Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-18 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes„ Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 1 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:35 P.N. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger, Griset and Jenks and Asst. Supt. of Engineering William A. Redford. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to approve the minutes of the C.P. & D.C. Meeting of August 4, 1986 as amended. The Commission next reopened the Hearing on Maplewood Estates Definitive Subdivision at 7:40 P.M. Chairman Howard read into the minutes the letter from the applicant, Kenneth Svenson, requesting he be granted an extension of time for Mr. Redford's review of the hydraulic calculations until the Board Meeting of September 15, 1986 (attached). Mr. Redford stated the calculations were received on Friday, August 15 at 4:30 P.M. Mr. Griset stated I have some concerns about this extension of time. Theoretically, if we do not act this evening, there is room for the accusation to be made that we have violated our mandate by not acting tonight. Mr. Goodemote stated I have a problem with the whole procedure. What has been the experience in the past with granting extensions of time? Mr. Redford replied that the 60 day time limit is to the benefit of the petitioner. It just means that the Town needs to act in a timely fashion. Having problems with hydraulic calculations is a recurring theme. have these fully reviewed if you wish to discuss this at your September 2nd meeting for your action on September 15th. The Engineer has picked changes as brought about up the original linens and by the C.P. & D.C. I will made make a number of every attempt to have these fully reviewed if you wish to discuss this at your September 2nd meeting for your action on September 15th. ` Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 2 LMr. Goodemote asked is there anything that prevents him from resubmitting another Subdivision Plan? Mr. Redford replied the petitioner would be in a position of choosing to resubmit or appeal your actions. Mr. Griset stated I think we have to keep in mind we are not granting him an extension, he is granting us one. I would suggest in the future that someone draft a form which can be used by applicants or petitioners and on which they are required to request an extension. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5 :0 to accept the letter in the spirit of extending the hearing. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5 :0 to continue the Maplewood Estates Hearing until Monday evening, September 15th. Mr. Redford stated we will so notify all the abuttors that you have continued the hearing. The Board next reviewed Mr. Redfords memo regarding the Site Plan review of 178 Lowell Street. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:1;1 (Mr. Ensminger opposed, Ms. Jenks abstaining) that the C.P. & D.C. accept the submitted site plans on 178 Lowell Street and condition the approval on the three items listed below: 1. The applicant applies for and receives the necessary approvals for construction and use from the Board of Appeals. 2. That appropriate screening be installed between this site and the abutting single family residence sites. 3. That all necessary State and Local Permits and Approvals be applied for, received and complied with. Community Planni.ng & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 3 11 1 ' Chairman Howard read into the record the memo from R.V. Fletcher regarding the Legal Definition - Town House (attached). Mr. Ensminger stated I have a hard time with the approval of this site plan. I think I heard many of the people say they were not opposed to the development. I am concerned with the density of the units. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and defeated 1:2:2 to i amend the main motion to restrict the number of housing units to no more than three with parking area to be proportional to the number of units. i Mr. Criset stated my concern with limiting the number of units to three is that perhaps there could be some partial change in use and partial continuation of warehousing use of the property and I think that would be inconsistent with the conversion of the other part of the building to apartments. Also, the neighbors expressed some interest in the Lproject because it would maintain some flavor of the architecture. Chairman Howard amended the motion by adding that the site plan be conditionally approved by incorporating the seven conditions that the fBoard i of Appeals intends to include in their special permit (attached). The amendment was seconded. Mr. Griset further amended by changing the word "owner" in all cases, to the word "applicant ". The amendment was seconded. The main amendment as amended was voted 4:0:1 (Ms. Jenks abstaining). I The Board next reviewed the Site Plan Review memo from W.A. Redford in regards to 126 Main Street. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 that the ■r LC.P. & D.C. approve the submitted site plans entitled "Site Plan - 126 Main Street - dated .July 11, 1986" conditional on the three items listed below: Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 4 1. The applicant applies for and receives the necessary approvals for side lot variance (or modifies the proposed construction to conform to the required side lot dimensional control). 2. That the necessary parking spaces and loading spaces be provided within the Business A District (without encroaching onto the 9-10 Zoned portion of the site). 