Approved To Town Clerk MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS BURLINGTON, MA March 7,2017 Chairman John Alberghini called the meeting of the Burlington Board of Appeals to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Main Town Hall Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, and 29 Center Street, Burlington, MA. Present: Chairman: John Alberghini, Ed Mikolinski, Jim Tigges, Rob Paccione, Charles Viveiros and David Kelly Continued Hearing 2016-134 Corporate Drive Attorney Buckley reintroduced himself and Mr. Chandler and introduced Robert Michaud from MDM Transportation Consultants. Mr. Buckley stated there were several poiclick here for the agendants he wanted to clarify. With the elimination of the driveway off Cambridge Street several of the responses from the Peer Review are no longer necessary. He spoke about Cambridge Street, saying it is used as a twolane road at different times of the day. It is different depending on if it is commercial or residential traffic and the time of the day. Residential traffic is generally in the opposite direction from office traffic. Mr. Alberghini asked if this part of Cambridge Street is supposed to be single lane, because there are no markings. A discussion on the number of lanes took place and it was stated that it is technically a one lane road but MassDOT may consider it a two lane roadway. Mr. Michaud reviewed the responses to the Transportation Peer Review dated March 7th. Comment #1: L Andana Driveway is used as a cut through generating about 19 cars in the morning peak hours and 11 car trips in the evening. He stated it is recommended to close off that driveway, and according to the updated plan it appears the applicant is going to close it. The Mercedes Driveway is used for employee parking, auto carriers and test drives. He stated it is not practical to close the driveway, however he recommended they put appropriate stop control in to reinforce positive traffic before entering the Burlington Centre driveway along with removing any potential obstructions. Mr. Buckley explained there is an easement for the Mercedes Dealership to allow parking and deliveries and it is a month to month agreement. He added that in the Mercedes Planning Board decision there was a condition allowing no more than 4 car carriers per week. He stated he was unsure how it could be enforced. Mr. Paccione questioned if there could be a motorized gate. Board of Appeal Members: Chairman: John Alberghini, Clerk: Charles Viveiros, Jim Tigges and Ed Mikolinski, Rob Paccione and David Kelly
Comment # 2 no response required Comment # 3 no response needed. Mr. Alberghini questioned the area the accident data included and was informed it is typical protocol to look at 100 to 200 feet of the location in question. Mr. Michaud explained how the numbers are determined and how the GEO code works. Comments #4, # 5 and #6 no response required. Comment #7 Traffic Growth - Mr. Michaud stated it was a liberal high estimate of the traffic growth factor and it accounts for the new developments coming to the town. Comments #8, #9 no response required Comment # 10 Operations Analysis Mr. Michaud stated there was ample capacity at the intersections to accommodate traffic increases. An explanation of how the signal cues work and the operation scores. Comments # 11 no further response needed Comments # 12 Site Circulation Mr. Michaud stated there was a request for a model and the updated plan shows it is sufficient. He stated there should be a plan showing the curb line alignment and relocation of features allowing a clear area for all the vehicle types. Comment # 13 Parking Mr. Michaud explained the updated plan increased the number of parking and that is sufficient for the project. He recommended a detailed parking lay out for the garage to ensure adequate accessibility and maneuverable along with standard, compact and handicap parking spaces markings. He added the applicant has a number of reserved spaces off site, and requested that these spaces be clearly marked. Attorney Buckley stated there would be a parking plan developed with size of spaces and locations. Comment #14 Sidewalks - Mr. Michaud stated it was recommended that there be a sidewalk connection from the Property to the sidewalk system that already exists. A direct line that leads to the bus stops is preferred. Without the driveway there is no designated pathway. A discussion about the grade of the property and that the applicant felt it wouldn t receive ADA approval. Mr. Paccione questioned if that approval was needed. Mr. Michaud recommended there be a Transportation Monitoring System to look at traffic and parking within a month following 75% occupancy of building and again a month later following 95% occupancy to see if there are any modifications are necessary. He also stated the applicant has agreed to a Transportation Demand Management plan and explained some of the features of having this. Ms. Kassner stated on the Burlington website there are information and links regarding transportation information. Attorney Buckley added the applicant is agreeable to all the conditions with the exception of the sidewalk through the area of the eliminated driveways. Mr. Alberghini stated he still has a concern with the traffic on 3A and the number of lanes. Ms. Kassner added that back in the 80 s this was looked at and again in the Master Plan and because it is a State road they would have to follow the new guidelines implemented by the state, such as 2
