Permit review for 51 S. Main apartments continues
October 8, 2023 | By Lisa Scagliotti A proposal to construct a 26-unit apartment building on the former site of the Waterbury town offices continued its local permitting review last week with project officials sharing design revisions made since a September hearing and town officials asking for one additional significant change.
Waterbury’s Development Review Board heard from representatives from Downstreet Community Development and Housing and its project team designing the apartments for 51 South Main Street. The project needs a town conditional use permit.
Revised street view of the proposed apartment building for 51 S. Main Street with a lighter exterior siding color and a lower third-floor roofline. Architect rendering by gbArchitecture (click to enlarge)
Voters a year ago voted to sell the .8-acre parcel to the Barre-based nonprofit housing agency. The site has been used as a parking lot for the past several years after the former town offices building was torn down. The building was left unusable from flooding during Tropical Storm Irene in 2011.
Downstreet operates three other apartment complexes in Waterbury. Its plans for 51 S. Main call for constructing a three-story building with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units described as affordable, “workforce housing.”
Original design, Main Street view. Architect rendering by gbArchitecture (click to enlarge)
The Development Review Board held its first hearing on the project on Sept. 6 during which board members and members of the public raised a variety of questions. The project team was asked to address a list of issues ahead of the Oct. 4 meeting where the review would continue.
In between, project representatives last month met with neighbors of the site to address questions and concerns around topics including plantings, fencing and more.
“I think those conversations were really helpful,” Project Manager Nicola Anderson told the board.
The project team also has collected contact information from nearby property owners in order to build a list for communicating during construction, she said.
Another key decision has been made not just for the 51 S. Main project, but for all of Downstreet’s Waterbury properties. Anderson said the agency will have a full-time property manager and maintenance staffer based in Waterbury with the addition of this project. Those employees will be responsible for the new apartments as well as those at the Stimson & Graves building on Stowe Street, the South Main Apartments at State Drive, and the Green Mountain Seminary apartments on Hollow Road in Waterbury Center.
Most recent view from the rear. Drawing by gbArchitecture
Project evolution
Since the first hearing, designers have made revisions to the 51 S. Main plans. Updated drawings have been submitted showing a new lighter exterior siding color based on suggestions and an altered roofline that’s approximately two feet lower than the original plan.
Other site details have been revised including some plans for landscaping and fences along the rear property line beside adjoining Randall Street properties to accommodate neighbors’ gardens, for example. Project officials also confirmed that tenants will have window treatments provided for their units.
Project engineer Greg Dixson outlined in a memo details pertaining to stormwater runoff that will be collected using multiple catch basins that will direct it into the municipal wastewater system.
“We’re taking all of the water off the property to one location and collecting it into the town infrastructure,” Dixson summarized for the board.
Unlike the first hearing, only a few residents attended last week’s Development Review Board meeting in person and online.
Anne Imhoff, who owns a home on Parker Court adjacent to the Downstreet site, asked about existing fencing and screening that shields her home from light from vehicles on Main Street and Foundry Street. Project representatives said fencing would be moved onto the Waterbury Service Center’s property but it was intended to remain for that purpose.
Part of the discussion focused on utility boxes currently on the site that will need to be moved. Project officials said they have communicated with Green Mountain Power about their equipment. Board members stressed the importance of contacting all of the companies involved to ensure that part goes smoothly.
Robert McLeod, an owner of 55 South Main Street on the south side of the building site, addressed the board with concerns about easements given how close his building is to the property line. He also raised concern about vibrations and the potential seismic impact of construction activity on the two-story red brick historic home that houses multiple offices.
“We’d prefer no to have our property trashed for reasons of construction,” he said.
55 S. Main (left) alongside an architect’s rendering of the apartment building. gbArchitecture image
He reminded the board that there was an impact study done prior to Main Street road reconstruction to assess how vulnerable properties may have been to heavy construction activity. Board members said it’s possible to potentially monitor during construction and Dixson said he would be interested to see background material that might be pertinent.
Anderson responded as well. “Our goal is to be a good neighbor during and after construction,” she said. “We want to work with you.”
A new design request
Overall, board members commended the project team for their attention to details and revisions based on feedback from the prior hearing and discussions with neighbors.
“I appreciate the effort you put into changing things since our last discussions,” board member Bud Wilson told the project team, noting in particular steps such as the siding color change taken to “soften the appearance of the building.”
Board member Harry Shepard agreed. “I want to commend your responsiveness,” he said.
The meeting, however, did not end with the board taking a vote on the permit application. One new question was raised that project representatives could not definitively answer on the spot.
Board member Alex Tolstoi suggested that although he “loved dropping the roofline two feet or so,” he still thought the mass of the top floor was too large, especially when approaching it from the south.
To lessen the visual impact, he suggested that the designers reduce the size of the living units on that level, allowing for the front edge of the top floor to be set back from the front edge of the building. That might mean eliminating one studio apartment, for example, or reducing the size of a one-bedroom unit, he suggested.
“I think that would definitely make the building look way smaller from the streetscape,” he said.
The question appeared to take the project team by surprise. Anderson’s first response was to call the request a “hard sell” given how far along the project is in design and funding processes.
“I hate to take away a unit. We’re in such a housing crisis and not just in Vermont but especially Central Vermont,” she replied. “We could be providing a home for somebody that’s working in Waterbury.”
Anderson explained that the project is still in the process of applying for funding and detailed applications for state, federal and grant dollars outline the project’s potential rental income per unit. Funders “will be disappointed that we’re having to take away a unit for the design,” she said.
Anderson emphasized that designers were sensitive to concerns about building height, which prompted the alterations made since the first board hearing. Dixson also noted that zoning regulations allow for the structure to be four stories tall, but designers have kept it to three stories, similar to other nearby buildings in that section of South Main Street.
Anderson stopped short of a definitive answer. “We’ll look into it,” she said, but added that the goal was to provide as much affordable housing as possible per project. “Our market study also found a high demand for one-bedrooms and studios in Waterbury,” she said.
Tolstoi said he appreciated Downstreet’s charge, but he noted that the board has a responsibility to evaluate project aesthetics. “Our mission is to protect the streetscape of downtown Waterbury and this is kind of the most important part of the entire town,” he said.
The board ended its meeting with a closed session to discuss the project. In an interview after the Wednesday hearing, town Planning Director Neal
Leitner noted that 51 S. Main is within the town’s Design Review District which gives the Development Review Board latitude to assess points such as visual impact of a proposed development on the overall streetscape.
Leitner said the board decided to continue its review of the project at its Oct. 18 meeting. It has also asked Downstreet to address three points for that meeting:
To provide written assurance that it has contacted all of the utility companies that will be involved in moving equipment on site.
To provide written comments from Waterbury Public Works Director Bill Woodruff that the water and drainage issues for the project are adequately addressed.
To answer whether the building design could be altered to move back the front outer wall on the third floor by 8 feet.
Anderson on Monday said the project group would be ready to return on the 18th and it will consider the design request and whether additional changes are feasible. “Our architect is looking into options as to what pushing the top floor back an additional 8 feet would mean, and we are looking into the feasibility of doing this without changing the current unit count,” she said in an email to Waterbury Roundabout.
Overall, Anderson noted, the building’s three-story design, front porch feature, and positioning on the lot were done with consideration of neighborhood and community concerns that the project fit into the neighborhood.
Details on the project are posted on the Development Review Board’s page on the town website. This includes materials for the Sept. 6 hearing and the packet for the Oct. 4 hearing which contains revised drawings and responses to questions from Sept. 6.