Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-03 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes''Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page I A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7;45 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger and Jenks, Director of Public Works, Anthony V. Fletcher, P.E., and Assistant Superintendent for Engineering - William A. Redford. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to accept the minutes of the submittal should show the impact of full site utilization; 2. No signage information has been submitted; 3. The existing parking layout and proposed layout has not been submitted or shown on the plan received to date; 4. The existing entrance /exit layout (and /or proposed layout) has not been shown; and 5. No information (documentation) has been given, that the Commission can rely upon, showing that the applicant has the authority to insure that any conditions required by the Commission can be implemented and /or enforced as they apply October 6, 1986 meeting as amended. whole (parking, entrances, signage, etc.) It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to accept the minutes of the traffic survey October 20, 1986 meeting as written. The Commission reopened the public hearing regarding Gallahues Market. Site Plan submittal at 7:50 P.M. Chairman Howard read into the record the Departments 5 items of concern and added items 6 and 7 as follows: 1. This structure is considered ONE building and any site plan submittal should show the impact of full site utilization; 2. No signage information has been submitted; 3. The existing parking layout and proposed layout has not been submitted or shown on the plan received to date; 4. The existing entrance /exit layout (and /or proposed layout) has not been shown; and 5. No information (documentation) has been given, that the Commission can rely upon, showing that the applicant has the authority to insure that any conditions required by the Commission can be implemented and /or enforced as they apply streets of the proposed Registry of Motor Vehicles and all to the site as a whole (parking, entrances, signage, etc.) 6. A traffic survey showing the impact an Route 129 and side streets of the proposed Registry of Motor Vehicles and all 'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1996 Page 2 general area of the site). 7. Proposals for landscaping, fencing and lighting to mitigate impacts on the abutting properties. Mr. Goodemote stated regarding Item 6, the site plan should encompass the entire site and we have no evidence of a full package being submitted for the entire site. Mr. Reggie Peters of Ray State Road asked if anyone had looked into a zoning board meeting at which time the building was allowed to be built and were there any real strong objections at that time. Mr. Fletcher replied I was not able to determine if there was a specified use, nothing I have read or seen says anything about a specific E use. LMs. Jenks asked do we have something in the language addressing the issue of need for the Registry? I haven't seen the applicant demonstrate a need, why does Reading need to support another office of the Registry? Mr. Ensminger replied I am not sure that is in our purview. I don't think we can get into the issue of if it is needed. Mr. Fletcher stated perhaps this is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Redford stated I believe that is beyond the scope of a Site Plan Review. Office use is an allowable use under that Zoning. You could add a commentary to your approval or disapproval stating that you are very interested in seeing what the benefit is to our Community. Mr. Ensminger stated this Commission is being asked to adjudicate a dispute between the owner of this property and the applicant. In the other uses (existing and on the site and in the proposed general area of the site). 7. Proposals for landscaping, fencing and lighting to mitigate impacts on the abutting properties. Mr. Goodemote stated regarding Item 6, the site plan should encompass the entire site and we have no evidence of a full package being submitted for the entire site. Mr. Reggie Peters of Ray State Road asked if anyone had looked into a zoning board meeting at which time the building was allowed to be built and were there any real strong objections at that time. Mr. Fletcher replied I was not able to determine if there was a specified use, nothing I have read or seen says anything about a specific E use. LMs. Jenks asked do we have something in the language addressing the issue of need for the Registry? I haven't seen the applicant demonstrate a need, why does Reading need to support another office of the Registry? Mr. Ensminger replied I am not sure that is in our purview. I don't think we can get into the issue of if it is needed. Mr. Fletcher stated perhaps this is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Redford stated I believe that is beyond the scope of a Site Plan Review. Office use is an allowable use under that Zoning. You could add a commentary to your approval or disapproval stating that you are very interested in seeing what the benefit is to our Community. Mr. Ensminger stated this Commission is being asked to adjudicate a dispute between the owner of this property and the applicant. In the 'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Redford replied no. Mr. Redford stated I think that considering this applicant has already withdrawn without prejudice once, tabling of action until additional information comes in shows good faith with the applicant. There is nothing in Site Plan Review law that states any action or inacti.on by this Commission within the time frame