a bike lane and that would not be feasible. She also added that the road is very long and the number of lanes changes depending where you are on the road. Mr. Mikolinski wondered how the number of traffic accidents beyond the studied area would impact Cambridge Street. It was explained they only look at the controlled location. Mr. Mikolinski asked about the accuracy of the number of accidents and was informed by Mr. Michaud there were no red flags in the state s database therefore there was no need to look further down the road. He stated they look at registry reports and police records; however he agreed they are accidents that are not recorded. He feels the number of accidents is below average rate and does not raise a concern. Mr. Alberghini stated an abutter was concerned because it was only peak hours studied. Mr. Michaud stated that this was normal protocol. It was pointed out there is an increase in volume when BHS gets out due to buses, pedestrians, etc. and Mr. Michaud stated that would be 20 to 30% lower than peak hours. Mr. Alberghini asked if the traffic numbers would be proportional to the number of units if there was a decrease in the number of units, and was informed it can be. Open to Public Jim McNiff introduced himself and questioned why the study did not include times and locations outside of the peak hours. He stated he reviewed other town s studies and it was a much larger area looked at. He felt the area should include BHS and the Building 19 project to see how they impact the traffic flow. Mr. Buckley stated at time of application Building 19 wasn t an approved project. Mr. Finn stated he was concerned about the use of the Mercedes driveway and wondered how it could be enforced because it is being used in access of 4 car carriers and the Kia dealership also uses it. Jim Evans stated his concern is with safety, especially pedestrian. He stated the traffic is close to sidewalks and there is no place within the park because it is within a busy office park. Mr. Runyan from the Selectman s office wanted to remind people why the applicant is here. He stated there is a long waiting list for affordable housing in Burlington. The need for housing in Burlington is vital for the continued success for the community. Therefore, the Selectman feel there is a need to meet the 10% threshold and asked for friendly 40B s applications and Corporate Drive was selected. This was selected because there was less impact on the neighborhood than other proposed projects. Mr. Mikolinski asked about demand verses need and Mr. Runyan stated the town needs to address the housing issues based on interaction with the COA, Housing, Selectman and community communication. Mr. Alberghini asked about the term affordable housing and felt the elderly cannot afford to live in Burlington. Mr. Runyan explained that the town was built on affordable housing. He stated there are many elderly who can afford to live in the project. A discussion about the $600,000.00 fund being given by the Applicant and how it will be used. Mr. Alberghini asked for the data on who can afford the affordable units. 3
Mr. Evans stated he had additional signatures to his letter showing this is not the correct place for this project. Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing until March 21, 2017. All members voted in favor. Continued Hearing 180 Cambridge Street Planning Board 2016-140 The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns notified of the hearing. The legal notice was read into record. The petition of Town of Burlington Planning Board for property located at 180 Cambridge Street, Suite B, on the Burlington Assessor s Map. The applicant is seeking to appeal the issuance of a building permit (#38541) by the Inspector of Buildings stating it is not a permitted use at this location as it is inconsistent with the Town of Burlington Zoning Bylaws or the intent of the Town Center Overlay (CBD) District. Article # 5, Section #8. As shown on plans filed on December 13, 2016 with this Board and a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk s office. Mr. Gaffney and Mr. Impemba from the Planning Board introduced themselves and stated they were in front of the board because they are appealing the Building Inspector s permit for Advance Auto Parts, because it is in violation of the by-law and it is inconsistent with the overlay plan. He stated Advance Auto has a wholesale component which is against the by-law. The Planning Board showed a clip from their 2014 meeting with Advance Auto stating it is 50% retail and 50% wholesale and again in the October 2016 meeting. A brief overview was given explaining the basic services for customers that would be provided and the number of vans that would be used for commercial deliveries. It was stated by the Mr. Gaffney that the Advance Auto annual reports state the company s growth is on commercial sales, therefore that would be the area the business would concentrate on. Mr. Impemba stated that the business is inconsistent with the overlay and the intent is to promote pedestrian friendly downtown verses vehicle traffic. Advance Auto would have trucks in and out all day. In summary they argued that permit was issued in error and the building permit should be revoked. Ms. Kassner stated there have been correspondences between Mr. Clancy, Planning department and some members of the Planning Board where the concerns were discussed. 4
