Planning Board Considers Changes To Archipelago’s Next 5-Story Building Downtown. Questions Rushed Public Hearings On Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Report On The Planning Board Meeting of June 30, 2021

The meeting was held via Zoom. The recording can be viewed here.

Present
Planning Board: Jack Jemsek (Chair), Maria Chao, Thom Long, Doug Marshall, Janet McGowan, and Johanna Neumann. Absent: Andrew MacDougall

Staff: Chris Brestrup (Planning Director), Pam Field-Sadler (Assistant), Rob Morra (Building Commissioner) 

Archipelago Associates Presents Revised Plan For 11-13 East Pleasant Street
Kyle Wilson of Archipelago Associates presented an updated plan for the proposed five-story mixed-use building at 11-13 East Pleasant Street. The new plans take into account the town’s proposed change to the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw requiring 12 percent of newly created units in buildings with 10 or more dwelling units to meet the State’s standards for affordability. (This Bylaw change was unanimously endorsed by the Planning Board and Community Resources Committee and is expected to receive the two-thirds majority required at the July 12 Town Council meeting.)

In order to meet the requirement,  Archipelago proposed 90 apartments instead of the original 55, including 11 that would be affordable. Enclosed parking on the ground floor was eliminated in order to accommodate five studio apartments. Other changes include: increasing the setback along the West Cemetery from five feet to ten feet — 20 feet is required by the Zoning Bylaw, and the Historical Commission reported that ten feet is the “minimum” amount of space acceptable. In addition, the new plan increases the nonresidential street-facing area from 1,400 to 2,200 square feet to incorporate some of the suggestions of the Planning Board.

Instead of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, the plan is now for  30 studios, 36 one-bedroom apartments, and 24 two-bedroom apartments, which translates into 90 apartments with 114 bedrooms instead of the original 140. Also, the propane tank for hot water has been eliminated, making  the building all- electric except for a backup generator on the roof. Solar panels on the roof will face south.

Much was still undecided about the project, such as the design of the front entrance, landscaping, erosion control, report on fire safety, management plan, and traffic impact statement. The Design Review Board is not slated to discuss the details of the project until July 19. The building height is the same as One East Pleasant and Kendrick Place. The above mentioned issues are outlined on pages 4-10 of the Planning Board packet.

Wilson refused to admit that the added affordable units were in response to the impending bylaw change, but he did say that the available space in the General Business district is very small, so developers need to “maximize housing in this housing crisis.” Chao said she was happy to see Archipelago “make Inclusionary Zoning work by increasing the quantity of units, rather than raising the rents” (though there was no discussion of rents at this meeting).

Most of the discussion centered on the proximity of the building to the cemetery and to the meagre amount of retail space planned for the ground floor. Although Wilson said he did not know the percentage of the ground floor area designated for nonresidential use, Morra calculated it as 13 percent. The pending  Mixed-use building amendment would require a minimum of 40 percent nonresidential use on the ground floor.

The existing buildings at 11-13 East Pleasant Street, the Piper and Summerlin buildings, are nonconforming in that they are not 20 feet from the cemetery, and therefore Archipelago has argued that the new building  also does not need to meet the mandated setback. Brestrup said she has heard from town attorney Joel Bard that in Eastern Massachusetts, single-family homes close to a lot line have been replaced by larger homes without a change in the setbacks.  . McGowan offered that  permissions used for single-family homes do not necessarily apply to  a case like this where two small buildings would be replaced by a significantly large, five-story one.

There was also uncertainty about the trees and fence bordering the cemetery. Tree Warden Alan Snow thought the trees would not survive the construction. The current fence is actually several feet inside the cemetery’s property line, presumably constructed there to save the trees. The town is considering moving the fence to the property line to allow it to more easily maintain the cemetery property, and plant new trees inside the fence.

Marshall said that if the retail space is used by a restaurant, it might be beneficial to have more space along the street side for outdoor dining. Jemsek asked how One East Pleasant was allowed to keep the five foot setback along the cemetery that the Carriage Shops had. Morra replied that when One East Pleasant was approved, a provision in a footnote of the Zoning Bylaw allowed the Planning Board to waive the setback from the cemetery. The footnote has since been removed. This building should have to be 20 feet from the cemetery.

