HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-22 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCommunity Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 1
A meeting of the Community Planning & Development Commission
convened in the Reading Public Library Conference Room, 64 Middlesex
Avenue, Reading, Me. at 7 :30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary
Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger and Griset and Assistant Superintendent
for Engineering - DPW - William A. Redford.
As first order of business, the proposed November Town Meeting
warrant articles to be submitted were discussed.
The Commission moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to submit an article
updating the zoning plans amending zoning by -law with the updating of the
date of the zoning map (copy attached).
The Commission moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to submit an article
amending the Reading Zoning By -Laws which amend the wording of the current
By -Law to reflect the Charter change (copy attached).
Bill Redford gave a brief status update on a number of projects
including Gallahues Market Site Plan Review schedule.
Bill informed the Commission that he had been in contact with
Town Counsel and that since the Commission was in receipt of a letter from
the owner of the property removing his objections to holding a Site Plan
review that a Site Plan Review should be scheduled and held on this
project.
Bill indicated that with the concurrence of the Commission he
would schedule this Site PLan Review for the next Commission meeting.
Chestnut Street Extenstion current status was discussed. This
project has not had any progress on it for close to a year. The required
time of completion is getting closer at hand, however, the developer has
contacted the Department and informed them that they were recommencing
work and hope to complete this project in a timely fashion.
Mr. Redford reported that the Commission was in receipt of a
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 2
Definitive Subdivision Filing known as Emerald Drive.
This filing consists of a five lot subdivision running westerly
off County Road toward Route 93. The plan is being reviewed and a hearing
will be scheduled in the near future.
The Clover Circle project was discussed. This project is nearing
completion and the Commission should, Mr. Redford said, expect a Request
for Release.
Sanborn Village Phase III project was discussed. Bill Redford
reported that the developer, Jack Rivers, was actively completing
placement of the roadway gravel grading and rolling and Bill Redford did
not see any reason to be concerned that Jack Rivers would not be able to
place the binder pavement down on this site by November 1st as he had
' previously agreed to.
The Commission next met with members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals for an informal discussion. Present were members John Jarema,
Steve Tucker and Ardith Wierworka.
Richard Howard thanked the members for coming and stated that the
reason for the meeting was to open communications and to help the CP&DC to
gain more insight into the various Town Boards that are affected by zoning
changes and other actions of the CP&DC.
Mr. Howard asked the members of the Board of Appeals to give the
Commission a brief comment on their view of the Board of Appeals
responsibilities and /or problems that they face.
Mr. Jarema stated that he, as one member, felt that they were
being asked in some ways to be both judge and jury which is a difficult
role and he felt it was tough to respond to a request for zoning by -law
weaknesses or problems since he sees the Board of Appeals as interpreting
the specific language and requirements on a case by case basis.
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1988 Page 3
tArdith Wierworka stated that she was a newer member of the Board
of Appeals and felt that she had less history.
Steve Tucker said that he hoped that the CP & DC would speak to
generalities achieved in some of the vague definitions and /or non - included
definitions such as "a deck ". What is it, what are the set back
requirements, is it enclosed, is it a sundeck, etc.
Steve also felt that swimming pools were not addresed in our
By -Laws and that the Town uses the state Code because of this
non - inclusion.
Dave Goodemote asked the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
whether they fe7.t there was a conflict with Zoning Overlay vs. Chapter
131.
' John Jarema responded by saying that he feels the Board of
Appeals makes judgement calls based on the information presented and that
the CP & DC can not make all issues black and white.
Dave Goodemote asked the Board of Appeals members whether they
had staff input prior to their meetings and what staffing they had
available to them.
John Jarema responded that they have a part time clerk to assist
them, that the hearings are posted, each Town Department receives a notice
and in the case of a comprehensive permit each Department is asked to
respond. John indicated that in many instances, little response is
received from the various Departments and unless the Board of Appeals has
specific concerns that they want addressed, the Board of Appeals takes
non - response as an indication that Departments do not have a problem with
the subject matter.
Dave Goodemote asked if the Board of Apeals has access to
technical experts.
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1966 Page 4
John Jarema stated that the Board of Appeals could hire
consultants but generally if the Town departments give specific comments
or recommendations, the Board of Appeals would not go against or try to
dispute the Towns's paid technical staffs and officials.