It was highlighted that a table in the zoning by-laws states there is no wholesale component permitted within the district. It was noted it is near impossible to enforce because the process would require them to look at all the invoices to determine if any sale was wholesale. Mr. Tigges stated at the time the overlay was being developed, he was a Town Meeting representor and agreed that the vision for the downtown area does not fit in with this business because of concerns of hazardous materials, batteries and oil changes. Mr. Alberghini asked about the hazard materials and was informed they required a Special Permit if it is over a certain amount. An explanation of the use table was given and an explanation as to why they did not need a Special Permit was given. Mr. Alberghini asked if it had been pointed out to Advance Auto this was not allowed and the representatives of the Planning Board stated it was part of the discussion but not the main issue. Mr. Impemba stated the condition on the Building Permit states it is to be only retail, but it is near impossible to enforce the wholesale component because of the process to check if products were sold as retail or wholesale. Mr. Silverstein stated the by-law does not define the difference between wholesale and retail. Mr. Kelly referred to a case defining the word wholesale and stated that case is similar to this one. Mr. Mikoloski stated the Planning Board s stand is that if any portion is wholesale the permit should not have been issued. A discussion around the definition of wholesale took place. Mr. Alberghini stated he would like to hear Mr. Clancy s point of view and because he is not available this evening they should continue the hearing. Open to the public. Kathy O Neil stated the Planning Board has the best interest of the town at heart and this location is not appropriate for this business. A representative from Precinct 2, stated this was not the vision the town had for this district, and it is not the appropriate place because it is clearly wholesale and retail. Mike ONeil stated he wanted to see the neighborhood protected and asked the board to stand by the by-law. Paula Salucci from the True North coffee shop stated she is a business owner and the strip is full of businesses that complement each other and she opposes the wholesale component of this business and believes there is a better place for it. 5
Attorney Bill Proia introduced himself as the representor of Advance Auto and discussed the definition of wholesale and spoke about the letter sent to the Board. Mr. Silverstein summarized the document from Attorney Proia and talked about whether the Planning Board has the ability to appeal the permit and if there is a definition of wholesale. Mr. Proia also talked about the timing of the appeal and Mr. Silverstein responded there was no time limit. When asked about the definition Mr. Silverstein stated it is up to the Board of Appeals to determine what the definition should be. Mr. Kelly spoke about legal rulings, Mass DOR, the repairs being completed at the store, and how the term Wholesale can fit into how you want to interpret it. Public hearing to remain open. Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing until March 21, 2017. All members voted in favor. New Hearing Francis Wyman Ave 2017-142 The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns notified of the hearing. The legal notice was read into record. Mr. Viveiros recused himself from the hearing. The petition of 101 Francis Wyman Road Realty Trust for property located at 101 Francis Wyman Road. The applicant is seeking a dimensional variance to reduce the minimum 100 required frontage for two previously approved subdivision lots as follows: Lot# 1 to be 76.54 frontage on Francis Wyman Road and Lot # 2 to be 73.16 of frontage on Francis Wyman Road. The Burlington Zoning By-Laws Article V, Section 5.2.0, of the density regulations require a minimum of 100 of frontage for each building lot.as shown on plans filed on December 22, 2016 with this Board and a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk s office. Mr. Alberghini read a letter from the Planning Department into the record supporting the subdivision. Mr. Prioa introduced himself as the representative for the applicant. He stated the subdivision had been previously approved; however at that time the plan was to build a cul-de-sac and now they are looking to eliminate it and use driveways from Francis Wyman Road. It was explained there is enough land but due to the topography (slope) there is not enough frontage because of how the homes must be placed. Also he explained how by receiving the variance and eliminating the cul-de-sac, there would be less environmental disturbance. He added the houses would be more consistent with the current neighborhood. Mr. Paccione asked about the utility easement and was informed the infrastructure would be separated if possible. And on Lot 2 the easement would remain for the underground drainage area. 6
Mr. Alberghini asked about the width of the parcels and if they would be back to ask for a side variance and was told it was 76 feet and 83 feet and they would not be back for an additional variance. Hearing opened to the Public. No one was present to speak for or against. Motion made and seconded to close Public Hearing. All members voted in favor. Motion made and seconded to grant a dimensional variance to 101 Francis Wyman Road Realty Trust, for property located at 101 Francis Wyman Road as shown on Map# 21, Parcel # 172 on the Burlington Assessor s Map to allow a variance to reduce the minimum 100 required frontage for two previously approved subdivision lots as follows: Lot #1 to be 76.54 frontage on Francis Wyman Road and Lot #2 to be 73.16 of footage on Francis Wyman Road. All members voted in favor. Motion made and seconded to approve the minutes from February 21 st. All members voted in favor. Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All members voted in favor. 7