Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Braintree ZBA denies variances for 1139–1151 Washington St. multifamily project after heavy neighborhood opposition
Summary
After lengthy public comment on traffic, schools, density and environmental concerns, the Zoning Board denied a petition to allow a 43‑unit multifamily building that sought variances for open space per unit, density and number of stories; the developer had offered 10% affordable units and design concessions.
The Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals denied a petition by Steven Young (Mona River LLC) to permit a 43‑unit multifamily development at 1139 and 1151 Washington Street, citing unresolved concerns about density and the potential for setting an undesirable precedent. The developer presented a revised plan that reduced the project from earlier iterations, added a 10% affordable unit commitment and reworked the northern wing to reduce visible massing along Jefferson Street, while keeping a below‑grade parking level.
Attorney Tom Kavanaugh and developer Steven Young framed the project as a remediation and revitalization of a long‑blighted industrial parcel within the 100‑foot riverfront and bordering vegetated wetlands, and asserted the site’s irregular shape, soil conditions and floodplain location create practical hardships for by‑right development. Civil engineer Brad McKenzie said the proposal will comply with MassDEP stormwater and local conservation regulations and will require filings with the conservation commission.
Neighbors speaking during the extended public comment period overwhelmingly opposed the plan. Common concerns were traffic congestion at the Washington/Jefferson intersection, additional school enrollment from increased bedroom counts, insufficient open space per unit, safety and the building’s scale and character relative to the surrounding single‑family neighborhood. Several residents disputed the developer’s contention that reducing units materially reduced bedroom counts and argued the design changes did not address core traffic and neighborhood‑fit issues.
Applicant representatives said a traffic study by Van Ness and Associates estimates a modest increase in peak‑hour trips (roughly 16–21 additional vehicle trips during peak hours, described in the memo as about ‘‘one additional vehicle every three minutes’’), and argued residential use generates fewer peak truck trips than the current industrial use. Multiple residents contested the study’s assumptions and urged the board to consider cumulative impacts of other developments planned nearby.
During deliberations, board members acknowledged the project’s environmental remediation and the benefit of adding affordable units, but several members said they were not comfortable granting the density relief requested because of precedent concerns and unresolved neighborhood impacts. The board voted to deny the requested variances. Planning staff said a written decision would be drafted and posted with the town clerk within 14 days; the board scheduled a short meeting to review and sign the decision.
