No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-11 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting MinutesADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School April 11, 1985 31S, The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Stephen J. O'Leary at 7:30 P.M., there being a quorum present. The Invocation was given by the Rev. S. Lester Ralph followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Carl H. Amon, Jr. presented the following Resolution for Philip R. White. The Resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Town Meeting body. WHEREAS, RESOLUTION PHILP R. WHITE WHEREAS, Mr. White was a member of the Planning Board from 1935 to 1953, and WHEREAS, Mr. White was a member of the School Committee from 1951 to 1959, serving as Chairman from 1952 to 1956, and WHEREAS, Mr. White was elected a Town Meeting Member in 1944, the first election for representative Town Meeting Members and served continuously from that date to 1985, a period of 41 years, and WHEREAS, Mr. White served on the Government Study Committee in 1966, on the Law Committee and on various other committees, and WHEREAS, For 50 years Mr. White has given generously and unselfishly of his time and efforts to the Town of Reading, and WHEREAS, Mr. White has always discharged his responsibilities with efficiency, fairness and effectiveness, and WHEREAS, Mr. White has earned the respect of Town Meeting Members and citizens for his substantial contribution to Town Government in Reading. THEREFORE, Be it resolved that at the Annual Town Meeting for the Town of Reading held on April 8, 1985, does extend to Philip R. White its sincere appreciation and gratitude for outstanding service rendered to the Town for a period of 50 years, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be made part of the records of this meeting and that a copy certified by the Town Clerk be delivered to Mr. White. ARTICLE 15. Motion of John L. Fallon, Jr., for the reconsideration of motion of Russell T. Graham and amended by William C. Brown, under Line Item 110, Article 15, April 8th, 1985, was voted in the affirmative by a vote of 98 in the affirmative and 8 in the negative. ARTICLE 15. On motion of John L. Fallon, Jr., it was voted that Line Item 110, Article 15, "Park Construction ", be amended to read $28,300. ARTICLE 9. On motion of Gretchen Latowsky it was voted that the sum of Eight Thousand ($8,000) Dollars be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the purpose of conducting a special hazardous household waste collection, said sum to be spent under the direction of the Hazardous Waste Committee. ARTICLE 11. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg, it was voted that the Town amend the Reading Zoning By -Laws to add three definitions to the definitional provisions for the words "Townhouse" and "Townhouse Development" and "Townhouse Parcel" by adding new Sections 2.2.29.1, 2.2.29.2 and 2.2.29.3, as follows: 2.2.29.1 TOWNHOUSE: A dwelling unit arranged, intended or designed to be occupied by a single family which is attached to one or more other single family dwelling units by one or more common walls, with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance. Each dwelling unit may be owned by a separate owner. 316 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 11, 1985 2.2.29.2 TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT: A development of land with townhouses located in a Residence 5 -10 District and which is governed by the provisions of Paragraph 4.6. A townhouse development shall not be limited to one principal structure per lot. A swimming pool, clubhouse, tennis courts and other usual single family accessory uses and facilities may be allowed as part of the Special Permit issued by the Board of Appeals in a townhouse development, subject to conditions imposed by the Board. 2.2.29.3 TOWNHOUSE PARCEL: A parcel of land upon which a townhouse development is located. 99 voted in the affirmative 22 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required The following report of the Planning Board on Articles 11, 12, 13, and 14, presented by Maureen Rich, was accepted as a Report of Progress. PLANNING BOARD REPORT ARTICLES 11, 12, 13 & 14 1985 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT In September, 1984, the Planning Board was first presented with a proposal to develop the Adams /Gentile land off Salem /Pleasant Streets into townhouses in a cluster arrangement. The Board noted many concerns with a project of this size in the area, especially traffic, water and sewer problems. The Board told Continental - Wingate's representative and attorney of its concerns and of the Board's current progress on both "cluster" developments and "Site Plan Review ". Attorney Latham noted the Board's many concerns and said that he would try to address them in their preparation for a zoning by -law proposal that would allow townhouse developments in Residential, Single - Family 10 Districts. Meanwhile, the Board reviewed the Town's needs and applied to the State for a Master Plan grant. The Board wanted to have an overall view of the Town's needs and ability to service those needs before proceeding further with any zoning changes. The Board then elected to defer filing its proposed zoning