City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, June 19, 2006 7:00 P.M.

Mayor's Reception Room, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Centralville Neighborhood Action Group

Public Hearings

Definitive Subdivision Plan & Planned Residential Development (PRD): 219 Westview Road

As ordered by the Land Court, Misc. Case No. 31158, the Lowell Planning Board will review a revised application by the Trustees of the Van Greenby Realty Trust IV and PAV Properties LLC, for approval of a definitive subdivision and special permit for a Planned Residential Development for the property at 219 Westview Road. The revised proposal includes 12 new single-family home lots consistent with the requirements of the Planned Residential Development regulations. The residential lots would be accessed off a new road, Fairway Drive, to be built off Westview Road through a portion of Lot 4 at 207 Westview Road. The revised proposal also includes 577,427 square feet of land for conservation and 166,835 square feet of land for passive and active recreation use. The site is in currently in an LI (Light Industry) zoning district.

The Board motioned to enter Executive Session with two Assistant City Solicitors. NOTE: The Executive Session proceedings are documented in separate minutes.

T. Linnehan: Back on the agenda; thank you for stepping out for a few minutes. The first matter is the 219 Westview Road project. Since this matter was before the Board in June, the judge has sent it back to us to look at this case. We have to look at the criteria that was in place at that time, which is why it is before the Planning Board and not the City Council. Also we have been informed, since it is before the court and it is a re-opening of a public hearing, only the Board members that were on the Board back in June can vote tonight. Ms. Burns was not on the Board in June, therefore there are only 3 members of the Board that can vote tonight.

In Favor:

J. Flood (81 Bridge Street): I am here for the applicant. With me tonight are the engineer and the architect. As the Board is aware, the project contains seventeen acres. Seven acres are zoned Suburban Single Family and the rest contain ten acres. What was submitted to the Board was the original plan with 12 lots. As we continue tonight, we will present a 10-unit plan. It is my understanding that we are here tonight to discuss the reasons for denial of the original application. Open space; the project as proposed includes 13.5 acres of open space. The project will be a condominium, and my client plans to place a conservation restriction on the land. This is a draft; the restriction says that this land will be used for passive use. There is also a condition in there that the City's Conservation Commission will also have passage rights to the land. We do not have anyone else who wants the land, but if that is a possibility, the condo will be in favor of that. We are not seeking any waivers from the roadway that will be constructed by the condo and managed by the condo. The last waiver is the extension of Westview Road. We cannot change the fact that this road is not accepted by the City. The other concern was the water pressure. I have been informed that there is sufficient water in the area for domestic use, but not for fire protection. My client is willing to sprinkler the homes for fire concerns. There were some concerns for traffic and safety. It is our understanding that since the City has not accepted the road, we do not feel this is under review by the Board. And as I said before, the Board has approved other projects on this road. I will also present to the Board some pictures of what this street will look like on the new plan. When we met with our architect and engineer about the special concerns, we were told that in order to reconfigure this project so that no garages faced the front, we would have to loose two homes. Also, this will be an over 55 development. We anticipate that the homes will be sold for $400,000. The property is zoned industrial. The surrounding use is residential, and there is no other way to access this site except from Westview Road.

Jack Lugee (Applicant's Engineer): Essentially, the engineering of the project is pretty much exactly the same as with 12 units. The only difference that one of the comments was brought out in the hearing process is that they wanted a streetscape. In an effort to address this, an architect has put all the driveways at the back of the site. There will be two access drives at the back of the lot. All of the houses proposed will have a front porch and a walk way up to the side. The engineering, sewer, and configuration of the roadway are exactly the same. Another point from the previous hearing is the access to the site. And the City website has really no other feasible access to the site. The public property is outlined in red. To the south there is an extensive wetlands area that borders Route 3. To the west is Old Canal Drive, which is private property, and flood lands.

J. Flood: We would be willing to continue if the Board feels this avenue is one that the Board would like to explore.

T. Linnehan: Does anyone want to speak in favor of this project? I do have one letter from the Mt. Pleasant Golf Club, which I will read: (letter available in file).

