Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-04 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCommunity Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 1 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Hoard Members Ensminger and Griset, Director R.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Engineer William B. High. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to accept the minutes of the CP & DC Meeting of July 24, 1986 as amended. The Board next reviewed the "Rocky Road" Preliminary Subdivision memo from William A. Redford. It was moved, seconded and defeated 0:4 to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan - Rocky Road - dated May 30, 1986 ". Mr. Griset stated he has a problem with the lack of direction in the memo regarding granite curbing. I do not want to see that waiver granted. Mr. High stated the reason for the waiver of the sidewalk on one side is that there will not be houses built on one side of the street. Mr. Fletcher stated I can see the waiver on the construction of the sidewalk, but not the granite curbing. Mr. Goodemote moved, and it was seconded, that the Commission disapprove the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan - Rocky Road - dated May 30, 1986" due to the seven items listed on Mr. Redfords memo. It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion by revising Item 2 and adding Item 8, and to include items B & C in the letter of disapproval. I The main motion, as amended, was voted 4:0. Community Planning A Development Commission Meeting August 4p 1986 Page 2 i B. In addition to the previous requirementsv the Commission is very concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetlands included within this tract of land. Any Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement and a detailed surface water drainage design. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to disapprove for the following reasons and to include all of the following in the letter of disapproval: 1. No side sloping or sight easements are provided. 2. The proposed sidewalk construction does not conform to the requirements. There shall be sidewalk provided in front of all developed building lots. 3. Catch basins lack the required three foot sumps. 4. The vertical curve at Station 0 +75 does not comply with the standards. 5. The drainage proposal discharges additional storm water run- off onto abutting private property. 6. The proposed Drain Configuration DOES NOT have the required drain manholes (combination catchbasin- manholes are not permitted). 7. The proposed Drain Configuration DOES NOT indicate any method to limit the impact of the increased runoff caused by the planned development. S. Granite curbing shall be provided as per Subdivision Control Laws. i B. In addition to the previous requirementsv the Commission is very concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetlands included within this tract of land. Any Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement and a detailed surface water drainage design. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting AugVA 4, 1986 Paige 3 on C. In view of the existing building (Laschi) and lot lacking frontage, the Commission would expect that the provisions of the Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section S.B.4 be complied with (extending the roadway to the property lines of abutting owners). The Board next reviewed the memo from W.R. Redford to A.V. Fletcher regarding the Site Plan Review at 296 Salem Street. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to approve the submitted site plans entitled "Site Plan - Wes Parkers Restaurant - Sheet L -1 - dated May 20, 1986" conditional on the items listed below: 1. The applicant applies for and receives the necessary approvals for construction within the Flood Plain Overlay District (F). 2. That appropriate screening be installed beween the Business (B) and Residence (BID) sites. 3. The dumpster area be enclosed with a fence. A. That all necessary State and Local Permits and Approvals be applied for, received and complied with. Mr. Ensminger amended the motion by adding a fifth item, that the free - standing sign in front of the restaurant be brought into conformance with the present zoning by -laws. The amendment was seconded and voted 4:0. Mr. Griset stated it strikes me that it would be helpful and appropriate for the applicants when we continue a site plan review hearing and indicate action within 20 days, we should let the applicant know the date on which we would be taking this vote. We should permit the applicant to be present at the vote. The Board next met with Mr. Barry Mampson and Mr. Curt Nitzsche, former members of the Board of Survey, for an informal discussion. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 4 the petitioner was. Town Meeting could not art on this without them coming Chairman Howard welcomed them both to the meeting and stated we invited you here to discuss the priority issues facing your Board and any recommendations you might have for this Commission as to how we could do our job better. Mr. Hampson stated the Board of Survey was fairly straightforward. Developers have every right to develop and market as the abuttors do. The Board of Survey did have the ability to grant waivers, however, generally, we did not want to grant waivers. The Board of Survey Rules and Regulations are very clear and concise. Compatability and conformance would be two guideposts. Another major issue is groundwater problems. Mr. Nitzsche stated I feel that public hearings are probably the E'* one time when the average citizen comes in and talks to Town Officers. I Lalways felt it was good to listen and accept the citizen frustration as such. The other issue is that we may receive some innovative suggestions for the remaining land in Town such as cluster zoning to help foster the Towns growth and we should have a policy to build affordable housing for young couples. A discussion ensued regarding housekeeping issues and Chairman Howard thanked them both for coming. The