Ms. Marcus MADE A MOTION to
take the second item on the agenda out of order. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the motion. All in favor.
None opposed.
STATION CROSSING
Nabil Bohgos, the developer,
and Tom Bennett, the developer’s attorney were present.
Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Planning Board had three issues regarding the Station Crossing
Development. The issue regarding the
structures located on the roof, which the Board had required to be flat, has
been resolved by the Developer’s architect providing plans for screening the
structures with a widow’s walk design, which the Planning Board approved. The
issue regarding the slope of the driveway was resolved at the last meeting,
when the Developer presented that the driveway would be adjusted to have the
slope as shown on the plans. Mr.
Cassavoy stated that the issue remaining regards the utilities not having been
placed underground as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Board during the Special Permitting process. He explained that at the last meeting the
Board was evenly split on a motion that the proposed modification in the plan,
to not place the utilities underground, would require a public hearing. Mr. Cassavoy invited the Developer’s Attorney,
Mr. Bennett, to speak.
Mr. Bennett stated that he
had read the state statute, to which Dan Cameron of National Grid had
referred. Mr. Bennett stated that the
Board of Aldermen do have a role in requiring that utilities be placed
underground. He referred to National
Grid’s policy that the company will bury utilities when they believe it makes
sense. He stated that even if the
Developer was allowed to provide a bond to allow time for the developer to
pursue placing the utilities underground, there appears to be “not a glimmer of
hope” that National Grid will allow the utilities to be buried.
Mr. Sadowski stated in the
past the Planning Board has required utilities to be placed underground and
they were; such a requirement, in the past, did not require the Board of
Aldermen’s involvement. He wondered if
the change from Mass Electric to National Grid is in part the reason for this
change in policy.
Mr. Mercado reiterated that
the Planning Board had advised the Petitioner during the permitting process
that placing utilities underground would be costly. He added that this issue should have been
addressed two years ago; now the Planning Board
looks bad.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that
she had never heard of using a bond with a Special Permit. She said that now the Planning Board knows that the Petitioner cannot be specifically
required to place utilities underground but rather can be required to request
to the Board of Aldermen that the utilities be buried. She added that now the Planning Board knows that in this specific case National Grid does
not want to burry utilities at this site.
She stated that the most the Planning Board can do is require the Petitioner to make the request
of the Board of Aldermen to request to National Grid for the utilities to be
underground. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked the Planning Board if the members felt a public hearing was needed for
this issue.
Ms. Marcus asked if there was
a way to get people in the units before the buried power issue is
resolved. Mr. Cassavoy responded that if
the units are complete, the Building Inspector could give a conditional
occupancy permit. Mr. Bennett stated
that lenders do not like temporary permits.
Rather, the City could grant 48 or the 49 occupancy permit (each unit
required separate permits as well as one for the entire building).
Mr. Cassidy stated that the Planning Board has been taught a lesson. He believes the developer and the team knew the
permit was required from the beginning.
In that regard, he is disappointed.
He said the utilities above ground look like Chicago 1915. He added
that the building is beautiful and Boghos should be congratulated for the good
effort. However, the poorly constructed
poles look awful. He added that it can
be very difficult to work with utility companies. He stated that the Planning Board should advocate for the Board of Aldermen to look at
burying power in the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown district, where
underground utilities already exist.
Mr. Pawlina stated that the
City does not look good here either. The
City was not working hand and glove with the developer.
Mr. Bennett added that the
plans say that the final placement of utilities is subject to the coordination
with utility companies. Mr. Sadowski
added that he understands the Petitioner’s current attorney was not involved
during the permitting process and added that it was clear the utilities would
be buried underground without conditional approval of utilities.
The Planning Board discussed whether a public hearing is required. Mr. Cassidy stated that if you asked anyone
in the public if they liked the utilities above ground they would say no. Knowing that the utilities can seemingly not
be buried at this time, he believes the public would not be well served by a
public hearing.