In Opposition:

Dick Howe, Jr. (130 Westview Road): Before I make my remarks, may I ask a procedural question? This requires four votes, and there are only three members that can vote. It would be illegal to grant the Special Permit tonight. I want to leave to my neighbors to address the concerns about safety. There are 33 houses there, and adding 10 new houses increases the traffic by about 30 percent. And in front of my house now it is not possible to have two cars pass at the same time. I want to talk about the requirement that was in effect at the time of the original hearing, that this must be consistent with the City's goals. The citywide Master Plan of May 2003, does mention the objective to strengthen and enhance industrial areas, and to protect these areas from residential and institutional uses. The Master Plan only notes four sections in Lowell, one of which is this section off of Stedman Street. There is also a question about accessibility I would point out that there has been no evidence that this developer has tried to negotiate access to this site from the other side—the west side—of the site. I have two maps; the first is from Global Maps, the other is a satellite, which uses Mass GIS. The first map shows the various streets of the area. If you flip over to the aerial topography you will see a mass of industrial use. When the City zoned this site as industrial, they drew a line through this site, and it was clearly intended that this be a part of this larger industrial use. I will submit that coming in here and saying that there is no access is not a reason to depart from the Master Plan, and I ask that you deny this request.

Thomas Fagan (194 Westview Road): When I returned to the City last year after a five-year absence, I sought out an area that is one of the last nice areas in the Highlands. I would like to discuss quality of life. I purchased in a neighborhood that I thought would not be developed any further. In eleven short months, what was natural woodland in front of my property is now gone. I can speak of more obvious concerns that the water pressure has and is changing. In conclusion, I urge the Board to preserve the industrial land.

Barbara Dwyer (192 Westview): We have dealt with this for over a year. It was originally fought for the 7 houses, but we fought from the previous developer to widen the original portion of the street. Westview Road actually bends to the right, to get down the street you have to drive over a portion of my neighbor's driveway. Water pressure has changed since the new homes there have been inhabited. Most homes have two cars with two car trips on a street that at its narrowest is 18 feet. Forty more cars going up and down a residential street is not a good situation to begin with. When it comes to light industrial…but I know that for these seven homes they moved the wetlands. Couldn't they do something like that for access from Stedman Street?

Thomas Kennedy (29 Westview Road): Nothing has changed since the last time this has been viewed, and I ask that the same position be taken.

Martha Lynch (151 Westview Road): I would like to reiterate all of what has been said. The houses that are going in there now are like postage stamps, and it is only a matter of time before the whole area will be developed.

John Bertos (77 Westview): If someone would take the time to go down Westview Road, on the left and right you will be surprised to see the tire marks on the lawns. Traffic has increased, and there are too many cars on that street. I walk my dogs and every time I do cars are speeding up and down; there's not enough room for more cars.

Mark Goldman: I wish to be recorded in opposition to this project.

Lucy Petullo (62 Westview Road): I would like to suggest that there be another access road to Westview Road. Also, Mt. Pleasant seem to be in favor of the project. If they are in favor of this, then why can't they sell a piece of land to the developer to access this site?

John Lynch (151 Westview Road): For the record, I am over 55 too. There were six cars at my house today, so it does not mean that there will be fewer cars because we are over 55. Right now on Westview Road, there are lots that could call for further development in the future that would not have the same concerns for access. One thing I would like to point out is that a golf course is an industrial use of the land. I think there is room for 9 other holes down there that would not require any access. I'm not sure if access is required but if it is required it can be purchased from another site.

William Bailey (8 Westview Road): Before I speak in opposition, I would like to make it known that I am a member of the Board of Health, but I am speaking as a neighbor. I believe this site plan does not meet the goals of the site plan criteria. I feel the plan will destroy wetlands and wildlife in the area. The third area would be the traffic flow. It is a narrow street with no sidewalks. There are a lot of young families in the neighborhood. The construction equipment and personnel down the street would pose a public safety issue. I don't believe this project compliments the neighborhood; it is not in the interest of the City.

Edward Bimbo (107 Westview Road): My house is located at the choke point of the street. I would like to reiterate the points that everyone has made so far. In order to get the car into the driveway an elderly person has to make three 90-degree turns. I don't think this plan is a practical solution to the problem.

David Hart (120 Westview Road): I would like to reiterate what has been said. I haven't heard the developer mention any plans about noise abatement. The noise from Route 3 has gotten worse, and it will not get any better from this development.