Steve Tucker stated that the Board of Appeals must take each case
on a case by case basis. He felt there were some ambiguities in the
By -Laws and there were some definitions that he felt needed clarification
and that there are new terms that come up that are not included in the
zoning definitions and the Town should keep current by periodically
including new terms (such as townhouse, condominium, etc.).
Dave Goodemote indicated that he as one member of the CP & DC
would like some input from the Board of Appeals and perhaps their
' participation
in a subcommittee to come up
with
potential updates or
specific areas
in the Zoning By -Laws that
should
be updated.
Bill Griset suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals give the
CP & DC a consensus and asked for input.
Board of Appeals member Catherine Quimby joined the meeting in
progress at 8112 P.M.
Dave Goodemote said that perhaps the CP & DC should consider
including a section on process and administrative procedures to encourage
departments to respond to the Zoning Board of Appeals even if their
response is only that they do not have any problem with the proposal.
Ardith Wierworka said that there are times that she has problems
with language and definitions such as driveways and decks.
updating our By -Laws to keep up to date with State Code changes. He
John
Jere" indicated that there is
a lot of information and
requirements
included in the State Code that
should be considered being
placed in the
Zoning By -Laws but then we the
Town would have to keep
updating our By -Laws to keep up to date with State Code changes. He
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 5
also stated that the Town should be cautious and may not wish to be so
specific. He said that sometimes being so specific causes as much problem
as being vague.
Steve Tucker said the building codes can not be part of Zoning or
Board of Appeals review. He felt that the Board of Appeals must rely on
the Building Inspector.
John Jarema said that if the Zoning By -Law is so specific to
cover all eventualities it would be so technical that most people don't
read it and couldn't understand it, even now the Board of Appeals finds
that there are difficulties in the filings concerning proper statements
of requests and reasons for filing.
Cathy Quimby said that the CP & DC should look a the By -Laws in
view of two family homes stating most provisions in the By -Laws were based
on the 1942 issues that our By -Laws should be reviewed and perhaps all
past dates should be removed (referencing State Code or By -Law adoption
dates).
She felt that the CP & DC should consider hiring professionals to
assist them in updating and perhaps they should look at loosening some of
the restrictive language allowing for more or new two family homes to
assist the Town in providing affordable housing.
Dave Goodemote said that the CP & DC must wrestle with the Town's
Fair Housing issues. He also felt that "non- conformance" and /or "more
restrictive" issues needed clarification.
John Jarema said that in a lot of cases the Board of Appeals
finds it easier and they have more discretion in a special permit process
to condition the special permit on bringing the project more into
conformance with current zoning.
Steve Tucker indicated that he uses the order in the Table of
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 6
1 Uses chart as a rule of thumb for what is more restrictive.
John Jarema felt the Town does not receive many use variances and
he felt there were no abuses of that procedure. He said that few apply
under that section and feu are granted.
Dave Coodemote asked if Special Permits run with the land or with
the owner.
John Jarema said that access issues go with the owner and that
there are some discretions involved in the Speical Permit Process and he
felt that he tries to determine the intent of the By -laws and Special
Permits.
Cathy Quimby stated that she felt a special permit process is
unclear, that she feels there is little or no discretion in a variance
'
procedure but
there was more
discretion in
a Special Permit
Process.
Dan
Ensminger asked
what is being
done concerning
sign
non - conformity and who enforces that provision of the By -law?
It was generally agreed by all members that the enforcing agent
is the Building Inspector on this issue.
John Jarema stated that most of the Board of Appeals decisions
are based on presentations. He felt the Board of Appeals are being
inundated, but that is probably normal and to be expected due to the
pressures of the housing market, interest rates, etc.
John Jarema said one of the issues he wrestles with is what is a
reasonable timetable after denial for bringing the non - conformity into
conformance.
1 John Jarema said that the Zoning Board of Appeals at one of the
future meetings will decide how they as a group would feel most
comfortable in getting back to the CP & DC with information and input.
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 7
Ardith Wierworka said that she was concerned about being involved
with formulation of Zoning and felt that those issues were more Community
decisions and not necessarily appropriate for the Board of Appeals to be
involved with.
Steve Tucker stated that the Board of Appeals was looking at the
schedule forms and the order of provision, not only to clarify or assist
people in proper fillings, but also to try to keep in mind if the filing
process is reasonable (such as cost of submittals, etc.).
Mr. Howard thanked the members of the Board of Appeals for their
input and looked forward to receiving their decision and future input.
