Minutes of Meeting— November 8, 2012
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:30 p.m., Lawrence Norris called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Joseph Peznola, Todd Pietrasiak, Jim Smith, Jill Schafer, Christopher Tibbals, Dorothy Risser, Darja Nevits, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery, Clerk.
Petition 1036: Cabot Road, Comprehensive Permit
Present were: Paul Giannetti, Esq.
Paul Feldman, Esq.
Joseph D. Lynch, Senior VP, Conroy Development Corp.
James J. Devellis, Engineer, Devellis Zrein, Inc.
Shaun P. Kelly, Senior Project Manager, Vanasse & Assoc., Inc.
Kenneth Hysczzak, Architect, KH Architecture
David Stephens, Police Chief
John Blood, Fire Chief
Tony Marques, Public Works Director
Bob D’Amelio, Planning Board Chairman
Jodi Fortuna, Asst. Superintendant
Michelle Ciccolo, Director of Community Development
Kerin Shea, Community Development
Lawrence Norris convened the Public Hearing.
Dorothy Risser Read the Right of Appeal.
Mr. Norris noted that there were no abutters in attendance.
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive permit to construct 176 units of multi-family housing constructed under Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 40B in the M-6 Industrial District.
Mr. Peznola offered a brief overview of the Chapter 40B process. He noted that Chapter 40B is a section of MGL which creates affordable housing. The affordable units have a prescribed level of rent based on a percentage of the areas median income level.
The public hearing process for a comprehensive permit has a maximum limit of 180 days.
There is a capped profit margin of 10% for all 40B projects.
Atty. Giannetti introduced the project and the development team to the Board.
Mr. Lynch explained that this is a 14.7 acre site with frontage on Cabot Road as well as additional frontage on Washington Street with the added advantage of a natural buffer zone. He stated that the only viable alternative for this area was this type of housing.
Mr. Devellis informed the Board that only 8 acres of the almost 15 are being developed. Upon entering the property there will be a clubhouse directly in the front with 15 parking spaces which will contain a fitness area and a meeting space. There will be four apartment building constructed on the site, as well as an outdoor recreation area with a heated pool. There is full access around all the buildings. There will also be sidewalks throughout Cabot Road onto Technology Drive westerly to meet the existing sidewalk on Technology Drive.
Mr. Kelly stated that a comprehensive study of the traffic was conducted in July 2012 during weekday mornings (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and weekday evenings (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM). He projects that this project will produce approximately 90 trips during the weekday morning peak hours and 114 during the weekday evening peak hours. Mr. D’Amelio questioned the accuracy of these numbers. Mr. Norris noted that this study will be reviewed by the Town’s consultants.
Mr. Hysczzak, principal architect explained the project will be comprised of 176 units. Access to all the buildings will be easy due to the concept layout. Each of the four buildings will have a center entrance into a lobby with an elevator. The units will be one and two bedroom units (50/50 split). The one bedroom units will range in size from 615 to 750 square feet and the two bedroom units will be 950 to 1000 square feet.
Mr. Norris noted that most department comments were in regards to transport, sidewalk access and a secondary exit to the site.
Mr. Marques spoke in regards to the sewer capacity issues. This site needs to work within the guidelines of the wastewater management plan (WWMP) for the entire Town. A 6,000 gallon waste discharge capacity has been allocated for this site. Through his calculations, Mr. Marques estimates that this project will have a total of 264 bedrooms at a disposal rate of 110 gallons per bedroom by Title V specifications. This is a very significant increase in allocated flow to a particular location that was not anticipated. The Town initiated an Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) Reduction in order to mitigate issues such as this one. One of the waivers the applicant is seeking is for the I&I Reduction. Mr. Marques feels this waiver should not be granted.
Mr. Marques noted that the applicant is seeking waivers in regards to all regulations that comply with wastewater and sewer operations. He feels it makes it difficult to look at the approval process and feel comfortable and stated that the waivers should not be granted. He went on to say he is willing to sit down the developer to give them guidance, guidelines and suggestions which will help the process move forward.