mandates an automatic approval. Mr. Goodemote asked what has been filed to date, and how difficult is a refiling? Mr. Redford replied reposting and additional filing charges. Staff would notify all abuttors. He would have to do 10 more sets of prints and distribute them at his cost. Steve Viegas, Attorney for the applicant, stated we would be interested in the option of tabling until a date certain to give us an opportunity to provide the information you have requested. It was moved, seconded and voted 4 :0 that the Commission table action on this submittal until January S, 1987 for the seven reasons previously listed as well as: The applicant indicates a rationale as to the need and benefits of a Registry to the Community of Reading. Secretary Goodemote next read the Notice of Public Meeting regarding the Proposed Site Plan of the Town of Reading Department of Public Works New Garage Facility. The Site is a 6.6 acre portion of the land off Ash Street owned by H.J. Davis Development Company, Inc. and previously known as the "Transitron Land ". future we could make it a requirement that both the owner and the perhaps tenant be asked to get together. Are we required to deal with the owner? Mr. Redford replied no. Mr. Redford stated I think that considering this applicant has already withdrawn without prejudice once, tabling of action until additional information comes in shows good faith with the applicant. There is nothing in Site Plan Review law that states any action or inacti.on by this Commission within the time frame mandates an automatic approval. Mr. Goodemote asked what has been filed to date, and how difficult is a refiling? Mr. Redford replied reposting and additional filing charges. Staff would notify all abuttors. He would have to do 10 more sets of prints and distribute them at his cost. Steve Viegas, Attorney for the applicant, stated we would be interested in the option of tabling until a date certain to give us an opportunity to provide the information you have requested. It was moved, seconded and voted 4 :0 that the Commission table action on this submittal until January S, 1987 for the seven reasons previously listed as well as: The applicant indicates a rationale as to the need and benefits of a Registry to the Community of Reading. Secretary Goodemote next read the Notice of Public Meeting regarding the Proposed Site Plan of the Town of Reading Department of Public Works New Garage Facility. The Site is a 6.6 acre portion of the land off Ash Street owned by H.J. Davis Development Company, Inc. and previously known as the "Transitron Land ". 'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 4 zoned land, currently undeveloped, into a D.P.W. Garage Facility along with a proposed "at grade" crossing of the M.R.T.A. rail lines and an access way along the "Roston Stove" property to John Street. Mr. Redford stated the Town of Reading is exempt from Zoning but we felt it important to review what has happened to date and our proposals since it does impact the industrial area. Mr. Redford outlined the complete history of the proposed DPW Garage and the TASC sale. He stated that part of the agreement with TASC was that we would be off the site in its entirety by November of 1987. Ms. Jenks asked when this is all finished how is the traffic for DPW going to come into the site? Mr. Redford replied traffic will come in from John Street across the tracks and on to the site. This would also allow future owners of the Transitron property to open this area up to more efficient use and direct access to John Street rather than Ash Street. There will be an emergency utility entrance and egress on to Ash Street traversing through the seven proposed new homes. This emergency roadway will not be paved. Mr. Ensminger asked is it a stipulation in the Purchase & Sales Agreement that anyone else can or can not tie in at any time to the public roadway? Mr. Fletcher replied there was an instructional motion. We can The it is a public road. We could to develop a 6.6 acre crossing without the provision of of Industrial b -. {r` plans propose sent a I am letter to still parcel the of requesting access zoned land, currently undeveloped, into a D.P.W. Garage Facility along with a proposed "at grade" crossing of the M.R.T.A. rail lines and an access way along the "Roston Stove" property to John Street. Mr. Redford stated the Town of Reading is exempt from Zoning but we felt it important to review what has happened to date and our proposals since it does impact the industrial area. Mr. Redford outlined the complete history of the proposed DPW Garage and the TASC sale. He stated that part of the agreement with TASC was that we would be off the site in its entirety by November of 1987. Ms. Jenks asked when this is all finished how is the traffic for DPW going to come into the site? Mr. Redford replied traffic will come in from John Street across the tracks and on to the site. This would also allow future owners of the Transitron property to open this area up to more efficient use and direct access to John Street rather than Ash Street. There will be an emergency utility entrance and egress on to Ash Street traversing through the seven proposed new homes. This emergency roadway will not be paved. Mr. Ensminger asked is it a stipulation in the Purchase & Sales Agreement that anyone else can or can not tie in at any time to the public roadway? Mr. Fletcher replied there was an instructional motion. We can waiting to hear from them. not stop anyone from using this, it is a public road. We could not get a crossing without the provision of using this as a public way. b -. {r` Mr. John Siggio of 272 Ash Board Selectmen Street stated I have to this roadway. sent a I am letter to still the of requesting access waiting to hear from them. 