantucket Tipping Point
Bruce Perry, 14 South Shore Road
Peter Fenn, Counsel for NLC
Diane Holdgate, for Diane Coombs at 44 Union Street
Burton Balkind, 10_y Scott's Wap
Haverty — The sticking point seems to be what information is necessary to issue a decision on an alternative plan. ie
reached out to ZBA's counsel and '\fr. 'Marchant and discussed aith his client --hat is needed to proceed. Iiis client ;sn'-
advocating the 92 -unit project as their preferred project; he suggested for his clients to agree to extend for one -mere
hearing before which they will issue sufficient documentation for the board to issue a decision; the extension soul- ?,c to
allow for one more hearing only; suggested April 11th
Toole — This is a new twist. The ZBA regular meeting starts at 1 p.m. and he must leave at 4:31 so there •soul- •tJe er%
little time to discuss the proposal.
Botticelli — We would have an extension for April 11th only; it would be nice to have an extension to April 1
Haverty — There wouldn't be a lot of lead time. The additional information would be consistent with -shag= been
reviewed; it shouldn't take a lot of review or discussion time.
Toole — If the 11th is the date, we'll do the best we can; he wants more time on the deliberation side. He doesn't trtinlk the
92 -unit plan can be discussed because we don't have detailed plans. We asked Two meetings ago for those plans and no .
they are still forth coming.
Pucci — You can identify what more you need.
Toole —The package of information that we got March 11111 is up to the level of what we:;. -ere given for tonight; hat :, e
asked for the last time is only information that pertains to the 92 -tout plan and we -•ill ask for that again; we don`- care
how we got to the 92 -unit plan.
Haverty — .Agrees don't want to waste time on information that isn't pertinent.
Toole — Read the list of what ZBA was looking for: preliminan- architectural plans for all buildings stamped ane=igned:
exterior building materials; a chart clearly showing the number of units, bedrooms, unit square footage, floor ^.lar_=
including unit numbers so affordable units can be easily identified bv ZBA and subsidizing agency.
Haverty — Happy to submit a proposed plan showing affordable units but the subsidizing agency- will dictate change.
Marchant — The identification and location of affordable units is a housing policy matter. They --ill deignare T^e
location of the affordable units to be discussed by the Board.
Toole — .Asked if that pertains to pro rata distribution of the units.
Marchant — No, there has to be a reasonable pro rata distribution of units-, if you feel the•, are unreasonable. , ou r ;�t t^c
issue in the decision. Cottage affordable units have been identified. In the condos, it %vrould be the number of affordalJ''t
units.
Toole — It isn't unreasonable to have the floor plans identifying the affordable units. Floor plans should include roorn
dimensions for the condos; wants the building heights noted. If we approve a plan that hasn't been vetted in te-rrs of
lighting and egress...
Haverty —The buildings must comply azith applicable building code and laws.
Marchant — Once a comprehensive permit is finalized (not appealed, the applicant must submit a final appy jva
application to the subsidizing agency, that agency wants to know what changes were made during the public hearing
process. Then the applicant prepares the construction documents; it is the responsibihn- of the building inspectrir to
review the plans for compliance to code and the plan in the comprehensive permit.
Toole — We need a chart showing total habitable net square footage representing total affordable units; expect a _-ro rs;.
of units and bedrooms; i.e. the affordable units aren't all studios. Preliminary engineering plans to determine if Ti,e
proposed water, sewer and storm plans are achievable; not sure how to get anyone to review those if %ve close on _ :TI -i
I Ph. Asked if the Board could reopen the hearing.
Pucci — You can ask the applicant to reopen the hearing if needed to get expert information on the engineering plans.
Toole — Doesn't feel the ZBA is equipped to make technical decisions on the storm drainage plan.
Haverty — Our position regarding water, sewer, and drainage is that those fundamentall; don't change sigm6cant-.
between 100 -unit and 92 -tout plans. NVe aren't proposing to submit additional detaas at this time, but IT car:
conditioned that information be submitted for a review-.
Toole — We still act as the water commissioners and sewer commission.
Pucci — For sewer, there will have to be more dialogue between the developer's engineer and the Sewer Director ar_-
Weston & Sampson; there should be productive dialogue leading to a reasonable approach. Storm drainage should be part
of this process; he would hope some type of review of the plan take place because it's a big component of the plan.