The CP & DC next had a general discussion on Site Plan Review
filings, hearings and decisions.
t Mr. Redford reviewed the methodology curently being used and
stated that as much as possible he would try to make the filing, hearing
and decision processes as closely similar to Subdivisions as possible.
Bill Griset stated that he felt if a filing was not complete no
action should be taken on it until it has been completed.
Following discussion, there was no concensus on the matter, but
all members felt that these issues could be addressed in the currently
underway updating of the Site Plan Review forms requirements and processes
and will be the subject of further discussion at a later meeting.
The Commission next discussed potential Zoning By -Law changes.
Mr. Howard gave an overview of the past meetings discussions
involving different methods of obtaining community involvement and comment
t including preparation questionnaires, data collection by staff and the
involvement of business, both on a formal and informal basis and
involvement of general citizenry.
The Commission then discussed that the first effort in zoning
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 8
review should be limited to the Central Business District, South Main
Street, or both.
After much discussion, the Commissions concensus was that the
main effort to begin with would be on the South Main Street "strip ",
however, in the formulation of the questionnaire it may be more broadly
widened to include the Central Business District for informational
gathering also.
The Commission also felt that they should rely on assisting staff
for ongoing regulations reviews and procedures, however, they perhaps
should look to specialized consultants to assist them in formulating new
zoning changes that may have wider impact on the Community and be more of
a research process than just a regulatory process.
Bill Griset distributed a copy of his draft application form
stating that it should not be viewed as total, but more of a vehicle to
elicit comment that the commission members should also look at page 2 of
the Princeton, New Jersey forms for inclusion in this and that members
should be free to contact him on their specific comments and /or inclusion
for discussion at a subsequent meeting.
Bill also brought up the idea of considering charging fees for
any Site Plan Review submittal.
Dan Ensminger offered his subcommittee report on planning
staffing.
Dan felt that the Commission should be looking to preparing job
requirements. He stated that he had contacted some of the surrounding
towns and found that various communities handled staffing differently.
(Burlington - full time, Sutton - sharing of staff, etc.).
The Commission then received subcommittee
reports. The
first
report
was offered by Bill Griset concerning Site
Plan Reviews.
Bill Griset distributed a copy of his draft application form
stating that it should not be viewed as total, but more of a vehicle to
elicit comment that the commission members should also look at page 2 of
the Princeton, New Jersey forms for inclusion in this and that members
should be free to contact him on their specific comments and /or inclusion
for discussion at a subsequent meeting.
Bill also brought up the idea of considering charging fees for
any Site Plan Review submittal.
Dan Ensminger offered his subcommittee report on planning
staffing.
Dan felt that the Commission should be looking to preparing job
requirements. He stated that he had contacted some of the surrounding
towns and found that various communities handled staffing differently.
(Burlington - full time, Sutton - sharing of staff, etc.).
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page 9
Dan stated that the Commission had a number of options that included
hiring full time with the assistance of an E.O.C.D. Grant, hiring
part -time, (sharing with another community such as Wakefield) contracting
out on an as- needed basis and /or borrowing DPW staff as needed.
The Commission moved, seconded and voted 4:0 that the
Subcommittee contact the Town Manager and /or Selectmen and other Town
officials to attempt to prepare an E.O.C.D. Grant proposal for submittal
in time for Round 4 grant. applications.
Dan Ensminger stated that he was very interested in going to the
E.O.C.D. seminar being held in Framingham and would report back to the
Commission at the next meeting on his progress and the Town's leaning as
far as applicability of this grant application.
' The Commission then returned to a discussion of the impact on the
Community (setting tone) of the Central Business District and the South
Main Street "strip`. It was agreed that Molly and Dave would work toward
preparing a matrix that staff could use to provide information on the
South Main Street strip and that the questionnaire being prepared would be
expanded to include the Central Business District in addition to the
strip.
Under Old Business:
Dick Howard reported they had been in discussion with the
Selectmen concerning the involvement in the Homart Development. He had
been informed that the Selectmen were interested in having CP & OC input
in the Homart presentations and discussions that they would invite two
members of the CP & DC to be involved in the areas of interest to the CP &
OC and that discussions were tentatively scheduled to being on or about
October 12th.
Community Planning & Development Comm. Meeting Sept. 22, 1986 Page
10
JDick Howard indicated that he and Dan would be the CP & DC
representatives during these discussions.
