Zoning Board of Appeals - Nov 11th, 2021

From srevilak.net
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting held via remote participation. Materials were available from https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/DisplayAgendaPDF.ashx?MeetingID=1464.

Comprehensive Permit - Thorndike Place

The board continues deliberation on the draft decision for the Thorndike Place comprehensive permit.

(Christian Klein, ZBA Chair) Mr. Klein summarizes the close of the public hearing and deliberations. He reiterates that the board can no longer accept new testimony for the project, and cannot enter it into the public record. He says that the several comments were recently submitted via email, and these were not distributed to board members.

The board discusses the need to schedule additional hearing dates, in order to conclude deliberations in time. We hold additional meetings on Nov 18th at 7:30pm and Nov 22nd at 8:00pm.

Next, the board reviews conditions they discussed at the last meeting, which are C.2 though the end of section G.

Condition C.2(g). Now contains language that was used in the 1165R comprehensive permit.

Condition C.2(l). Mr. Haverty (counsel for the board) would like to review his notes and double check what the applicant agreed to.

Condition C.2(m). Change "hazardous waste" to "hazardous material".

Condition D.8. Added requirements for vibration monitoring during ground improvement.

Condition D.16. This condition governs work hours. Mr. Revilak reviewed his notes, and found no specific discussion of Saturday work hours. Mr. Hanlon says he'll need to review video recordings to refresh his memory. The board will hold this condition for future deliberation.

Condition D.21. Added a cross-reference to condition I.5.

Condition D.22. The board strikes a sentence that was made redundant by changes to D.8.

Condition D.24. Added a reference to Title III Article 4 in the town bylaws, which requires bonding to cover potential damage to public ways.

Condition D.31. This condition will require the applicant to perform a survey of street trees and report to the tree warden if any trees are damaged during construction. Mr. Hanlon wonders about the underlying state law that protects street trees; he believes it would be useful to cite the state law in the condition. Mr. Haverty offers to look this up.

Condition E.1(c). This condition requires the applicant to obtain sign-off from the Arlington Fire Department, stating that they'll have sufficient access to the site.

Condition E.1(f). The condition has been modified to require a conservation restriction on the proposed conservation parcel, if the applicant and town cannot agree to an MOU.

The board moves on to conditions section H.

Condition H.1. There's a question about the definition of "utilities" in this section. Mr. Haverty believes it would be the same definition that appears in H.6. The board moves the definition from H.6 into H.1.

Condition H.6. The applicant will need to move a utility pole in order to provide driveway access to one of the duplexes. This condition requires the applicant to obtain a grant of location for the new pole.

Condition H.7. Added language noting that municipal trash pickup will service the duplexes.

Condition H.9. Worded so that the town is afforded suitable room to perform work around utility easements during construction.

Condition I.2. Added clarification that the Order of Conditions applies to the State Wetlands Act.

Condition E.5. Added language about snow removal and de-icing around the rear service road.

Condition I.4. There's discussion about whether to include a requirement to protect critical root zones during construction. The board believes this is a worthwhile requirement, but doesn't fit with the rest of the condition. We'll have to find another place for it.

Condition I.6. I.6 is redundant. The board would like to delete it, but won't do so right now; we don't want to disturb the numbering at this point in the process. We can do deletions and renumbering at the very end.

Condition I.10. Changed "developer" to "Applicant".

Condition I.11. The board notes that there isn't a timeline specified for notice or remediation, if there's a discharge of sediment into an offsite body of water. Mr. Haverty says the town's zoning enforcement officer would be the one that enforces this condition. Mr. Hanlon isn't entirely comfortable with the broad obligation the condition creates. Mr. Revilak thinks I.11 is similar to I.1, in the sense that the zoning enforcement officer should have the ability to specify a remedy and timeline if violations occur.

Condition I.17. This condition requires board approval for changes to the rooftop stormwater detention system. Mr. Haverty believes this is within the board's right, even if the changes are approved administratively.

Condition I.18. Mr. Hanlon suggests the board come back and do some wordsmithing on this condition. He'd like to see it read more like a condition.

Condition I.19. Mr. Haverty suggests putting specifics into the condition, rather than referencing the stormwater report.

Condition I.26. This condition is redundant with C.1. The board flags it for later removal.

Condition I.27. Instead of requiring an ongoing maintenance plan for the compensatory flood storage area, the board will require ongoing maintenance.

Condition I.28. This condition seems duplicative of C.1(g). Flagged as a candidate for later removal.

Condition I.29. Mr. Mills requests the addition of "native non-cultivar species".

Condition I.30. There's overlap between this condition at C.1(e). We might be able to merge the two, but this will require further consideration.

Condition I.36. This condition might be duplicative. We'll have to verify. If so, it will be another candidate for removal.

Section J (Other General Conditions) seems generally straightforward, and none of the board members suggest changes.

That's it for the conditions section of the decision. We'll pick up with findings at our next meeting.

(Pat Hanlon) Mr. Hanlon notes that he distributed a proposed draft re-write of the transportation findings. He believes that the findings section is partially an opportunity for the board to explain it's thinking to the public. Over the course of the public hearings, several themes came up as areas of local concern. Mr. Hanlon suggests organizing the findings section that way.

There's a motion to continue the hearing to November 16 at 7:30pm. Passes, 7--0.

Meeting adjourned.