Dan Cote (173 Westview Road): I agree with what has been said. The street has lost its attraction.

In Discussion:

J. Clermont: I just have a couple of questions, one addressing the management of the conservation land. I know you gave us a proposal for conservation. Is your proposal that the homeowners would be in charge of it or would it be for the benefit of the City?

J. Flood: No, for the residents.

J. Clermont: Just for the residents. Secondly, regarding the water pressure with the additional houses: the water pressure would decrease. Now you mentioned that the water pressure would be taken care of. Have you taken this into consideration?

J. Lugee: There is sufficient pressure for residential use but there is not sufficient pressure for fire safety/protection. That is why the developer is proposing to place fire sprinklers in the houses.

J. Clermont: How would you address this?

J. Lugee: Well, you could loop the line, add some size to the pipes.

J. Clermont: Would you go through the lot sizes in the new plan?

J. Lugee: We did not go through this, but some of the lots are 5000 square feet, and some are larger. The six here are probably the smallest.

J. Clermont: And what size houses are you proposing on the lots?

J. Lugee: About 2800 square feet.

J. Clermont: There has been discussion about the roadway, but that it would be built to City standards.

J. Lugee: The road is Fairway Drive. The Westview Road section would not be touched.

J. Clermont: Are there any waivers being sought for this project?

J. Lugee: Well, this will be a condominium and the condo will manage the street.

J. Flood: I would like to point out that we do have a permit here for single family.

J. Clermont: But can you access the site from another site?

J. Lugee: Well, the wetlands and the other lands that would have to be crossed are too great. The Conservation Commission would not allow you to access this site since there is access to this site from another site.

R. Lockhart: Have you had any conversations with the Fire Department about emergency access to the site?

J. Flood: Well, the cul-de-sac is being built to the City standards.

R. Lockhart: There is no Fire Department sign-off. Can you comment on the sidewalks?

J. Lugee: We will place sidewalks on both sides.

R. Lockhart: A lot of people have spoken about traffic concerns. Regardless of what we do here tonight, we need to get sign off from the Traffic Engineer. On the last question that I have, one of the neighbors here mentioned unpaved holes; do we know what this is about? That has nothing to do with this.

T. Linnehan: What is the length of the private road?

J. Lugee: It is 700 feet.

T. Linnehan: Wouldn't that require a waiver?

J. Flood: Yes.

T. Linnehan: And I believe that if you have over 200 hundred feet, you would need a waiver under our standards. How would the new homes affect the water pressure up there now?

J. Lugee: We don't know how that will be affected.

T. Linnehan: You mentioned with the water pressure that if you put the sprinkler system in—could you run by that by me one more time?

J. Lugee: Fire flow protection is not adequate, and that is why the developer is proposing to sprinkler the house.

T. Linnehan: How would that fire protection affect the neighbors there now?

J. Lugee: They would probably loose pressure, but I don't know without doing tests.

T. Linnehan: I know you have a fire hydrant at the end of the street. How many fire hydrants are there now?

J. Lugee: There are two in the new subdivision.

T. Linnehan: One of the neighbors mentioned that at the end of the road it bends to the right? Does that have anything to do with your previous plan?

J. Lugee: I don't know.

T. Linnehan: How do you feel the lots with 5000 square feet meet the character of the neighborhood? I think most of us would like to see much larger than 5000 square feet.

J. Flood: Under your Planned Residential Development they can go from 4000 square feet and up.

T. Linnehan: I understand, but we need to take into account how these lots will fit into the neighborhood.

J. Flood: It is my understanding that the character of the homes has to do with the streetscape. That was my understanding of the intent of the PRD. The intent of the PRD is to preserve open space.

T. Linnehan: Would this have to go back to Conservation?

J. Lugee: Yes, it hasn't been to them yet.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to DENY the Definitive Subdivision & Planned Residential Development (PRD) because of the following:

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (3-0). Member Mary Burns removed herself from the hearing due her absence from the previous public hearing for this application.