'Community Planning d Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 5 through the same process as anyone else. Mr. Redford stated there is an existing 10" pipe under the existing roadway. There is no way we could retain our runoff if we utilized that. The salt shed is probably going to be down in the 100 year flood elevation. Mr. Fletcher reported there will be no activity in the back of the building. We will install low level lighting in the back which will go on automatically, and which will be directed downward. Mr. Redford stated I would encourage anyone who has concerns to look at the plans in detail, they are available in the Engineering Office. We are still making changes, as all information becomes available, it is public information. Chairman Howard stated that the State of Connecticut required that sand /salt mixing areas be paved and he recommended this be considered on this site. The Mr. Fletcher replied 1 suspect you will be hearing from the P.M. The Commission next Selectmen shortly, however, you would have to negotiate this with the Town through the same process as anyone else. Mr. Redford stated there is an existing 10" pipe under the existing roadway. There is no way we could retain our runoff if we utilized that. The salt shed is probably going to be down in the 100 year flood elevation. Mr. Fletcher reported there will be no activity in the back of the building. We will install low level lighting in the back which will go on automatically, and which will be directed downward. Mr. Redford stated I would encourage anyone who has concerns to look at the plans in detail, they are available in the Engineering Office. We are still making changes, as all information becomes available, it is public information. Chairman Howard stated that the State of Connecticut required that sand /salt mixing areas be paved and he recommended this be considered on this site. The public meeting ended at 9:15 P.M. The Commission next reopened the public hearing on the proposed subdivision entitled "Emerald Drive" at 9:20 P.M. Present was Mr. Arthur Cogan, applicant. Mr. 600demate stated it seems to me that what we did talk about was roof leaders, not so much interceptor structures. Also, in the future if we are talking about swales it seems to me that roof leaders would be the sensible option. Mr. Cogan stated when we first submitted this plan I walked the 'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 6 land with the Conservation Administrator and we proposed installing grates in the driveways and installing dry wells on each of the properties. I know we have a new Adminstrator, but the old one said as long as we put this on the plans this would be approved by him, now the new Administrator says something different. Mr. Redford stated I certainly do not recommend that you file a Notice of Intent. The only way to get that final determination is ask the Conservation Commission. However, Mr. Costello did not indicate any change with me before he left. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 that the Commission approve the subdivision entitled "Emerald Drive" dated August 15, 1986 subject to the following conditions: a. The submission of a satisfactory Covenant Agreement by December 31, 1966; b. The submission of a satisfactory Conveyance of Easements and Utilities by December 31, 1986; c. The submission of two (2) satisfactorily modified sets of mylar /linen Plans by December 31, 1986; d. The submission of a satisfactory 1" =100' Plan by December 31, 1986; e. The submission of a satisfactory i " =40' scale Proposed Grading Plan (2 foot contours) by December 31, 1986; f. Submission of the following modifications /additions to the plans, acceptable to the Department of Public Works: 1. Full Sight Easements are provided on lots 1 and 5; 2. Full Temporary Slope and Tree Planting Easements are provided on lots 1 and 5; 'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 7 3. Required conformance of Frontage are provided on lots 3 and 4; 4. Class 5 R.C. Drain Pipe is used for this system; S. Drainage inlet structures are provided on the rear of each lot designed to intercept runoff from developed areas, discharge it into the drainage system, and prohibit it from discharging onto abutting properties; 6. Provide a double catch basin on the easterly side of County Road opposite the proposed roadway entrance. AND, That the applicant consider filing a "Request for Determination" with the Reading Conservation Commission on their proposed drainage system and its impact on downstream property owners (specifically the system's outlet). The Board next discussed the proposed "Graphic Reproduction" Zoning By -Law Amendment. Mr. Fletcher stated the thing that concerns me is that the action requires tabling until the Commission completes a Zoning Review or overhaul, there should be some kind of limit placed on this in fairness. Mr. Redford stated the only comment I have is that he could file a new petition at any time if they felt the Town was not acting in good faith and not progressing in a manner that he felt responsible. Attorney Wagner stated if no action is taken by this Commission tonight will weigh very heavily on how Town Meeting is going to vote. at any time then we have another 60 days to file. We have been involved in this for the past 1 1/2 years. The impact this type of business would have is quite minimal. Town. Offset printing All we doing is already is into a taking place in the larger capacity of what center of are going is already being conducted. The recommendation this Commission makes tonight will weigh very heavily on how Town Meeting is going to vote. Community Planning & Development. Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Goodemote stated I have some very basic knowledge of what this type of operation involves. My biggest problem is that OSHA Regulations are involved and there will have to be some sort of materials handling. I have a problem with the chemicals in that area, it is not an industrial zone, they will be discharging to the sewer system. The storage of the chemicals in a non - industrial zone bothers me as well. I have a few problems with what I consider to be an industrial use in a business zone. Chairman Howard stated from where I sit the main reason for a disapproval is that the building is not zoned for this use. It would require rezoning of this piece of property and the downtown area. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0:1 (Ms. Jenks abstaining) not to support this issue for the reasons listed: 1. The implied intent of this action would allow a type of use currently prohibited in this Zoning District by defining "euphemistic" language, as opposed to the "generic" wording currently in the use table. (A clearer method would have been to change "no" to "yes" under that district for printing). 2. This action could have serious implications (without study or planning) on the Town's Central Business District (which is also defined by this district designation). 3. The wording is too broad and encompassing beyond the stated intent of the applicant. 4. The CPDC does not support reactionary Zoning amendments but F, might consider this type of change after careful, comprehen- sive study of the Town's overall needs, goals, and impacts on the community. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 9 If S. The Article, as published in the Warrant, does not allow for meaningful amendments which might limit the broad aspects of this change while maintaining the limited nature of the site and intended activity presented at the public hearing by the applicant (without requiring major wording changes that should be subject of a subsequent public hearing and changes which may not be allowable within the limitations of Town Meeting actions on Zoning By -Law Amendment subject matters. Mr. Redford next updated the Commission regarding his meeting with the By -Law Committee to discuss Warrant Articles 12, 13 and 14. Mr. Redford reported that he met with the By -Law Committee on October 22. Under the new Charter, the ByLaw Committee could be construed petition change as opposed to an internally provided word change. They voted to support Articles 13 and 14 as submitted. The next item of discussion was the Request for Bond Amount - Pine Grove Estates. Mr. Redford reported that the developer has requested to add to the existing tri -party agreement with the Town to cover the entire project, so that prospective buyers of lots may obtain building permits in order to put in their foundations before winter. It was the consensus of the Commission that they will not accept a bond until all utilities are in and inspected. Chairman Howard next discussed the status of long range planing and update of regulations, etc. Chairman Howard stated it could be February before the Planner is on board. as overseeing a wider range of articles. Some of the discussion concerned rezoning that would affect the Central Business District and based on a petition change as opposed to an internally provided word change. They voted to support Articles 13 and 14 as submitted. The next item of discussion was the Request for Bond Amount - Pine Grove Estates. Mr. Redford reported that the developer has requested to add to the existing tri -party agreement with the Town to cover the entire project, so that prospective buyers of lots may obtain building permits in order to put in their foundations before winter. It was the consensus of the Commission that they will not accept a bond until all utilities are in and inspected. Chairman Howard next discussed the status of long range planing and update of regulations, etc. Chairman Howard stated it could be February before the Planner is on board. •Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Nov. 3, 1986 Page 10 LI want to get a sense of whether we should try to develop an itnernal or stopgap modification to that process without waiting another six months for professional assistance. Mr. Redford stated we have three site plan review processes: 1. Municipal reuse. 2. Town House 3. Generic Site Plan Review He added that all of them need fine tuning. Mr. Redford also informed the Board that by the first regular meeting in December he would prepare a draft for the Commission, with a copy to the Town Manager. Under Old and New Business: A.V. Fletcher stated regarding the Reading Depot, the State is eight months behind in their schedule. However, they will be in this week to discuss this issue with us. The Commission next discussed the citizen letter concerning the I -93 proposed interchange. Chairman Howard asked staff to obtain a copy of the E.I.R. and we should write a letter to be read as part of the public hearing. Ms. Jenks stated the biggest issue for me is that the City of Woburn has taken significant actions affecting the quality of life in Reading. These issues are real and we should take a long term view of this Town and what is going on around us. Mr. Ensminger reported that Homart will forward copies of their environmental tests to the Town this week. Everything is ready for The meeting adjourned at 11:10 Re pe tf ul y bmitte eta" negotiations and Selectman Jack Russell would like us to set up a date for kick off of negotiations with the Selectmen and Homart. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 Re pe tf ul y bmitte eta"