Toole — Feels the ZBA doesn't have the technical expertise to determine if the drainage plan meets requirements.
Page 2of7
ZBA Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Haverty — We are talking about a reduction in the impervious area, so drainage should become easier. We don't intend to
keep the hearing open to allow a review on the 92-unit plan; we don't think that is necessan-. We will accept a conditiOn
for the plans to be reviewed but there won't be time for a review before the next hearing.
McCarthy — Asked where the storm drainage plan is; she couldn't find it in the packet
Bracken — They have been in contact with John Chessia, Chessia Consulting Services, LLC, and came to an agreement
on a system that would meet the stormwater drainage act. It's in the packet and is catch basins with overflow- and
biofilters.
Toole — Asked why those components can't be over laid on the 92-unit plan. \Vhat he doesn't like is that we aught be
kicking the issue down the road.
Bracken — We can show in a general way but not include the details and calculations.
Toole — Asked what happens if ultimately it is proven not to meet the criteria. Asked if we are kicking the can down the
road.
Haverty - We can show the location of the catch basins but not a full set of calculation that would only change favorably.
You can include a condition requiring a plan showing full compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection
PEP) stormwater standards.
Botticelli — We need to see where the basins will be and how they impact the buffer zones. Grading was a big issue.
Toole — If someone wants to contest or appeal the comprehensive permit based on stormwater, asked how the% can
make that assessment without the information being part of the permit.
Marchant — It comes down to the terms of conditions that are drafted; those will be clear that the system as designed
must comply with all applicable DEP standards. Stormwater is a sensitive issue especially in areas of high ground water.
Pucci — He wants to distinguish between what is within ZBA purview and `subject to' conditions; in terms of what would
be appealable and what would not, you're not permitted to take information, close the hearing, and impose conditions for
any subsequent required approval you choose to do. The only type of subject-to-conditions you can impose Xvould be the
grant of the subsidy and issuance of final approval by the subsidizing agency. You will condition Your permit on the
requisite state approvals such as DEP approval of the Stormwater Management Plan. You need to address in the hearing
any issues within your purview such as waivers applicable to stormwater issues and local zoning bylaws is addressed. You
cannot delay your process based upon state approvals, but you will have that in your permit that they have to comply with
those requirements.
P.Derensis — Couldn't find a sign -off from 11r. Chessia in the record. ZBA reallN needs experts to look at the paper%
You need the time to get the documents to the experts. The timeline proposed doesn't work for the ZBA.
Iverson — They are proposing close to 6 acres of imperious surface, and he's concerned the stormwater drainage will get
lost in the process.
Haverty — We are suggesting the extension to get sufficient information to the board, so the board can make a decision
on the 92-unit plan consistent with what's required under the regulations. We aren't looking to have lengthy discussion
and review, just to ensure your record is complete.
Toole — We want to make an informed decision., which is hard when a huge amount of documentation arrives the day
before the meeting and doesn't contain information we need; now we are being told we are going to get another
information dump.
Zimicki — We've never talked about the type of storm water system, if they are bio-retention or filtration. Department of
Environmental Protection told him ZBA should be asking for scientific support the system will meet the needs. His main
concern is the impervious surface within the well head district.
Toole — We don't have authority to make the applicant give us more time; we are under pressure to deny or issue.
Bracken — We designed a system that technically meets stormwater management requirements.
Toole — This is hot-button item; asked the applicant to consider the notion of additional time so the Board can have at
least one discussion about it once they get the plan.
Thayer — Someone needs to reach out to Mr. Chessia.
Antonietti — Before the last hearing, Mr. Chessia received the plans for the 100-unit plan and he said he didn't have time
to review it by April 4t''; after this hearing, she will recontact him about the next deadline. He has the most recent report
and is aware of the deadline.
Collier — Mr. Chessia hasn't had time to review the information on the 100-unit layout and now the applicant is saying
they will provide a sketch plan. The Planning Board, which the ZBA is acting as, would never accept anything less than a
complete, detailed plan of the layout then say they will deal with it after the public hearing. They should provide the
detailed plan of the new layout and allow the peer review to happen. It is absurd this is happening with a sole-source
aquifer.
Haverty —There are stormwater calculations submitted to Mr. Chessia that has more imperious surface than would be
in the 92-unit development. If he reviews those and finds them acceptable, the 92-unit plan shouldn't be any different.