3. That all necessary State and Local Permits and Approvals be applied for, received and complied with. Chairman Howard stated at the last meeting we had discussion from an abuttor as far as the dumpster and the timing of the pickup of trash. Can you tell us why that wasn't a condition of your recommendation? Mr. Redford replied there is a stockade fence in evidence in that area plus a large amount of screening currently. Regarding the timing of the pickup, the Town does not collect the trash, and any abuttor who has a problem or complaint, should register the noise issue to the Police Department. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:2 (Mr. Griset and Ms. Jenks opposed) to amend the main motion by adding a fourth condition in that the applicant be required to provide at a minimum screening of some sort all the way around on four sides of the dumpster area. Mr. Griset asked have you had discussion with the abuttor since the meeting? Mr. Arsenault stated we did contact our trash collector and this ` should be a Police involvement issue. The rubbish is a Board of Health issue. At 8:20 P.M. the Commission met with members of the Historical Commission for an informal discussion. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page S Present were Virginia Adams, Nancy Smethurst, John McCauley, Sharon Ofenstein, Erli.ne Trites and David Robbins. Chairman Howard thanked them all for coming and welcomed them to the meeting. Chairman Adams stated the Commission is very pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you. She gave a brief background on each of the members, and stated that the Commission was formed in 1977 as an outgrowth of the Bicentennial Commission. Reading did not adopt the State statute that forms Historical Commissions, we are appointed by the Selectmen. We have the same powers from the Mass. Historical Commission and we interact with them frequently. We have inventoried all the structures within the Town. We have In regards to zoning and planning, we have taken issue and supported the use of variance retention. We would like to encourage re -use of historical buildings. We were also one of the parties involved in hearings on "scenic roads ". One of the concerns we have is the signage within the community, and we would like to work with the DPW on this. We have asked that the Building Inspector notify us of any demolition of structures. One of our other efforts has been establishing "town archives" housed in the public library. Ms. Jenks stated I am impressed with all your Commission has done. Has the Commission anticipated looking at the Town as a whole and y taking some guesses as to where the Historical Commission would like to Isee the Town 5 -7 years from now? Mrs. Adams replied we. have been forced to deal with the municipal buildings. We should be looking in the future toward streetscapes, etc. selected over 100 properties within the Town which have "national register" status. In regards to zoning and planning, we have taken issue and supported the use of variance retention. We would like to encourage re -use of historical buildings. We were also one of the parties involved in hearings on "scenic roads ". One of the concerns we have is the signage within the community, and we would like to work with the DPW on this. We have asked that the Building Inspector notify us of any demolition of structures. One of our other efforts has been establishing "town archives" housed in the public library. Ms. Jenks stated I am impressed with all your Commission has done. Has the Commission anticipated looking at the Town as a whole and y taking some guesses as to where the Historical Commission would like to Isee the Town 5 -7 years from now? Mrs. Adams replied we. have been forced to deal with the municipal buildings. We should be looking in the future toward streetscapes, etc. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 6 belong to both groups. Our focus has been more on buildings, as we become more equipped to handle it, we are getting more and more into the larger historical framework. John McCauley stated one of the problems we are facing is the keeping of records by each Commission. I would ask you to make an effort to centralize your records. Mr. Griset stated I would urge you to attend as many of our meetings as is possible. Your input has been invaluable. Mr. Redford stated the Department will send the Historical Commission copies of our agenda each week. Chairman Howard thanked them all for coming. At 8:4S P.M. the Commission met with the Building Inspector, Stuart LeClaire. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and thanked Mr. LeClaire for coming. Mr. LeClaire stated the Zoning By -Laws are my biggest headache, they should be more specific. Mr. Goodemote stated one of the things that struck me is that there have been a number of situations where you have acted prior to our acting, when in fact, everything is not in place. I am asking that we work together and in a timely fashion. Mr. LeClair stated a lot of people by -pass me and find out they i need to come to me first. Mr. Goodemote asked is it abnormal to issue partial building permits? Sharon Ofenstein stated a good portion of the Town's historical research is headed by the Reading Antiquarian Society, many of the members belong to both groups. Our focus has been more on buildings, as we become more equipped to handle it, we are getting more and more into the larger historical framework. John McCauley stated one of the problems we are facing is the keeping of records by each Commission. I would ask you to make an effort to centralize your records. Mr. Griset stated I would urge you to attend as many of our meetings as is possible. Your input has been invaluable. Mr. Redford stated the Department will send the Historical Commission copies of our agenda each week. Chairman Howard thanked them all for coming. At 8:4S P.M. the Commission met with the Building Inspector, Stuart LeClaire. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and thanked Mr. LeClaire for coming. Mr. LeClaire stated the Zoning By -Laws are my biggest headache, they should be more specific. Mr. Goodemote stated one of the things that struck me is that there have been a number of situations where you have acted prior to our acting, when in fact, everything is not in place. I am asking that we work together and in a timely fashion. Mr. LeClair stated a lot of people by -pass me and find out they i need to come to me first. Mr. Goodemote asked is it abnormal to issue partial building permits? Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 7 Mr. LeClaire replied under the Mass. Statute you can give partial approvals. Mr. Goodemote stated it makes it difficult for me to go back to someone and say you have to submit a site plan knowing there is a foundation there. That is one of the things I am referring to when I say we must work together before any permits are given. Mr. LeClaire stated I am trying to work with the contractors by asking them to leave me time for review, I am trying to achieve this. Mr. Goodemote stated in terms of zoning there seems to be contradictory information. One of the things I would ask is what areas would you like to see clarified? Mr. LeClaire stated I will give you my list of concerns in writing. Mr. Ensminger stated if you have any specific comments on site plan review would you please let us know. Mr. Tom Stohlman stated there are clearly some things that need building permits that don't fall under Site Plan Review. It might be a good idea to write a note regarding those fuzzy areas. Chairman Howard thanked Mr. LeClaire for coming and for his input. 9:00 P.M. The Commission next met with members of the Planning Board at Present were Maureen Rich, Tom Stohlman, Mike Slezak, David Devine, John Wood and Gail Wood. Mrs. Rich develop By-Laws and stated as you know, most procedures for the Town of your function will be to and to prepare and maintain adequate plans and to make decisions that are consistent with that plan. I don't know where will the funds to develop a new "Master Plan ". you get Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1956 Page R r We had developers represented by engineers, architects, legal L' experts, all telling us what they were going to do for us. We did not have the expertise or the staff or time to investigate every aspect. We were constantly dealing with "reactive planning ". With site plan review we felt all Departments have the opportunity for review and comment. I sat here at the last meeting and I have heard Site Plan Reviews where the Department had said the submissions were not complete. You have the right to refuse to hear incomplete filings. Development control is the protection and improvement of the Towns' appearance. The C.P. & D.C. can deny poor designs, but it is necessary to show the applicant what direction to take to improve the L project. Design review can be used in the Central Business District or historical preservation areas where strong design controls can be tied to a public purpose. The Board could develop and distribute a design guide with policies and criteria for site and building evaluation. But the questions of the location and proposed used is a zoning question and i belongs to the C.P. & D.C. Study the existing land use, the population, housing stock, circulation systems, feeder streets, utilities and facilities. The first reponsibility is to the public, present and future, get the public pulse, from homeowners and businesspeoplel Townhouse zoning and municipal building reuse has not been fully tested. Developers will fight this zoning - there are loopholes in our townhouse by -law. Regarding Sohn Street, you should look at control measures, peak hour travel, ride sharing, staggered work hours, private /public partner- ships, subsidized vanpool costs and infrastructure improvements. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 9 Our neighbors in North Reading, Woburn and Wilmington have allowed large scale developments which are now and will in the future impact on Reading streets. Do not accept traditional planning as the only way - new zoning techniques are being developed. Keep abreast of the new zoning techniques and see where they may apply to Reading. Look at single family cluster developments, rental apartments, affordable housing, balance supply with demand. I as the representative to MAPC and will keep you informed of any new developments there and feel there should be cooperation as far as long range planning. Tom Stohlman stated there is a lot of power in Site Plan Review, ' there are a lot of gray areas in our zoning by -laws. Mike Slezak stated I would suggest you consider going to another Towns Planning Board Meeting. This is the only Board that has any ability to calculate the direction the Town is going to take. Developers really want to work with the Town and get their approval. You need to be familiar with what your powers are. Ms. Jenks asked do you see some of the things you are talking about without a full time paid planner? Mr. Slezak stated I think it would be difficult without this, but there are more resources available to you. Mrs. Rich stated the new Town Manager happens to be a planner. Dail Wood stated you can do some of this without a planner. The zoning by -laws are very difficult to read, you have to study them. The staff you have at the Department of Public Works is excellent. You have to protect the Town of