Site Plan & Special Permit: 136 Hildreth Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review a revised application by Specialty Home Builders LLC for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 136 Hildreth Street. The revised proposal includes the construction of four (4) residential units. The revised site plan also includes one new curb opening, parking for fourteen (14) vehicles, site utilities, and landscaping on a 11,446 square foot lot. Said revised project is located in a TMF (Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4 and special permit approval under Article XII of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

In Favor:

Rob Anctil (Applicant's Attorney): Representing the applicant with me are Ted Flanders, Mr. Calangily, and Ken Lania, the engineer. This matter was before the Planning Board on three different occasions. The original application was submitted to the Planning Board in 2004. It combined the parcels at 126 and 136 Hildreth Street for 14 units that were denied. An additional plan was denied. In the interim there were two separate zoning changes. The plan tonight is for 136 Hildreth Street. The second proposal called for two entrances. That proposal met all the dimensional requirements. The number of units was reduced from 14 down to 5. The Board wanted to see one entrance. That was denied. And the last plan included 4 units, and that was denied for three reasons. The reasons are for the height of the units, the style of the architecture, and the turning radius of the cars on the site. I would like to provide you with a letter about the plan. Since the denial, we have met with Attorney McKenna and Mr. Proakis. I would like Mr. Lania to go through the plans and the changes since the last time we met. I have some photos of the neighborhood. We have also put together materials of similar photos of other properties in the City that the Board has recently approved.

Ken Lania (Applicant's Engineer): As the attorney noted, we are back before you. The design changes that were based on the denial were concerns with parking and the height. Reducing the size of the units and reworking the site layout addressed the parking. The front duplex will provide a two-car garage under the back with a one-car garage in the rear. The site access will be off of Hildreth Street and will be 14 feet wide. The front of the building will include a retaining wall, and the retaining wall will be wrapped around the building. In addition to reducing that height, we were able to determine that the water table allowed us to reduce the height of the development by three feet. The drainage system will be in the back portion of the site. Now the site is lower all together in a bowl like situation. The system will be a Cultech system. We have provided greater than 1000 square feet of open space. We will be providing access to the site from the sidewalk. The buildings will actually be lower than the existing buildings on the site right now.

In Opposition:

James Heller (54 Parkview Avenue, with father at 145 Hildreth Street): A couple of things are the height of the proposed buildings. I understand the Board members are familiar with the site, and it is the highest site in the neighborhood. We are talking about bringing the grade down 2-3 feet. The buildings will still be 8-9 feet taller than the building in the back. One of the things that I noticed was in the pictures. I thought it was interesting that this particular house is on Hildreth Street. And apparently the photographer is not familiar with what side of the street the site is on. On this particular lot, the other buildings are all single-family homes. And they are all ranches, capes, or other types. There is nothing near that height. The peak of the roof is probably about 45 feet above the height of the road. It is already a pretty crowded area. I think a number of the zoning changes are due to the number of houses in that area. If you go up that street a bit, you will notice that this parcel runs between two schools. The traffic backs up all the way to Hildreth Street.

Regina Faticanti: I am a member of the Lowell School Committee. I want to talk about two things: quality of life issues and impact on life issues. What do people who bought homes on Bunker Hill Avenue because they wanted blue-collar single family homes with a bit of grass do now? These were good, decent, hardworking people who wanted to live in a neighborhood that was safe. When I look at the people who have moved in there, they are doing it for the same reasons. I am going to have the distinction of moving back to my parent's home. When I look at the property—and it is a substantial piece of property. We have rejected all the offers to purchase our land from builders. The impact on the neighborhood is going to be substantial. My concern is that the number of additional units is going to impact the water table in this area. The second issue is the issue of the number of children who walk to and from school, and the parents who drop children off at the school. I look at the number of schools in the neighborhood, and I look at the number of families in the neighborhood. Electricity: last year I had 5 blackouts. When I called the electric company, they noted that it is too crowded.

Jim Jozokos (Centralville Neighborhood Action Group): I would like to reiterate that this project is not looked upon favorably by the neighborhood group. I also want to point out that I don't believe that a vehicle could properly maneuver out of the parking in front of buildings 1 and 2. I personally feel that the architecture does not fit into the character of the neighborhood.

This is the idea to me of why the zoning for the area was amended. It just doesn't fit.