Board next discussed the letter from Latham & Latham regarding "Graphic Communications ". Mr. Fletcher asked that Maureen Rich of the former Planning Board give a brief history on this petition. Mrs. Rich commented that this article was placed on the Warrant j r without first coming before the Planning Board. We didn't even know who the petitioner was. Town Meeting could not art on this without them coming Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 5 before the Planning Board. I was later approached by the petitioners attorney. The Selectmen did not advise the Planning Board that a petition had been placed on the Warrant. Mr. Fletcher stated this needs serious consideration. Printing is not presently allowed in the so- called "B Zone ". The petitioners are looking for a change in the Zoning By -Laws which now falls under the responsibility of the CP & DC. A Warrant Article will have to be placed by September 22. I advise a public hearing on August 18. Maureen Rich stated the residents of Bay State Road, Libby Avenue, Torre Street and Canterbury Drive should be notified of this hearing. It was mvoed, seconded and voted 4;0 to instruct staff to advertise appropriately through the newspapers and legal notices to the Laffected parties that we are holding a hearing regarding this proposed zoning modfiication an August 18th, Mr. Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8;45 P.M. regarding the approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Site Plan of the property known as 178 Lowell Street, referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 84, Lot 24. The submitted Site Plan proposes to convert an existing commercial use (warehouse) and one apartment to five residential units. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and the Department. Present for the applicant was Attorney D. Bradley Latham. ■(�. Atty. Latham explained the site plan for the applicant and stated f C the building is connected by a small building at the lot line to the Humpty Dumpty School. There is off - street parking right now. The history of use has been commercial in nature. The proposal already given to the Board of Appeals is to convert the use to five residential units. This is Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August. 4, 1986 Page 6 Commission the conditions that will be included by the Board of Appeals when it does render its decision. (attached). He also distributed letters from the Chief of Police and the Building Inspector who endorses the proposal (attached). Supt. Fletcher read the Engineering Divisions list of eight concerns (attached). He added that he felt it is very important that before a final decision is made, we have something substantive and in writing from the Board of Appeals. Virginia Adams of the Historical Commission stated we would like to point out this is a significant building used for the making of organ pipes. Sharon Dfenstein of the Historical Commission stated there are several distinctive characteristics of this building, low horizontal lines and the foundation walls are of cobblestone. It would appear these are all being retained by the developer. We are also pleased about the removal of the asbestos and the introduction of clapboards. We are concerned about the dormers. Mr. Goodemote stated in regards to a less restrictive use, it appears that under the "townhouse" provisions of the By -Laws, these don't appear to follow the Townhouse restrictions. Atty. Latham stated this is being converted from commercial and apartment use to five units. They could be called apartments or townhouses, they are going to have rondominium ownership. j Mr. Criset stated if this doesn't fall within the Townhouse development article, you would need a variance to bring this into conformance. situated in S -10 Zoning. The Board of Appeals has deferred from making a decision until this Commission makes a derision. He submitted to the Commission the conditions that will be included by the Board of Appeals when it does render its decision. (attached). He also distributed letters from the Chief of Police and the Building Inspector who endorses the proposal (attached). Supt. Fletcher read the Engineering Divisions list of eight concerns (attached). He added that he felt it is very important that before a final decision is made, we have something substantive and in writing from the Board of Appeals. Virginia Adams of the Historical Commission stated we would like to point out this is a significant building used for the making of organ pipes. Sharon Dfenstein of the Historical Commission stated there are several distinctive characteristics of this building, low horizontal lines and the foundation walls are of cobblestone. It would appear these are all being retained by the developer. We are also pleased about the removal of the asbestos and the introduction of clapboards. We are concerned about the dormers. Mr. Goodemote stated in regards to a less restrictive use, it appears that under the "townhouse" provisions of the By -Laws, these don't appear to follow the Townhouse restrictions. Atty. Latham stated this is being converted from commercial and apartment use to five units. They could be called apartments or townhouses, they are going to have rondominium ownership. j Mr. Criset stated if this doesn't fall within the Townhouse development article, you would need a variance to bring this into conformance. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1966 Page 7 LI Mr. Ensminger asked are there any precedents for reuse of special buildings within the Town? Steve Tucker of the Board of Appeals replied none that I know of. Maureen Rich stated as Chairman of the former Planning Board, I appeared before the Board of Appeals. I raised the question of the "Townhouse" By-Law. Apartments are not allowed in this zone either. We were very careful in writing the "Townhouse" By -Law, we worked very hard to protect the Town. She added I question the legality of the Board of Appeals rendering a decision. The abuttors have been complaining about the business going on there now. Our By -Laws are written for the good of the entire Town. I don't see how the Board of Appeals could grant a variance, there is no hardship involved. Martha Stasiowski of 186 Lowell Street stated we would like to see an improved residential use. We do have concerns about the number of units being proposed. Tom Stohlman asked under what Zoning Regulations is the applicant proposing to use this property? Atty. L9tham replied under Section 6.3.2.1 - that states this can be converted to a more restrictive use. Mr. Coodemote stated I feel the Townhouse Development By -Law should be looked at more closely for definitions. Beatrice Erickson of 11 Harriman Avenue stated if you do not approve this it will go back to its present use. I don't understand how they get away with what they are doing now, which is storing candy. Mrs. Erickson stated you should be made aware that we want a Townhouse which is better than the commercial use existing today. Community Planning A Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 6 ETom Stohlman stated this is not in the hest interests of the developer to define this as Town - House, it does not meet those requirements. This is much too dense for this neighborhood. I feel very strongly that you should reject this. Chairman Howard stated this Commission will make a decision on this matter on August 18. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to request a written clarification from Town Counsel regarding the appropriateness of use versus zoning. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to close the heari.ng at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 9:47 P.M. regarding the approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Site Plan of the property known as 126 Main Street, referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 12 Lot 3. The submitted site plan proposes to add a sixty (60) foot by thirteen (13) foot addition at the rear of the dining room occupied by Harrow Poultry Products, Inc. so as to add bakery area and an additional new dining room area. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and the Department. Present for the applicant was Atty. Carl H. Amon, and engineer John Paulson. Mr. Amon explained the site plan. He explained the additional dining area will increase the total seating to 135. There is room in the parking area for a total of 58 spaces, more than is necessary for the total seating capacity. Mr. Fletcher read the list of five concerns from the Engineering Division (attached). i I L Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 9 Virginia Adams of the Historical Commission stated our Commission did not receive any notification of the Hearing. Mr. Amon distributed a letter to the Commission from Starr Realty trust stating they are in favor of the project (attached). Mr. Goodemote asked if you have 58 spaces, what is the actual square foot of dining area? Mr. John Paulson replied currently they have 2100 square feet, 800 square feet will be added to the dining area and 400 square feet will be added to the bakery. Mr. Goodemote stated we should look into the non - conformance issue of the lot line more closely. Mr. Ensminger asked what about the loading area? Mr. Amon replied there is one loading area now. Maureen Rich stated I wish to compliment Harrows on the landscaping and the formal addition. I am very pleased with the design of the building. Joseph Laschi of 156 Main Street. stated I am in favor of this addition. Robert Ferry of 45 Hopkins Street asked how far can you expand this restaurant in the future? Mr. Amon replied at the current time we have no intention of adding on to this proposed addition. Mr. Fletcher stated there is a zoning line running through this property directly behind the west wing. Dan Peterson of 68 Hopkins Street stated we have no problem with the expansion, we do have some problems in the handling of the dumpster. Due to the parking area open on to our property line, we get a lot of trash on our land from the open dumpster in the parking area. I see this as inadequate handling of trash in the area. The lack of landscaping in Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting August 4, 1986 Page 10 Lthe back of Harrows has been neglected, this does affect my property and the conditions of the area. Mr. Amon stated we will make every effort to improve whatever the condition might be in that area. Maureen Rich stated I would like to see some screening along the back of this property to help the problem these people seem to be having. Mr. Goodemote reinforced the issue by stating there should be screening or buffering of this area. Chairman Howard stated this Commission will make a final decision on this on August 18. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to close the hearing at 10:20 P.M. Under Old and New Business: It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to change the words "or orally" to "a roll call vote" may be called for by the Chairman. Mr. Ensminger asked that maps be made available as part of submissions. Mr. Fletcher stated that all agenda packages will be available on Thursdays for the Commission. Chairman Howard asked that a list of public hearing notices from all surrounding towns be made available in the "reading room ". Mr. Fletcher gave the Commission an update on the John Street Industrial Area situation. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to i adjourn at 10:35 F.M. t p@tf ally Emitted, i a secretary MEMORANDUM To: A.V. Fletcher, P.E. From: W.A. Redford Date: August 1, 1966 Subject: Site Plan Review - 296 Salem Street After review of the submitted plans for this site and the input received at the July 24, 1986 Public Hearing, I recommend the following Commission action: A. The Commission APPROVE the Submitted Site Plans entitled "Site Plan - 'Wes' Parker's Restaurant - Sheet L -1 - dated May 20, 1986" conditional on the x items listed below. 1. The applicant applies for and receives the necessary approvals for construction within the Flood Plain Overlay District (F). 