Mr. Cassidy stated that he
thought the street lighting would be similar to the light fixtures on Main Street. He added that
he saw corporate style lights along the street.
Mr. Boghos stated that the building will look better when the old poles
are taken down. He added that they will
install whatever lighting the plans describe.
Mr. Mercado asked about the tree
plantings on Cottage
Street that
were a requirement of the Planning
Board’s Decision. Mr. Boghos stated that he made a payment to the
City for the trees on Cottage. He added
that the City planted the trees on Cottage Street but has since removed the trees. Mr. Boghos stated that he planted bushes in
front of the house directly across the West Foster Street exit of the development. However, the residents of that property
decided they did not like the plantings and requested they be removed.
Mr. Mercado noted that the
wheel chair and sidewalk ramp must be installed per the Planning Board’s Decision.
Mr. Boghos stated that he was
required by the Superintendent of Public Works to replace the City water main
on Willow Street. He stated
that he was told he would not receive any more permits from the City until the
main replacement occurred. He added that
he never received the results from the water flow tests which the
Superintendent referenced as the reason for the requirement to replace the
main.
Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION
determining that the modification in the plans involving the change from
underground utilities to overhead utilities for the frontage of the site did
not warrant a public hearing. Mr.
Pawlina stated that the Planning
Board knows the facts
now and needs to move forward. Ms.
DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the motion. Mr.
Cassavoy called a role-call vote; Mr. Mercado voted against the motion; Mr.
Sadowski voted in favor; Ms. DeSouza-Ward voted in favor; Mr. Pawlina voted in
favor; Ms. Marcus voted in favor; Mr. Cassidy voted in favor; and Mr. Cassavoy
voted in favor.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward raised the Board’s
options for addressing the requirement for underground utilities. She stated that the Board could require the
Petitioner to request the Board of Aldermen make a formal request to National
Grid to place the utilities underground or the Board could decide that with the
information provided such an option is infeasible. Mr. Cassidy stated that he understands that placing
utilities underground for new subdivisions is a much easier undertaking than
placing utilities underground for one city block. Mr. Mercado added that other lots in the area
may be redeveloped in the near future, such as Deering Lumber. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that the City should
consider whether new development in the area should, as a standard, be required
to place utilities underground. Mr.
Pawlina stated that while the Board is clearly disappointed that placing the
utilities underground is seemingly infeasible and the process in which this
reality has unfolded; however, he understands the points National Grid is
making regarding the difficulty of putting utilities underground for one site
in a densely populated area. Ms. Marcus
and Mr. Cassavoy added that the City should plan for the future regarding
requiring underground utilities.
Mr. Pawlina restated his
original MOTION. Ms. DeSouza-Ward
SECONDED the MOTION. A vote was
taken. All in favor. None opposed.
PATRIOT WAY
Ms. Regan explained to the
Board that the developers of the Patriot Way Subdivision have requested the
Planning Board release Lot 1, within the Subdivision. The Planning Board reviewed a memo from Bob
Beshara stating that the developers have satisfied the requirements of the
Department of Public Works to date and that he finds no reason to withhold the
release of Lot 1. The
Planning Board reviewed the conditions of the decision and noted that Condition
#16, the contribution to the sidewalk fund, had not been satisfied. The Planning Board also discussed whether the
Board’s approval of the release of Lot 1 was necessary,
since a tri-party agreement had been established. Ms. Regan stated that she believed the
Board’s approval was not necessary but appreciated the developers’ effort to
ensure that they were meeting the requirements of the Decision.
Mr. Pawlina MADE a
MOTION to approve the release of Lot 1 within the Patriot Way Subdivision, subject to the
satisfaction of Condition #16 of the Board’s Decision, dated September 9, 2004. Ms. DeSouza-Ward
SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to
adjourn. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the
motion. All in favor. None opposed.
Meeting adjourned at 11pm.