In Discussion:

K. Lania: I would like to address the height issues and the concern with kids and other issues. Currently there is a concrete retaining wall. There is access here at the intersection with Hildreth Street and Bunker Hill Avenue. There is a question regarding parking. I think the parking will be more congested if we change the parking area, if we don't provide the existing parking. This has on-site visitor parking. To address Mr. Jozokos' concerns, I would like to note section 6.1.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. We have increased this from the original plan, which had 8 feet. To go back to the retaining wall situation, is that there is concern with site view at roadway intersection. My concern here is that the existing retaining wall is here, and the line of site will be better with this plan. In addition, the heights of the buildings themselves, Bunker Hill Avenue, the roadway itself is at elevation 28, the basement elevations is actually at 28, even with the roadway. We are keeping the retaining walls here so that you will just see a two story duplex with a roof. We are providing significant snow storage in the back of the area. Lastly, we did do test pits on the site; we did find that the water table is low in this area, because we are high in this are. Regardless of the height of this area, we have provided total catchments of all the runoff on the site. They will have an outlet into the combined sewer overflow system.

R. Anctil: We have been working with Mr. Proakis. One of the concerns was regarding the decks on the side of the houses. But the plans do address these areas.

J. Jozokos: I would like Associate Planner to define access driveway versus driveway lane.

J. Errickson: Very seldom have I seen a situation where a two family has less parking requirement for parking than a four family.

J. Clermont: How high is it now from the street level to the top of the building?

K. Lania: The height is 32 feet to the top of the building.

J. Clermont: The question is about the egress, but how is the egress addressed.

K. Lania: We are proposing to have patios. There may be a couple of steps to the patio, but we are waiting until the building stage.

R. Lockhart: I think I heard you say you were going to improve the sidewalks on the side. Can you comment on what you are going to do to shield the development from the rest of the neighborhood?

K. Lania: We really did not anticipate fencing. We will have a walkway with landscaping, and a retaining wall. The wall will be three feet from the sidewalk. The remainder will be landscaped and grassed. We are providing fencing on the abutter's side of the property.

R. Lockhart: Looking at your plan with the 13 feet back there, that does not seem adequate. I know the numbers here.

K. Lania: Well, we do not need to provide these additional parking, but we wanted to provide some additional parking for visitors. These spaces here are for the visitors.

R. Lockhart: It is basically visitor parking. It just seems a little tight in that area. The impact on the neighborhood is that the project does not totally fit the neighborhood. The Centralville Neighborhood Action Group, Jim, you talked about the architecture and the turning radius.

J. Jozokos: I just don't see how the layout of the building is going to meet the code and still give you the character of the architecture. If they have answers to that then maybe we could agree.

K. Lania: We met with Mr. Proakis several times to discuss the architecture. His want seemed to be to bring the buildings more in line with the old style character. This plan is similar to the design of what he was looking for. I am just trying to characterize his interpretation.

R. Lockhart: So you were attempting to address the character of the neighborhood?

K. Lania: We tried to address and incorporate the desires of Mr. Proakis.

R. Lockhart: Are those driveways going to be going down in grade? Or are we going to be looking at the slabs at street level? How much of it is going to be in the air? So we are going 21 feet in and 35 feet up?

K. Lania: It will be identical to the property on the other side of the street.

T. Linnehan: I just have a couple of comments. One, I like that you got rid of the curb cut. However, it is nice that you can meet with the Planning Department and the City Solicitor, but the vote comes here, and we need to make the final vote. I am still concerned with the height and the character.

R. Lockhart: Motion to approve with conditions that the developer works with the DPD staff in order to work with the architecture to ensure its integration into the neighborhood. In particular, particularly should be given to address the heights of the building. That lot needs to be developed.

J. Clermont: I do not second the motion.

T. Linnehan: I do not second the motion. No second, therefore the motion dies.

J. Clermont: I do agree that the site needs to be developed, but I have a real concern about the character of the neighborhood with regard to the height of the buildings and the number of units. I think this site can be developed very nicely with three units. I think having four units is excessive and overcrowded. I am going to move to deny this motion.

T. Linnehan: I second the motion.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to DENY the site plan and special permit due to the following:

Member Thomas Linnehan seconded the motion.

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (3-0). Member Mary Burns removed herself from the hearing due her absence from the previous public hearing for this application.