The Town’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is for 3,000,000 annually. If there is an excess the Town would need to install an underground disposal system for an additional 50,000 gallons which can be done under the existing permit. When the system was looked at regarding its potential growth through 2025 the Town was very close to capacity. Intel is not using 100% of the very high allocation of the wastewater discharge that were granted years ago. Mr. Marques noted that this is not to say that in the near future they could start to utilize more of its allocation.
Mr. Peznola is not inclined to grant a waiver from the I&I sewer fees or any other sewer fees. These mandates are prescribed at the state and federal level and therefore are out of the Town’s jurisdiction. Mr. Marques noted that the applicant can either remove the waste at the three to one ratio or pay the $3 per gallon rate for the I&I in which the Town would then reduce the waste at the regulated ratio. Mr. Peznola asked the applicant to review their financials to see if not granting this waiver would render the project uneconomic. (Under regulations set in 2008 the Town cannot delve into the financials of a project unless the applicant specifically opposes a condition or if refusal to grant a waiver renders the project uneconomical.)
Chief Blood stated that his major concern is for the flow of traffic at the site. He noted that one entrance in and out of the site is a major concern. This proposal includes parking spaces up along the buildings along with a grassy area and a sidewalk which may affect the ability for the ladder to reach the building. He also stated that the roads are too narrow. Chief Blood asked that the applicant consider designing the parking under the buildings or away from the buildings. Mr. Peznola suggested that a fire protection engineer review this design.
Chief Blood made a comparison to a similar project that was permitted in 2005 and since then there have been 453 emergencies at that location. This will dramatically increase the work load for emergency services. The difference being that it is easier to access the other site than it would be to access this site with this design.
Chief Stephens agreed that having only one entrance / exit to the site is a major concern. He agreed with Chief Blood’s assessment that the number of calls will dramatically increase. The intersection of Cabot Road and Technology Drive is a dangerous corner and he is requesting some type of traffic light at this location.
Mr. D’Amelio expressed concern for the 25% reduction in the amount of paved area at the site.
Jodi Fortuna asked if the developer has considered the number of children that would require school bus transportation. She was concerned that the school bus would not be able to access the site.
Ms. Ciccolo requested that the applicant consider adding three bedroom apartments to the project. She then noted t hat there is a need for public transit and questioned whether the applicant would contribute to this in any way.
Ms. Risser stated that a major concern of hers is the reduced number of parking spaces being requested.
Mr. Peznola asked if a parking study had been done. Mr. Kelly said yes. Mr. Peznola then asked to see it. He would also like a speed study and site distance analysis done as well as the auto turn analysis which he would like rerun with the Fire Chief.
Mr. Peznola would like the developer to look at the potential for a crosswalk at the entrance to the site going into the shopping center. He then noted that his major issues are the sewer capacity and the single point of access. The National Fire Protection Association recommends two points of access for a project of this size. He stated that it does not need to be for public access but for the access of emergency vehicles.
Atty. Feldman explained that the comprehensive list of waivers helps the developer to understand what position they are in and whether the project will end up uneconomic. He noted they will take all the feedback into account.
Mr. D’Amelio asked that they consider coming back with a more realistic list of waivers. Mr. Feldman said they would go back and discuss all the feedback.
Mr. Norris explained that what issues he would like to take up at the next meeting. They are:
- the site distance analysis
- parking analysis
- speed study
- auto turn
- crosswalk
- second entrance / exit
- number of children this would add to the school system
- question of school bus access
- bring sidewalk up Technology Drive to the soccer fields
- local sewer capacity
The Board agreed that they would like the center line of the road flagged and all four corners of the buildings flagged. They scheduled a site walk for Friday, November 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Joe Peznola, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to continue the public hearing for Cabot Road to Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM.
Vote: 8-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 9: 30 PM, Lawrence Norris, seconded by Jim Smith, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 8-0-0, Unanimous
Document List November 8, 2012
Document |
Location |
Comprehensive Permit Application |
Planning Office |
Comments from Kleinfelder dated October 10, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from DPW dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Police Chief dated October 29, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Fire Chief dated October 31, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Jeff Wood dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from ConCom October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Light & Power dated October 23, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Board of Health dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Planning Dept. dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from Community Dev. dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Comments from EDC dated October 30, 2012 |
Planning Office |
Minutes of September 13, 2012 |
Planning Office |
| 