They will provide those plans but that's as far as they are willing to go.
Toole — If we have the same level of detail on the engineering plans that shows the catch basins, the trees and all the
components should be on the plan, but the calculations themselves...
Page 3 of 7
ZB_A -Minutes for :March 29, 2019, adopted _-Apr. 11
Thayer — Mr. Bracken sats storm water drainage system is approvable, but we haven't heard that from --'.Ir
last we heard is that it wasn't adequate. At some point Mr. Chessia has to tell us the technology is okay.
Botticelli — Looking at the plan, can't see how all the subsurface drainage can be fit on it;'e can't r ate th_.
determination without calculations.
McCarthy — You're asking us to take a leap of faith. We have to approve a plan; we had tw•o meetings -,yhere a de _fin
group came up with this plan; then we come back and are talking about the 100-urnt plan then it's back to the
plan and back and forth-, now you are limiting our time. I want to see a final set of plans.
Toole — We need stormwater information.
Bracken — Explained they would submit a plan that shows' -here components are.
Toole — Moving along; if we aren't comfortable with the amount of information we get,' e'll deal % with it.
Botticelli — We need an updated waiver list. She wants to see both the waivers for the 1 C,0 -unit plan and the
Haverty — Theti will supply an updated waiver list for the April I I' hearing.
Toole — asked that a date be on the plans and the plans are indicated as for the 92 -unit plan.
Haverty — His client's preferred development is the 100 -unit plan; but the feedback is that the 92 -unit concept .:. as :pore
preferable, and you want enough information in the record to support a decision on that. By extending the hear . an
additional week, we are expecting to have a decision made on the 92 -unit plan.
Botticelli — It is frustrating to be getting the information on Wednesday and have onh- 2 hours the next da-. t , r--k-t a
decision.
Toole — It's ludicrous. It is inappropriate not to give us sufficient time to review- the information. Cont rlea
needed items: a level of information as would be submitted for an Historic District Commission heanrg_
available on line; updated landscape plan of the entire site pertaining to the 92 -unit plan as well as landscaping .or the
individual units.
Mondani — We've gone through a number of meetings in which the environmental sensirivin- of the area '-as
requested; we are asking for that.
Haverty — He would include that into a draft condition, which he «ill provide to the Board. The level of de-ai t n
asked for goes beyond what is required.
Pucci — The landscape plan is a boiler -plate part of the process; you really need a landscape plan: open space, pia ares"
buffer areas, site lines, lighting, etc. You're looking at this as a site -design review board; site design is an issue
by the area residents. It's way too much to ask the ZB_A to become landscape architects he 'would hope the..
a sufficiently detailed landscape plan.
Toole — Can't see why the landscape plan couldn't be morphed into the 92 -unit plan.
Marchant — It is not unusual for a ZB_y to get a preliminary plan. How the condition gets drafted r that -ht
landscape plan would be submitted by a qualified landscape architect with the plan to be reviewed by the Board.
Toole — lie would like to see as much detail as possible; landscaping is important to even- project. We need a ba�e•"e t
work with.
Mondani — There has been confusion about the buffer; that needs to be clarified and whether or not it %ill be yefe ate
Thayer — .As much of the buffer as possible should be left natural and then augmented where need be.
Toole — Lighting should be part of the landscape plan. We have a storage shed design. We talked about reaso^:ai,:e
accommodation for affordable residents who need it. Equipment list for market rate and affordable units
basement areas need to be shown; proposed recreation building architectural information.
Haverty — If the recreation building is going to change, architectural draw-mgs -,ill be provided: if there is no chanWe-
have the plans.
Botticelli —The plans for the recreational building are incomplete.
McCarthy — We asked for that information back in Januar. She wants TO see everything the HDC would rev _t r�n t :c
pool.
Toole — Need a plan for the pool as part of the landscape plan.
Koseatac — He wants to see the pool before closing the.hearing; that information is not in the plan.
Haverty — His client is telling him that information has been provided. What is required under Chapter 4`3 is d,reren
than what is locally required. We believe the submittal requirements have been met.
McCarthy —Your client chose for us to act as the HDC; if' -e are acting as the HDC, we need the same mformaao n t;_e-.
require.
