Residences on Granite

Planned Unit Development

Reasons for Opposition

1. The Conspicuous Absence of Simon Properties

In order to understand the value that housing might bring to the SSP, Simon needs to come to the table and explain their overall vision for the property in the coming years. What is their vision for the future of the Plaza, and how does housing fold into the overall strategy? Housing could be an important asset to the Plaza, but housing alone is unlikely to be a long-term solution. The last thing Braintree needs is a bunch of housing behind a dead mall.

2. Context Matters: Small Property, Big Buildings

The amount of housing that ZOM is proposing is the same amount as what can be found at Elevation Apartments in Quincy, but on less than half the land area. The scale of the housing seems reasonable when compared to the scale of the Plaza, but not when viewed from Lakeside Drive. The master plan vision statement asks for new developments to be compatibly scaled, and this development cannot be characterized that way in its current form.

3. Insufficient Open Space

The proposed PUD promises a 33.6% open space requirement, and describes a publicly accessible walking path that would create an opportunity for passive outdoor recreation that Braintree (especially North Braintree) sorely needs.

Two problems:

1. Zoning for the land in question already requires 25% open space, so the developer is really only increasing the requirement by 8.6%. 

2. Much of the 33.6% open space is committed to private amenities that only residents of the housing complex would have access to, such as the pool, etc. The land made available for public use is very small.

4. Questionable MBTA Communities Compliance

ZOM has suggested that housing produced through this PUD will help bring Braintree into compliance with the new MBTA Communities legislation. However, it has come to my attention that while the PUD certainly would open the door for housing in Braintree, a PUD may not constitute the by-right multifamily zoning that MBTA community legislation requires. Confirmation on this is pending, but fundamentally, it is the Town’s responsibility to chart a course towards compliance, not the developer who should be leading the way.

5. Environmental Concerns

The impact on wildlife should be considered. It has been brought to my attention that migratory birds use the reservoir as a stop in their annual migratory pattern, and there are mature oaks that would be chopped down to make way for construction. Braintree has a responsibility to protect these tiny pockets of wildlife that remain to us. Perhaps the area could sustain housing, but that should be evaluated professionally by an organization that can help us understand how to grow responsibly.

6. Gate Must Remain Closed

It did not escape my attention that the video rendering of the proposal completely omitted the presence of the gate that the entire Flaherty neighborhood depends on to keep out cut-through mall traffic. All of the proposal's written materials SAY the gate will be closed, but that's not what's in the picture, so it's hard to be confident that it would remain closed.