Hudson Board of Appeals
Town Hall
Hudson, Massachusetts 01749
Minutes of Meeting – July 10, 2008 page 1
Minutes of Meeting— July 10, 2008
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Town Hall Auditorium, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Joe Peznola, Dorothy Risser, Christopher Tibbals, Todd Pietrasiak, James Smith and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 2008-04, 43 Broad Street, Special Permit
The Board is in receipt of an email from Andy Candiello form Metro PCS Massachusetts requesting a continuance until the next meeting.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition 2008-04 until August 14, 2008 at 7:30 pm.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Petition 2008-03, 248-250 Main Street, Modification to Special Permit
Present was: Joanne Foley, Atty. at Law
Michael Abend, Abend Associates
Adam Kwartowitz, SEA Consulting
Mr. Norris read a letter from MP Development into the record dated June 24, 2008 regarding questions that the Board has raised. Mr. Norris did not read the entire letter and stated that the letter is available at the Town Planner’s office for review.
Another communication was read into the record dated June 12, 2008 which was a technical memorandum from SEA Consulting. This letter contained conclusions and recommendations regarding the traffic study. Mr. Abend addressed the Board, citing the memo as inadequate. Mr. Abend went through each of SEA’s comments/questions and addressed each one in a memo dated July 8, 2008, which he referred to in his presentation to the Board.
He first addressed the traffic impact analysis comments by SEA. Mr. Abend states that SEA noted that the ITE rates SEA referred to were too low. Mr. Abend explained that the ITE data for senior housing seemed unrealistically low for the proposed project. Mr. Abend also states that that SEA indicated that Mr. Abend had anticipated that the design of the units would generate lower traffic volumes than ITE rates. Mr. Abend noted that while SEA does not agree with the validity of the rates they do not provide any data that suggests the rates are inappropriate.
Secondly, Mr. Abend commented on the parking impact analysis and again did not agree with SEA’s conclusions.
SEA argues that a new traffic study should be performed due to the amount of time which has elapsed since the original study and the data needs to be updated. Mr. Abend informed the Board that the changes that would result would be so minimal they would not warrant a new study.
Another comment from SEA was regarding the installation of a left turning lane into the site from vehicles traveling eastbound. Mr. Abend cites that this would be a safety hazard for pedestrian traffic.
Atty. Foley asked Mr. Abend to clarify the number of years of experience he has in his field for the record. Mr. Abend stated that he has 25 years of experience in his field. Atty. Foley then asked whether Mr. Abend believes that the changes in the parking situation could create health and safety issues. Mr. Abend answered no.
Mr. Kwartowitz from SEA noted that the original traffic study was conducted in 2004 and that there is a real need for updated traffic analysis. He also addressed Mr. Abend's comment regarding the left turn. Mr. Kwartowitz does in fact believe that during peak hours the exclusion of a left turning lane could present traffic problems.
Atty. Foley asked Mr. Kwartowitz to state for the record the amount of years experience he had in his field. Mr. Kwartowitz stated that he had 2 years of experience and could not answer for the engineers that had reviewed the data.
Mr. Norris noted that the Board received correspondence from Lou Tagliani on behalf of the Esplanade Residents regarding the technical memorandum from Abend Associates. In Mr. Tagliani’s response he states that the developer has not met its burden of proof regarding the acceleration of the rate of traffic absorption.
Mr. Norris then stated that the Board, the Applicant and the Esplanade Residents had received the review from Avery Associates that afternoon. He went on to say that none of the parties had sufficient time to review the documents, citing that length of the report.
Mr. Abend stated that the ratio of cars per unit is 1.61, which would account for 226 spaces. Mr. Peznola noted that there were 38 spaces deemed for commercial use, which would raise the amount of spaces to approximately 257. Mr. Tagliani then asked if it is appropriate to take into account the number of handicapped and visitor parking spaces. Mr. Peznola said that because all of the spaces are needed all must be taken into account.
With most of the traffic issues addressed, Mr. Peznola turned his attention to the comprehensive permit. He noted that the comprehensive permit is subject to Federal Code and that 20% of the units can be sold without the age restriction without violating the conditions of the permit. Mr. Peznola suggested that the two parties attempt to come to an agreement regarding this condition or perhaps a middle ground.
Atty. Foley addressed the Board. She stated that due to the proposal by Mr. Peznola she does not believe it would be appropriate to comment further without conferring with her client. She also stated that she would need extra time to review the comments by Avery Associates. She thus requested that the hearing be continued to the Boards next available date.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to continue the public hearing for 248 –250 Main Street to July 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 8:45 p.m., Joe Peznola, seconded by Lawrence Norris, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 6-0-0, Unanimous
| 