Public Comment
Pam Rooney and District 3 Councilor Dorothy Pam supported the 20-foot setback from the cemetery, so the new building at 11-13 East Pleasant would not dwarf the cemetery. 

Rooney decried the “pathetic streetscape” in front of One East Pleasant. She also expressed some concern about the flow of traffic on Pray Street not only during but after construction of 11-13 East Pleasant Street.

Elizabeth Vierling worried about the increasing lack of downtown parking. Not only have the parking spots been eliminated from the revised 11-13 East Pleasant design, but the building itself is replacing 30 parking spaces. All of these spaces are used regularly, day and night, especially  by the residents of One East Pleasant. To this, Wilson replied that he is “happy to be replacing parking with housing.”

Hilda Greenbaum pointed out that the Planning Board has lots of room for negotiating about what they permit for 11-13 East Pleasant because the developer is asking for so much from the town. She said the West Cemetery is a prominent site, especially for visitors to the town,  and needs to be protected. She suggested that the proposed building could house small businesses on the ground floor, instead of the studio apartments the developer has planned.  She reminded the board that if the town is not careful, it could end up losing tax revenue because there would be no reason for people to patronize downtown. But Wilson insisted that mandating more retail would not be practical and would probably just result in more empty space.

McGowan asked who will own the building, as the parcel is listed as belonging to the Summerlin Trust. Wilson said it will be owned by 11 East Pleasant LLC, which will be formed when the building is constructed. Harrison Street Real Estate of Chicago is listed as the signatory body for One East Pleasant.

After public comment, a fair amount of time was spent determining when to continue the hearings for this project. Brestrup suggested August 4, but Wilson objected to the month’s delay. He said it was important to expedite the approval,so construction could begin this fall. As a result, an extra meeting was added on July 28. The Planning Board will meet every Wednesday in July. The mixed-use building standards being presented at the public hearing on July 21 may further impact this project.

The Design Review Board will discuss the project on July 19, from 5 to 7p.m.

Is The Planning Board Being Left Out Of Zoning Change Decisions?
In a public comment to open the meeting, Pam Rooney said she is unhappy that three proposed zoning amendments (mixed-use buildings, apartments, and parking) were discussed at the Town Council meeting on June 28 and referred for a public hearing even though the Planning Board had never discussed the latter two proposals and felt the first one was not ready to present to the town council. She termed this a “process foul.”

Dorothy Pam, speaking as a councilor and a member of the council’s Community Resources Committee (CRC), said she was as shocked as anyone that these proposals were on the council agenda. She called it a “power grab”, saying the CRC has hijacked the process. She said the flow chart, that was presented by CRC Chair Mandi Jo Hanneke on May 6, 2020 and approved by the Planning Board is not being followed, and she urged the Planning Board to take back the process.

Susannah Muspratt said she has “not seen hide nor hair of the Community Impact Statement required by the CRC’s own policy.”

Brestrup explained that in the past, most zoning amendments originated in the Planning Board or its Zoning Subcommittee, with the Select Board having a minor role, but the CRC is now driving the process, and they felt that the amendments were ready for a public hearing. The Planning Board is scheduled to discuss the amendments on July 14 before the joint public hearing with the CRC on July 21. 

McGowan was especially bothered by the way these amendments are being rushed through to a vote. The timeline allows 65 days from the referral by the council to the Planning Board before a public hearing is held. She objected to the council not giving the Planning Board time to discuss the implications of the changes. She also said the matter of rezoning the  public parking lot behind CVS to permit construction of a parking lot was never even brought to the Planning Board, but is to be presented at a public hearing on July 7.

Jemsek added that the Planning Board has some skilled people and he doesn’t understand why the CRC and town council don’t want to hear from them.

The Planning Board will continue its discussion of the process of amending the Zoning Bylaw, but it is not on the agenda for July 7.

The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m