Toole — We have options on the recreational building that would be discussed during the deliberation procto
behooves the applicant to supply- the information we ask for; if you don't that's a basis for a denial_ Conunued
governance documents regarding the Homeowners' _-Association (HO' --A) and narrative describing the relationship 'tier:; ten
the HO_A and Condominium trust; the fees and whether or not the affordable buyers ' -ill be responsible and hr)-.-,- cost= o
common area expenses will be allocated.
Marchant — The ZB.A is responsible for understanding how- costs will be shared between the HO_A and Condo-r.vn__-T
'frust; you're interested in what a preliminary budget might look like. That information is necessary for de,__,=g an
allowable price for the affordable units. All Boards he's worked with in the past have felt a responsibihn- to a=k ^ore
questions.
Page 4 of 7
ZBA Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Haverty — He would be happy to provide the budget information mentioned by Mr. -Marchant. The ZBA doesn't see the
HOA or Condo docs.
Toole — We need to know whether or not affordable unit homeowners will be responsible for sewer connection fees;
thought there was a waiver for that. According to the applicant, a critical part of this whole plan is the rear -round
residential component; we've seen a sketched outline of that.
Marchant — We were interested in receiving a legal opinion whether or not there would be fair -housing issues. That has
been submitted-, he's not sure there's much more you can ask for. He thinks there would be discussion during deliberation
on the program.
Pucci — He doesn't envision conditions or waiver requests regarding the year-round housing issue.
Thayer — It's a big component used in the argument for the higher density.
Pucci — Mr. Mondani called the year-round housing a red -herring issue-, he agrees because the philosophy behind the
project is not relative to ZBA jurisdiction for this project. Conditions concerning year-round housing aren't relevant to
the ZBA. You aren't conditioning this in terms of "density"; you condition site development issues, amount of
impervious surface, construction, etc. On the other hand, the fact the developer envisions a housing goal is not relevant
in arguing for a certain unit amount; if they argue that condition renders the project uneconomic; that is litigated at HAC.
McCarthy — If in the site review we require more green space to reduce the pervious surface and in that process the
number of units goes down and the applicant claims that renders the project uneconomic, asked if the ZBA has any
control over the year-round restriction and if 11-yC don't get involved in that self-imposed restriction, I -LAC could sa%
they undercut themselves.
Pucci — You don't know where it will end up if they argue a condition renders the project uneconomic and the% prose
that; conditions should be reasonable and lawful. An economic claim would be reviewed at HAC.
Toole — We need an updated list of waivers based on the 92 -unit plan; asked if there is still a plan to phase construction.
Haverty — We'll submit a phasing plan.
Koseatac — We need input from the Fire Chief.
Bottieelli — We need an engineering plan indicating fire trucks can get through.
Haverty — You will have that; fire hydrants would be signed off by the Fire Chief under the Fire code.
Toole — We like all the information ahead of time, so we don't have to review a modification request later. We need
dumpster locations and mailboxes for the 92 -unit plan. Sewer, you're going to have to have a sewer plan that's viable.
Pucci — A sewer plan doesn't get kicked down the road; you are the Sewer Commission. Because of the time -frame being
imposed, hopefully there will be a lot of dialogue between 'Mr. Bracken and the Sewer Director; Weston and Sampson
provided recommendations in January; that dialogue is on-going.
Toole — There is a memo from the sewer consultant stating four options; one was a force main to the plant that -,vas pan
of the original proposal. The applicant said they were going to explore two options; asked what came of that.
Bracken — In the packet is a letter from the Select Board saying that option wasn't viable even though Weston and
Sampson identified it as viable. We don't know the reason why it wasn't viable.
Pucci — Weston and Sampson identified that as the No. 1 option to pursue and it is consistent with the Town's long-term
planning efforts for the area and a detailed sewer study Weston and Sampson conducted. That information was conveyed
to the development team in January.
Toole — At one point the gravity line was discussed.
Collier — Suggested pulling out the January 25th Select Board letter; it clearly says a gravity line from the site to the
treatment plant with a pump at the treatment plant; that is the Town's recommendation.
Haverty — There are a number of options that were discussed and the ZBA needs know which option the applicant
wants as their official proposal.
L.Derensis — She feel the 1100 -page dump is a marketing tool of the developer; it doesn't provide any alternative. In it
the applicant waives their attorney client privilege and the developer's emails states that the Town is not working to good
faith; she wants it on the record that the Town has never stonewalled and never not worked in good faith. \Mr. Bracken
stated he and - Mr. Chessia agreed on a number of issues but the last packet indicates 41 times they disagree. The ZBA
doesn't have the time to bring in experts to discuss this project. In regards to conditions, she's familiar with Mr. Posner
and his conditions; she does not want to put so much value in the conditions because you may not be able to uphold
them.