changes for either "Cluster Developments" or "Site Plan Review" until the comprehensive plan for the Town had been updated. The Board felt it necessary to have a baseline from which to assess the Town's needs for housing and business expansion and the Town's ability to handle such expansion before allowing high density developments to be constructed in either business, industrial or residential areas of Town. At subsequent meetings with Continental Wingate and their attorney, the Board made known its feelings in this regard. The Board, however, continued to review the Zoning By -law proposal in order to assure that the by -law presented to Town Meeting (which has the final say on passage of all Zoning By -laws) would maximize the benefit of such a project to the Town. Continental- Wingate tried to address many of the problems that the Board and other Town departments had with allowing this kind of development. The company proposed including a housing assessment within the by -law to help meet the Town's needs for providing housing to low and moderate - income families. An assessed percentage of the units would be assigned, either on or off -site of the development, to help meet the Town's needs. The company also incorporated a Site Plan Review process within the by -law to assure that the development would be compatible with surrounding properties. The Board met with the company and their attorney in setting up these proposals within the by -law. Pursuant to Chapter 40A, Sections 5 and 11, the Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 3, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. There were approximately 50 people present for this hearing including officers and representatives of other Town boards. Chairman Rich called the meeting to order and Mr. Wood, the clerk, read the notice. Attorney O. Bradley Latham gave the presentation for Continental Wingate Corporation. Mr. Latham outlined the process for obtaining a special permit to allow townhouses to be built in residential districts. Mr. Latham stated that they tried to give the Town as much control as possible to be sure that such a development would have few or no adverse effects to the neighborhood in particular, or to the Town in general. The low and moderate income housing requirements were to be raised from the original five (5 %) per cent to ten (10 %) per cent, or $2,000 per townhouse unit. Mr. Connors spoke on behalf of Continental Wingate and gave a history of his corporation's experience in developing, owning and operating such developments. The traffic firm of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike presented their study on the impacts such a development would have on the traffic on Salem Street. Mr. Gary Hebert, traffic engineer, stated that there would be about a four to five per cent (4 -5 %) increase during peak traffic times and that traffic from this development would have little impact on Salem Street traffic. A letter from Police Chief Marchand was read into the meeting. record by Attorney Latham. Chief Marchand felt that there would be no serious problems with such a u U Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 11, 1985 31.? development. Attorney Latham quoted a conversation from Fire Chief Redfern stating that Chief Redfern saw no problems with servicing such a development as long as turn - arounds and roadways were adequate to accomodate the fire equipment and all State and Town fire code requirements were met. Chairman Rich had the letter from Building Inspector Charles Stamatis read into the meeting record. Mr. Stamatis stated in his letter that there are current provisions within the by -law which would allow these townhouses to be built and felt that to create another zoning change for this use could be "misleading" and should not be allowed. A petition from approximately 20 citizens against such a development was also read into the record. The letter stated the citizens' concerns with allowing such a high density development in this area, especially the sewer and water problems this area experiences during the spring because of the high water table. Also noted were their concerns with the traffic impact to surrounding streets, pedestrian safety, and problems with the environment because of the extensive wetland in the area. They asked the Town to assess the adverse impacts to current citizens and residents before allowing such a development. Mr. William Redford spoke on behalf of the Department of Public Works and noted many concerns with the by -law. Mr. Redford stated that the current by -law is in contravention of some of the Board of Survey's Rules and Regulations governing sub - division control. Ms. Camille Anthony spoke on behalf of the Reading Conservation Commission noting their strong concerns regarding such a high density development in this area. Problems with displacement, filling and adverse impacts to the environment were noted. Chairman Rich opened the discussion to the townspeople present. Among the concerns noted were: - traffic impacts to Salem Street and surrounding feeder streets, especially during backups on Route I -95 (128); - proximity of such a development to surrounding single family residences; - matter of allowing the density to increase by a factor of 2, when the Single