The Commission adjourned at 10:46 P.M.
Resp ct ally sub itted�
Sec reta
I1
ARTICLE To see if the Town will vote to amend
Laws as follows:
Section 3.2. Substitute "November 1, 1986" fo
after the words " "Reading Zoning
Community Planning &
I
the Reading Zoning By-
"November 1, 1983"
Hap ", dated ";
Development Commission
ARTICLE To see if the Town will vote to amend the Reading Zoning B;
Laws as follows:
Section 3.2. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in two locations);
Section 4.2.1. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board ";
Section 4.3.3.1. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in two locations);
Section 4.3.3.2. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in two locations);
Section 4.3.3.3. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board "'
Section 4.3.3.4. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board ";
Section 4.3.3.5. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in two locations);
substitute "Department of Public Works" for "Board of
Public Works ";
Section 4.4.4.2. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Board of Survey ";
Section 4,5.2.4. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Board of Survey ";
Section 4,5.6, Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board, Board of Survey ";
Section 4.6.1.g. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Board of Survey" (in two locations);
Section 4.6,1.1. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board and Board of Survey ";
Section 4.6.2. Substitute " Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board and Board of Survey ";
substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board, Board of Survey ";
Section 4.6.3, Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board and Board of Survey"
(in eight locations);
Section 4.7.3.d. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board ";
Section 4.7.4. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in two locations);
substitute "Department of Public Works" for "Board of
Public Works ";
Section 4.7.5. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board" (in nine locations);
delete "Board of Survey "; substitute "Department of
Public Works" for "Board of Public Works"
Section 4.7.5.1. Substitute "Community Planning & Development
Commission" for "Planning Board ";
Community Planning & Development Commission
I
i
rl�
APPLICATION
FOR
SITE PLAN REVIEW
PLEASE REFER TO ::7S =LCTIONS FOR PRE ??RING APPLICATION
FOR SITE PLAN B-✓I=W WHEN COMPLETI::.� THIS DOCUMENT
1. Applicant (Must be record owner of abject property or
have written authority from owner tc submit Application
for Site Plan Review).
............................ .............................
NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS :7 APPLICANT
2. (Check One Only)
' Applicant is owner .....
Applicant has attac.`.ed proof of written authority from
owner .....
3. Applicant's Attorne:: or Representatc-re
............................ .............................
NAAE OF ATTORNEY OR REP. ADDRESS _? ATTORNEY OR REP.
4. Ar_hi: act, Engineer or Survey
............................ .............................
]A:SE ADDRESS
5. Location of Sub;ect Property:
............................ .............................
STREET ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S MAP AND LOT NO.
6. Registry: County ...... ...............................
' Current Book ...... ...............................
Page
I
-2-
'7. Description of Project: .. ...............................
............................. ...............................
8. application for Site Plan Review Made Pursuant to
Zoning Bylaw Section:
..... 4.3.3 (general Site Plan Review)
..... 4.5 (Townhouse Development Site Plan Review)
..... 4.7 (Municipal Building Reuse Site Plan Review)
9. list of All Easements, Restrictions and Otter
ncumbrances on the Whole or Any Part of t=_ Land:....
............................. ...............................
............................. ...............................
............................. ...............................
............................ ...............................
10. List all Plans and Supporting Documents Su::-itted With
_his application. Use Additional 8-1/2 x 1: Inch
Sheets if necessary.
Ide-.tifir;
Nunbsr /le_ter
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Title, Date
.............................
.............................
.............................
11. The undersigned certifies that eight copies of the
ompleted application, with all required supporting
glans and couments, have been sent, by certified mail
or hand delivery, to the Community Planning Development
= omissioner, and that one complete copy of same has
been sent by certified mail or hand delive ^r, to each of
_he following: Board of Assessors, Board o_ Selectmen,
Department of Public Works, Conservation Commission,
3istorical Commission, Municipal Light Department,
:lousing Authority, Fire Chief, Police Chief, and other
appropriate authorities.
-3-
12. i understand that - pursuant to Section 11, Chapter
40A, Massachusetts General Laws, and Reading Zoning
3vlaw, Section 4.3.3. at sea - that notification of
this request must be nrce�in a local newspaper at my
expense by the Commur. ty Planning s Development
Commission.
.......................... .............................
SIGNATURE NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
............................. ...............................
ADDRESS
.......................... .............................
TELEPHONE DATE
I
I