Feeley — In reference to the 1100 -page dump, that was at the request of the Board from the last hearing. We submitted
each document listed in the chronology they were issued.
Pucci — Back to the sewer issue, his recommendation to the Board is that a dialogue take place among the developer's
team, the sewer director, and Weston and Sampson to come up with suitable conditions. He does not envision a process
by which they come back with their preferred option; he's looking for a detailed data -driven discussion and solutions.
Weston and Sampson recommended installation of the gravity line with a pump installed at the Surfside Wastewater
Treatment Facility. Whether or not we can reach an agreement with the developer concerning that option and a
reasonable set of conditions about how that would occur remains to be seen.
Haverty — We commit to working with the Sewer Department but can't guarantee an agreement.
Page 5 of 7
ZB_A Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted _Apr. 11
P.Derensis – In the packet he saw a lot of back-room communications. There needs to be much more transparent-:: an
issue this important shouldn't be done where the public can't see. There was a lot in the packet that went on ber�nd the
scene and was not open to the public.
Pucci – It's not the preferred approach; its preferable for all discussion to be public. It is not uncommon for constant=
to communicate with each other in an effort to get to a substantive solution. _All documents have been released >nctr a
freedom of information request and are in the packet.
Haverty –rpt the pleasure of the Board, his client is willing to partake in a workshop with the Sewer Department •.;rh a
"ZB_A member present.
Thayer – Volunteered to be part of that.
B.Perry – The Board should accept what the Town recommends, not chat the developer u-ants. b . * l:c
records request, a number of documents/emails between David Grat- and -Mr. Bracken were not included.
Pucci – It is not true that we did not release all documents. There has been a lot of usefulness from the pub%c-record=
request; to tri• to create an inference there is back-room communications between Town personnel and the de:eiopmcrt
team is not true. The Town will produce any communications regarding the project.
Toole – Stated he has listed all the information on the 92-unit plan the ZB_A needs.
Mondani – He suspects the ZB_', won't have all the requested information by the 11 On a number of occasion %t'% e
talked about things happening after the comprehensive permit is approved. _Asked how much leeway we have.
Pucci – He sent out the after-the-fact approval guidelines. The Board wants to be looking at a real landscaping pin that
supplies sufficient detail for the Board to feel confident in what it approves. The Board can't sav an issue is sut,,ect to
approval by another board. Housing issues are more in line with the subsidizing agency.
Fenn – Once the permit is issued, it's issued, and the Board can't see it. _A public hearing isn't about geMng
hours before the hearing; there is no chance for anyone to review. It is completely unfair. He thinks the ZB_ : a beim -e*
up to issue a denial by being given incomplete information, so the applicant can appeal for what the-_: -.vant. "r�e Board
should see what it wants to see; and put on reasonable conditions given the information it has.
Haverty – Refuted the statement his client is "flim-Hamming" to get a denial.
Diane Holdgate – Read a statement from Diane Coombs into the record. _Asked that this project be demed ben use ._
will destroy Nantucket.
Botticelli – Suggested tn-ing to talk about some of the waivers.
Mondani —Asked if we would have Planning Board guidance on this.
Toole – No guidance; our attorney- and consultant are here for that.
Pucci – Ile would expect more input; t%-picallv, i ou would get more Planning Board input to act in their stead. 't:s *he
developer's prerogative to ask that the hearing be closed. You can either go forward on a decision on the 1 -unit plan Or--
,April 4111, or you can take them up on the offer to be provided detailed information on the 92-unit plan and act „-tt the
timeline being imposed.
T'A I V ERS
B.Perry – Ile submitted comments on the waivers that should be in the packet. It's unusual to request war.-er_ ::alio, a
reason why they can't meet the regulations. He doesn't think the 92-unit project will require any fewer waivers-
Collier – Read a statement from NLC's December letter, "nowhere in statute or governing regulations is an appLcant
authorized to demand waivers from locally- adopted regulations without providing the board and the public s ppo^
of why, those waivers are required to prevent the project from being uneconomic pursuant to the statute.' "�_:� g to
compare zoning from another area is not a legitimate argument. We should be talking about ever,- wan-er and a pact
on this project.