Site Plan & Special Permit: 1881, 1883, 1857.1 Middlesex Street

The Lowell Planning Board review an application by Middlesex Partners Limited & Lexy Development for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street. The proposal includes the construction of 128 housing units in four (4) buildings on a 402,930sf lot, with 288 parking spaces and associated landscaping. The site will be accessed via a 24-foot wide curb cut located on Middlesex Street across from Dingwell Street. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4 and special permit approval under Section 6.7.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

In Favor:

J. Flood (Applicant's Attorney): We are here before you tonight for the site plan approval and a special permit for the driveway length. As we explained to you in the preliminary hearing, all the buildings will have underground parking. The proposed development does conform to all requirements in the SMU district. I will turn it over to Katie for the engineering.

Katie Bomegem (Handcock Associates, Engineer): The proposed project is 128 units. As you can see this is a Bradford Industries site. The existing building is quite expansive. This is actually a reduction in both paving and building over the site. Our project is acquiring 1881 and 1883 Middlesex Street, which is a safer access to the site. Proposed parking for the buildings is both under the buildings and on site. The parking is at ground level, and there are four levels of residential use above the parking. The elevation is five levels. There is one space per unit under the buildings. We are providing more than 2 spaces per unit on the site. Utilities for the site, existing drainage goes towards this isolated area of flooding. Basically it is a large collection area, but it is not connected to anything, which we know due to the existing flooding that has occurred. The flooding impacts that we saw with the Merrimack do not affect this site. We do have to go to the Conservation Commission for this project. We will be required to make up for the wetlands area, with a low area here. Drainage for the site ends up in this area. The idea is to pitch all the parking spaces to this area. I have proposed inverted speed bumps to direct the drainage to the open areas of the site, that will also help slow traffic. We are getting some cleaning out of the water, and we are decreasing runoff on site. We are proposing to do a sewer line to the site. There is an existing sewer line to this area that will hook into it. There is also a water line that comes in here that we will loop into in this area. We will do all domestic access with fire hydrants for each of the buildings. There is access to all sides of the buildings. Gas we are proposing to bring in from the main drive. We are proposing to go underground with all utilities. We will maintain all the vegetation for the site. We will add landscaping here and in the parking area. Also we will have a berm along the railroad tracks for safety. There will also be a community center for the residents of the site. We do need a special permit to access this site, because it is greater than 200 feet. We are looking for additional permitting to access the site for safety reasoning. I have spoken with Steve Curran and he asked for additional information.

Jim Jozokos (Paul Davies Assoc., Architect): This 9.5 acre residential project includes many green spaces along with green space in front of the community building. The community building itself is 2400 square feet. Where they can provide a gym, daycare, or whatever the board of the community desires. The units themselves are in two styles, all two-bedroom. The end units have a study. Master bedrooms have walk-in closets. You can see the height of the proposed buildings as seen from across the river. The current factory is the size of two football fields. It is over 700 feet long. It is quite high. Comparing the height, the tops of the buildings will be just above the current tree line. We do not propose to get rid of the trees along the railroad.

Mark Goldman: I want to speak in favor of this project. It is a great adaptive reuse of a mill building and it will help the tax base of the City.

Brian Bush (President of Heritage Properties): We recently acquired the condos near this site, I'd like to speak to two issues, and one is use of the property. The conversion to residential is fitting. There are no longer industrial uses along that road. I think it will be a good use to the property. And the truck traffic that comes in and out of that right of way is not suitable to the site. I think getting rid of that traffic is beneficial. I do think the current access should be transferred to emergency access only, which the applicant agreed to do.

In Opposition:

Regie Leroe (1852 Middlesex Street): I am just off what will be the emergency access. The house has been in the family since 1823. It is an excellent plan. I think it is still within the hundred-year flood plane. Second, where the trees are, it is pretty much standing water year-round. My question is, if you fill in any more of that, that water has to go somewhere. This project will not limit the runoff waters. Another concern is that you are loosing some industrial space. Plus it is hidden from traffic areas. The proposed access opposite Dingwell Street—you are talking 200 cars a day coming out of that site. That may create a major problem for Middlesex Street. We already have a group of condos up the street on Middlesex Street. There are many children along that street. It's a fine looking site, but we are maxed out at that part of the city itself.