Family 10 district was already the most densely populated area of Town; - question whether this would be considered "spot zoning" because the Adams /Gentile land was the only parcel of land in an S -10 district under single ownership that would qualify under the restrictions as written. The Planning Board members then discussed their concerns with the current proposal: * problems with allowing this kind of development to take place before the comprehensive plan for the Town had been updated so that the Town could more effectively assess its ability to service the needs of continuing demand for high density development in both residential and commercial areas of Town: * problems with adverse impacts to traffic on Salem Street and surrounding streets, expecialy during peak traffic hours and back -ups on Route 128; * concern over particular wording within the proposed by -law which would be in contravention or more restrictive than language in the current by -laws for apartment /multi- family districts; * problem with the Town's ability to adequately handle the runoff and sewer problems, especially in light of the backups that the current wastewater station has had during spring runoff; and * questions of Town's ability to service this area with water, sewer and other needed services. The Board then called for a vote and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted not to recommend acceptance of these articles by Town Meeting. The vote was: 0 -in favor: 4 - opposed; and 1 - abstention. After the public hearing, Mr. Gentile called the Planning Board and asked why a sense of the meeting had not been taken. Mr. Gentile felt it was unfair to allow a citizens' petition against this proposal, while the citizens in attendance were disappointed, for they felt that they would be able to let the Board know of their support for this by -law proposal during the polling of the meeting. Mr. Gentile has since presented to the Board a petition in support of this proposal with 23 signatures of those present at the public hearing. It has been duly noted and reported. The Planning Board supports many concepts contained within the proposed zoning by- law proposal. The Board has worked on incorporating both a cluster development and site plan review by -law into the current zoning. The Board has problems with allowing this proposal to be adopted before we have been able to assess the full impacts of these high 318 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 11, 1985 density development proposals in either residential or commercial areas of town. The Board feels that the Town should be the proponents of the type of zoning changes that should be made, their density, and where such projects should be allowed to be constructed. To this end, the Board has filed for funds to update its 1961 Master Plan and asks that Town Meeting defer any action on these articles until the Master Plan update has been completed. We, therefore, do not recommend passage of Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 by Town Meeting. Maureen Rich, Chairman John D. Wood, Clerk David A. Devine Michael F. Slezak Sandra J. Trainor, Members ARTICLE 12. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg, as amended by Gail F. Wood and Paul C. Dustin, it was voted that the Town amend the Reading Zoning By -Laws to allow certain townhouse developments in a Residential 5 -10 Zoning District by means of a Special Permit process by adding the following provisions to the Reading Zoning By -Law. 4.6. TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 4.6.1. Special Permit: The Board of Appeals may grant a Special Permit for the development and utilization of a parcel of land for a Townhouse Development in a Residence S -10 Zoning District, provided the following criteria are met: (a) Minimum Parcel Area: The townhouse parcel shall contain no less than 15 acres of land. (b) Maximum Residential Density: There shall be no more than five townhouses for each gross parcel acre. As an additional limitation, no townhouse parcel shall contain more than one hundred townhouses. (c) Maximum Land Coverage: There shall be no more than 4,500 square feet of land area covered by townhouses for each gross parcel acre. Not more than 20 percent of the parcel land area outside of any Flood Plain District (Paragraph 4.4) or Wetland Protection District (Paragraph 4.5) shall be covered by dwellings. (d) Dimensional Controls: Rather than the dimensional controls as contained elsewhere in this Zoning By -Law, the following dimensional controls shall aply to a Townhouse Development: (i) Yard: No townhouse or accessory use building shall be located within 40 feet of any boundary of the townhouse parcel. No parking area shall be within 25 feet of any boundary of the townhouse parcel. (ii) Building Height: The maximum building height shall be 35 feet. (iii) Frontage: The townhouse parcel shall have no less than 80 feet of frontage. (iv) Set -off from Single Family: No townhouse or accessory use building shall be within eighty feet of any single family dwelling outside of the townhouse parcel and existing at the time of the application for the Special Permit. (v) Length of Row: No one building shall contain more than six townhouses. (vi) Separation between Buildings: No building