Toole – The uneconomic issue comes up if we aren't willing to grant a waiver. We should discuss each
impacts the economics of the project and let the applicant make the case why- each waiver is necessarn- to alio a tte project
to be economic.
Pucci – It goes back to the 2-prong approach: impose reasonable conditions and deny- something reasonably.. f :oa -, e
done that, the developer must prove that denial, condition, or requirement renders the project uneconomic.
Toole – We can probably knock some of the waivers off the list.
Hanley – Read through the waiver list.
Section 139-7 .Allowing apartment buildings in LUG2 zone:
Toole –This waiver will remain. We need more information on the size of the buildings.
Section 139-12.13 Overlay- district
Toole –They reserve the right to ask for a waiver later.
Section 139-16 Density, setbacks and frontage
McCarthy – When we met on Tuesday and we thought we were getting the 92-unit plan, 'Jr. Feeler was adamant that e
accept the 92-unit plan ,nthout changes.
Haverty –There will be no submittal of plans beyond the 92-unit proposal.
Toole – The zero front-yard setback is hard to swallow because of sight lines.
Marchant – You want specificity as to which lot(s) will have the zero setback.
Section 139-19.13 Screening of parking:
Page 6 of 7
ZBA Minutes for March 29, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Toole — We need to see the plan; fewer units means more room for trees.
Section 139-20.1 (A) Driveway access:
Toole — We can waive that; they have to meet the regulation.
Section 139-20.1 (B) Two driveway accesses:
Bracken —The idea is a single condo parking lot with two access points. We need the plan.
Mondani —Asked why they are asking for a waiver.
Hanley — They don't want to have to go to the Department of Public Works (DP\ti� for approval of the drive -,c -ay curb
cuts.
Toole — If there are other rules and regulations, you might as well apply to the DPW. We want the DP\X' to check that.
Haverty — Your decision can have a condition that the final plan is reviewed and approved by the DPW.
Pucci — You want to bring the DPW into the process now.
Marchant — On waivers like this, the Board can state that the waiver is granted as long as the applicant complies with all
DPW requirements. The Zoning Enforcement Officer will ensure compliance.
Pucci — Recommends the DPW director looks at the plan to provide input. You are seeking a waiver of haying to go the
DPW, but it is still helpful to have the regulatory official provide input.
Marchant — The applicant will prepare a plan for each lot and ask for a permit; at that time the building inspector looks
at the plan and makes a determination. There are always changes after issuance of a permit. They aren't asking for relief
from requirements.
Collier — Perhaps it would be helpful to invite department heads to the last hearing.
Haverty — We will provide an extension to April 11".
Discussion about possibly meeting April 4t" with whatever information on the 92 -unit plan is available at that time.
Bottieelli — It feels like the applicant is giving us as little time as possible to review plans.
Haverty — We aren't trying to rush the ZBA, we are trying to get to a point to issue a decision on the most amenable
plan.
Pucci — The applicant is agreeing to continue to April 11 a' with whatever information is available to accomplish %-,-hat we
can.
P.Derensis — Asked that the Board stick to the 92 -unit plan.
Haverty — His client is willing to come back on the 4t'' but can't commit to additional information by then; we've
pressured our consultants to provide information on April 11t1'.
Toole — April 1111' is the regular meeting during the day; asked what the diffrculn is about meeting the following week.
Haverty — That is school vacation week and that Monday is a holiday. This process has been going on a long time and his
client is at a point where he feels it needs to be completed.
Thayer — The past month was wasted time and now they are giving the Board a week.
Balkind — He sees this as an imposed deadline from the developer; another data dump is unfair for the public.
\lotion Motion to Accept the extension of the deadline to close the public hearing to April 11, 2019. (made by: -Mondani)
(seconded by: Koseatac)
Vote Carried unanimously
\lotion Motion to Continue the hearing to April 11, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. at Public Safety Facility at 4 Fairgrounds Road
Community Room. (made by::\Iondani) (seconded by: Koseatac)
Vote Carried unanimously
OTHER111.
1. Toole —The consultant fee account replenishment. Asked the applicant to replenish that account.
-ADJOURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn at 7:40 p.m. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried unanimously
Submitted by:
Teril' 1,. Norton
Page 7 of 7