Kelly Bissinis (1892 Middlesex): I am just curious, has a traffic study been done? It is so congested over there right now, and with the other project down the street. I also have a petition and a letter from Mary Doney, dated June 19th.

T. Linnehan: This is from Mary an abutter. The letter basically says that she is in opposition for several reasons: (Please refer to the letter located in the file as read during proceedings).

Joseph Boache (1875 Middlesex): Environmentally, I don't think it is an ideal place for such a heavy project. Thinking of such a shallow land for the site, to put up such a heavy project, environmentally it will be detrimental to the area. That area is also very trembly with the railroad tracks. Talking about traffic also, that is a heavily congested area, and during that time it is tough to get onto Middlesex Street.

Bill Emrick (28 Dingwell Street): This area is being built up. Now you have emergency vehicles there all the time. Traffic backs up there all the time.

Scott Hamilton (1847 Middlesex): We are located here, to the rights of the present access drive. I think getting rid of the trucks is a good idea. The parking is a real problem. With all the on-street parking, it is hard to make a turn out of the driveway. I do think reusing the land is a great idea. But I think this is too much. I also have concerns about flooding.

Steve Mendonca (25 Karen Street): Wanted to say that I just purchased my home in December; I thought it was a perfect spot. I was really upset that they were resurrecting this huge complex just up the street. This whole area is over-crowded. This is disgusting.

Steve Moses (1961 Middlesex Street): We are concerned with our children. There is no 24-foot width driveway. The driveway that is being proposed is the same as Dingwell Street. We are really concerned about our children. The density is also one thing to talk about. This larger development must be scaled back.

Michael Ready (Nesmith Street): I am obviously not a resident of this area. I come before you this evening as preservationists. The house at 1878 Middlesex Street has a long history with me. That property has changed drastically. As an activist, I am opposed to the properties that will access this site. They were very tasteful. This area is pretty much intact as it looked in 1920; these units are the only ones that remain. Also, under the new zoning code, the City Council rezoned the area around here as single family. They are building a similar project on the Boulevard on the other side of the river, but that has four lanes. I found it interesting what they want to do with the water. It is wetlands. There is obviously something that feeds the water source. That is an existing industrial site. As this Board knows, we are converting far too much of our industrial land to residential. Once it is converted to condos, it will never go back to industrial. The cars are a constant traffic throughout the week. We need more commercial tax income.

Katherine Emrick (28 Dingwell Street): There were all elderly people in that areas back 10 years ago, but now there are many children.

S. Hamilton: What steps are going to be taken to ensure that the emergency road will not be an access road?

In Discussion:

T. Linnehan: I believe they were going to gate it off.

J. Clermont: I've been writing down a number of comments. The property is in a SMU district. The applicant does have the right to submit the plans. The hearing notices are written by the City. The plans are public record and all are welcome to go to the Planning Department at any time to see the plans. The fact that the building is coming down I think is good because there will be less impervious surface. Can you identify what is on either side of the new access road? I know there are apartment buildings on one side.

K. Bomegem: There are duplexes on either side.

J. Clermont: Was there any consideration given with the emergency access and the main access road and about making it one way? Was that considered at all?

K. Bomegem: We are going to own this by right; this is an easement, so the proposed plan is the best-noted plan.

J. Clermont: I don't think we got a report back from the Traffic Engineer or the Fire Department. The only special permit they're asking for is about the length of the access road. This is site plan reviewed and everything on there fits the Zoning Code. The only space is for the Fire Department access. If we were going to approve this plan we would need some input from the Fire Department. On the right side is there any buffering or screening?

K. Bomegem: No, we are not going to do anything there.

J. Clermont: There is some concern that there is a bus stop at the end of your access drive where the children wait for the school bus. You don't own property on either side of that access drive, you own the access drive only. I am concerned about how we can make that area as big as possible. Has there been any traffic study for the area?

K. Bomegem: No, there has not.

J. Jozokos: Just to note, Mr. Clermont, the Commonwealth owns the property on the backside of the property to the Rourke Bridge.

J. Clermont: Trash removal: can that be privately handled? I have no more questions, maybe some comments towards the end.

R. Lockhart: The fire lane that wraps around the whole area, is that gated?