containing a townhouse shall be located within thirty feet of any other separate building containing a townhouse. (e) Open Space: No less than thirty percent of the townhouse parcel shall be preserved in an open, vegetated condition for recreational, agricultural, conservation, screening and /or park use. The existing landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as reasonable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. (f) Utilities: All townhouses shall be tied into municipal water and sewer services when constructed. All driveway maintenance including snow plowing and all trash removal shall be the duty and responsibility of the owners of the townhouse parcel. (g) Site Vehicular Circulation: Circulation within the Townhouse Development shall be by means of a 30 foot wide, bituminous concrete driveway. There shall be sidewalks on both sides of the driveway. The driveway design shall be consistent with the road design standards contained in the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land as adopted by the Reading Board of Survey. The foregoing shall be to the satisfaction of the Board of Survey. The driveway layout shall provideosafe and adequate access to all townhouse buildings. (h) Plantings: There shall be adequate plantings designed to add to the visual amenities of the area by maximizing the visibility of the open space and natural area and by minimizing the visibility of the townhouse buildings for persons passing the site or overlookin it from nearby properties. (i Site Plan Approval: The Planning Board and Board of Survey grant Site Plan Approval (with or without conditions) pursuant to Section 4.6.3. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 11, 1985 319 4.6.2. Application Process: A person may make application to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit for a Townhouse Development in compliance with all of the conditions contained in Section 4.6.1. A submission shall be made also to the Planning Board and Board of Survey under Section 4.6.3. for Site Plan review at or prior to the time when the application is made to the Board of Appeals under this Section. Submitted with the applications shall be one or more site plans prepared, signed and sealed by a registered land surveyor, registered professional engineer or registered architect which shall indicate the following: (a) The size, dimensions and boundaries of the townhouse parcel. (b) The proposed locations, exterior dimensions and height of all structures containing townhouse and accessory buildings. (c) The distance of each building from other buildings and from the nearest boundary line. (d) The parking and driveway layout. (e) Proposed grade changes. (f) The location of any zoning overlay district on the parcel. (g) The location and size of the portion of the townhouse parcel to be retained in an open, natural condition. (h) A table showing the total number of townhouses proposed, the number of off - street parking spaces shown, the land area covered by dwellings and the land area outside of any overlay district. (i) Proposed screen plantings. (j) The driveway profile. (k) The drainage design of the proposal. (1) The exterior design and appearance of proposed buildings, structures and fences. (m) The sewer, water, hydrant and electrical systems layout designs. At the time of filing, the applicant shall submit copies of all such plans also to the Planning Board, Board of Survey, Board of Health, Board of Public Works, Conservation Commission, Reading Municipal Light Board, Reading Housing Authority, Fire Chief and Police Chief in order to allow such Boards, Commission, Authority and persons to make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Appeals. 4.6.3. Site Plan Review: In order to provide also for a detailed design review of a townhouse development proposal, there shall be a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board and Board of Survey. Six copies of the plans as described in Section 4.6.2. shall be submitted to the Planning Board and Board of Survey when application is made to those Boards for Site Plan Review. The Planning Board and Board of Survey shall, as a minimum, take into consideration the following matters: (a) Arrangement, design and appearance of proposed buildings, structures, exterior lighting, screening and landscaping features (including fences, walls, plantings and walks); (b) The driveway layout, having in mind convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and the relation to adjacent ways and lands; (c) The configuration of parking spaces in relation to proposed use of premises; (d) Adequate waste disposal and surface and sub - surface water drainage; (e) Proper spacing of structures for reasonable access; (f) The effect of the plan on the development of adjoining property. The Planning Board and Board of Survey shall invite the Building Inspector, Conservation Commission, Board of Health and Fire Department to review the proposal and to make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Survey. The Planning Board and Board of Survey shall have the power to approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or suggest modifications or recommendations to the plan or to any subsequent revisions to the plan. Copies of the detailed decision of the Planning Board and Board of Survey shall be transmitted to both the applicant and the Board of Appeals within forty -five (45) days after the Planning Board and Board of Survey receive the submission for Site Plan Review. 