Readings' interests. You have to establish your credibility within the Town and with Town Meeting. You can only do that by I L Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1986 Page 10 10 showing people you care and you are listening. David Devine stated I agree with all the statements made. You are not dealing with a business, you are dealing with government. When you argue for a Master Plan, you are arguing for something the people of Reading don't understand and won't go along with. Hill? plan. Chairman Howard asked what advice do you have for us on Bear Mrs. Wood replied talk to the neighbors. Mr. Devine stated talk to the financial people about a financial Mrs. Rich stated regarding Bear Hill, I would strongly urge you to review the traffic study done by Wakefield on this issue. Ms. Jenks asked what is your present position on the MAPC? Mrs. Rich replied I am the MAPC representative. We are one of the 101 communities that belong to this. John Wood stated communication with the citizens of the Town is very important. There are many interested citizens all over the Town. It takes good relations with the media also. Communication with other towns is also vital. I feel there is a need for more rental units in town. Mr. Ensminger asked does it make sense to hold Site Plan Reviews on a preliminary and definitive basis? Mr. Stohlman replied yes, this is viable. Chairman Howard stated this has been very helpful, I can't thank Mr. Ensminger suggested the Commission write a letter to the Selectmen offering help in negotiating a development agreement with Homart for the John Street Landfill Site. you enough for your insight and encouragement. Chairman Howard thanked them all for coming at 10:20 P.M. Mr. Ensminger suggested the Commission write a letter to the Selectmen offering help in negotiating a development agreement with Homart for the John Street Landfill Site. ,. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 18, 1996 Page 11 11 By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to send the letter. Under Dld & New Business; Mr. Ensminger requested that the Subcommittee Report due dates be made on September 22. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. 11 Res a tfully submitted, cret'ry A. V. =CHER. P.C., DfneW, TOWN OF READING S. D. M NrIRC, JR.. Aen. D1,eem, W. A. RCOMM, Sown Enbinee + DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MUNICIPAL BUILDING READING. MASS. 01867 MASSACHUSETTS MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Richard Howard Chairman, Community Planning & Development Commission FROM: A.V. Fletcher, P.E. DATE: August 13, 1986 RE: Legal Definition - Town House Mr. Ted Cohen, Readings General Counsel, is not fully recovered from his accident and since most of his injuries concern both arms, he prefers I pass on to you, rather than writing, the following: In the matter of the Lowell Street "Town House" plan, Mr. Cohen repeats his decision made to the Board of Appeals that the proposal is not a "Town House" development as it does not meet the conditions of the Town House Development By -Law, and further, that the Board of Appeals can certainly permit a higher use (commercial to residential). AVF:cmk lu L1 Conditions which the Zoning Board of Appeals intends to include in the Special Permit as to 178 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts: 1. The ap A shall install six foot high stockade fencing along the rear lot lines prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit. 2. The aM'A shall plant and shall at all time maintain evergreen trees along the Northwesterly side lot line, which shall at planting be sufficient to visually screen the parking lot on the premises from the abutting property of Stansannski. Such plantings shall be located as near the existing chain link fence as is possible. 3. Exterior lighting on the premises shall be the minimal amount necessary for pedestrian and vehicle use of the premises at night and no lighting shall shine into the abutting property, but it shall be baffled to direct the lighting downward. 4. There shall be no exterior storage of trash or debris on the premises. All rubish shall be stored in the individual units. 5. There shall be drainage catch basins so that no run-off from the parking lot shall run onto Lowell Street or onto abutting property- 16. The portion of the building which connects to the stricture on the property on the southeast ( "ihmpty Dompty School ") shall be razed as shown on the submitted plan. 7. Construction Matters: (a) During construction there shall be a six foot high fence constructed along the front of the Wilding and along the Northeasterly side to secure the Wilding from entry by children. (b) Construction debris shall be promptly removed from the premises from time to time. (c) Asbestos shingles on the building shall be removed in accordance with governmental health standards and shall be promptly and properly disposed of. P I 11 % Community Planning and Development Board Town Hall Reading, MA 01867 RF.F: MAPLEWOOD ESTATES READING, MA Dear Board Members: RrAU11VG, mA, August 13, 1986 At the meeting held on July 24, 1986, I had requested a time extension to submit some additional drainage calculations as requested by the town, The Engineering firm that was hired to do these calculations was not able to complete them in such a time that Mr. Redford would have adequate time to review them for this meeting on August 18, 1986, The calculations are being submitted to Mr. Redford on August 15, 1986, therefore we would request that we be granted an extension of time for his review until the board meeting on September 15, 1986, Sincerely, / Kenneth Svenson �la E � l iilC F;