96 voted in the affirmative 7 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required ARTICLE 13. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg it was voted that the Town amend the Reading Zoning By -Laws to specify a minimum number of off - street parking spaces per townhouse unit in a Townhouse Development by amending the table in the By -Law at Section 6.1.1.3 and under the following tables: :20 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting Minimum Number of Off- Street Parking Spaces Principal Use Required Townhouse Two spaces for each Development dwelling unit. April 11, 1985 Minimum Number of Loading and Unloading Spaces Required None 96 voted in the affirmative 4 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required ARTICLE 14: The following motion was presented by Nils L. Nordberg: Move that the town amend the Reading Zoning By -Laws to provide that under certain circumstances, a person obtaining a Special Permit to build a Townhouse Development may be required to provide certain low or moderate income or elderly housing or make a cash contribution to the town for such purposes by adding Paragraph 4.6.4. to the Reading Zoning By -law, as follows: 4.6.4. Low, Moderate Income or Elderly Housing: If the Reading Housing Authority specifically determines that there is a shortage of low or moderate income housing or elderly housing in the Town, then the Board of Appeals shall impose as a condition in a special permit issued under Section 4.6.1 that up to ten percent (10 %) of the total townhouses within the townhouse parcel be restricted for low or moderate income housing, or elderly housing. Nevertheless, the Board of Appeals shall not impose in the special permit any requirement of providing low or moderate income housing or elderly housing if at the time of the filing of the application for the townhouse special permit, there then exists in the Town low or moderate income housing (as defined pursuant to Mass. General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 20), which is in excess of ten percent (10 %) of the housing units reported in the latest decennial census of the Town or on sites comprising one and one -half percent or more on the total land area zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use in the town; provided, however, that the land area owned by the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any political subdivision thereof, the Metropolitan District Commission or any public authority shall be excluded from the total land area referred to above when making such determination. In lieu of providing such low or moderate housing units within the townhouse parcel, the applicant may add such a number of low or moderate income housing units or elderly housing elsewhere within the town, which units need not be townhouses in design but which units must be upgraded by the applicant to conform completely with the then standards of the State Building Code and other applicable regulations which may be imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It shall be the applicant's option whether to provide low or moderate housing or elderly housing units within the townhouse parcel or elsewhere in the Town. In lieu of requiring an applicant to provide such low or moderate income housing or elderly housing, the Board of Appeals may require that the applicant make an alternative cash contribution (calculated as described below), to the Reading Housing Authority; such funds to be used by the Reading Housing Authority to provide low or moderate housing or elderly housing. The alternative cash contribution shall be calculated by multiplying Two Thousand Dollars times the number of townhouse units within the townhouse parcel times a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Consumer Price Index (Boston - All Items) published by the United States Department of Labor most recently published prior to the submission of the application for Special Permit under Section 4.6.2. and the denominator of which shall be the Consumer Price Index most recently published prior to January 1, 1985. In no event shall the alternative cash contribution be less than Two Thousand Dollars per townhouse unit. If for any reason the US Department of Labor should discontinue the Consumer Price Index or if there should be a significant change in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index, then an alternative equitable but comparable method of calculation shall be utilized by the Board of Appeals. The low or moderate housing or elderly housing units shall be designated or the alternative cash contribution made, prior to the time when occupancy permits are issued for each phase of development on the townhouse parcel. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted to Lay Article 14 on the table. On motion of Paul C. Dustin, it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, April 18th, 1985, in the Reading Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P. M. 133 Town Meeting members were present. A true copy. Attest: C