2. That appropriate screening be installed between the Business (B) and Residence (S10) sites. 3. The dumpster area be enclosed with a fence. 4. That all necessary State and Local Permits and Approvals be applied for, received, and complied with. -0 EDWARD W. MARCHAND CHIEF OF POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT Atty. 0. Bradley Latham Latham and Latham, P. C. 643 Main St., Reading, Ma 01867 Dear Mr. Latham: Reading, Massachusetts June 23, 1986 We have reviewed the plans for the conversion of the commercial warehouse located at 178 Lowell Street to five residential units. We do not foresee any traffic or parking problems resulting from this conversion. EWM: be Very truly yours, Aaa0deeovIlele6 Chief of Police oe TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS Office of INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS TOWN HALL ANNEX 6LOWELL ST. 942 0500 eet. 69 8 71 Stuart S. LeClaire Building Inspector July 15, 1986 Mr. John A. Jarema, Chairman Board of Appeals 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ms. 01867 Dear John: I believe that the proposed (5) five unit townhouse Condominium at 178 Lowell Street, Reading, Ma. would be a great asset and a great improvement to the neighborhood. I support this proposed plan fully. Sincerely, c�C °CIC���` eC ll <C Stuart S. LeClaire Inspector of Buildings Town of Reading Community Planning t( Development Commission Lr PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW 178 Lowell Street August 4, 1986 In accordance with current Town Zoning By -Laws, no person shall obtain any permits or approvals (if their proposed activity is contained within the provisions of the applicable sections of the By -Laws) unless they have first submitted aplan and filing to the Community Planning & Development Commission. The Commission generally holds a public hearing within 30 days of the filing, and acts on the submission (approve, approve with modifications or conditions, or disapprove) within 20 days of the closing of the hearing. The Commission uses the forum of the public hearing to obtain reports, information and concerns specific to the submitted plans from the Proponent, various Boards and Committees and effected public. S. Secretary makes motion to close the hearing. The Commission deliberates on all the information presented and reviews the submission plans and filing for its conformance with State requirements, local zoning ordinances and the Town's applicable Rules and Regulations. activity The Commission encourages all individuals affected by this planned to offer input consistent with the provisions of the Site Plan Review provisions contained within Reading's Zoning By -Laws during the hearing process. This hearing will follow the procedure described below: 1. Chairman calls the hearing to order. 2. Secretary reads the legal notice of the Public Hearing. - 3. Chairman introduces Commission, Department, Applicant, etc. 4. Presentation of proposed Activity by Applicant. S. Comments on the proposal and Review of submitted information: - a) Department of Public Works - Engineering Division; b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Written correspondence by any Boards, Officials, and or public. _ 6. Chairman opens the hearing to discussion: a) Community Planning & Development Commission; b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Attending Public. 7. Chairman indicates that the Commission intends to close the the hearing, deliberate on the information presented, and act on submittal prior to August 20, 1986; and indicates that the plans and the department are available for additional review and comments. S. Secretary makes motion to close the hearing. The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments: 1. Formal action on this submittal is required by August 20, 1486, 2. Existing use of this parcel does not conform to the Zoning Bylaws. 3. The Proposed use of this parcel does not conform to the Zoning Bylaws. 4. Any Construction within the Layout of Lowell Street will require D.P.W. approvals (sidewalks, curbing, utility connections, etc.). S. No Lighting information has been submitted. 6. No Landscaping details have been provided. 7. No provision for Trash Disposal has been shown. S. This Special Permit process (as compared to a 'use' variance) may conflict with the Town's newly adopted 'Town House Development' provisions. I 11 STARR REALTY TRUST August 1, 1986 Office of Community Planning 6 Development Commission Municipal Building 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA. 01867 Attn: Mr. Anthony V.Fletcher Clerk of the Commission Dear Mr. Fletcher: I have reviewed the plans of the proposed addition to Harrows Restaurant and I wish to go on record as being in favor of the project. WFP /jI fi Yours truly, Willard F. Perkins Trustee Box 506 Reading, Massachusetts 01867 944 -3060 August 1, 1986 Office of Community Planning 6 Development Commission Municipal Building 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA. 01867 Attn: Mr. Anthony V.Fletcher Clerk of the Commission Dear Mr. Fletcher: I have reviewed the plans of the proposed addition to Harrows Restaurant and I wish to go on record as being in favor of the project. WFP /jI fi Yours truly, Willard F. Perkins Trustee Community Planning E< Development Commission PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW 126 Main Street August 4, 1986 In accordance with current Town Zoning By -Laws, no person shall obtain any permits or approvals (if their proposed activity is contained within the provisions of the applicable sections of the By -Laws) unless they have first submitted a plan and filing to the Community Planning & Development Commission. The Commission generally holds a public hearing within 30 days of the filing, and acts on the submission (approve, approve with modifications or conditions, or disapprove) within 20 days of the closing of the hearing. The Commission uses the forum of the public hearing to obtain reports, information and concerns specific to the submitted plans from the Proponent, various Boards and Committees and effected public. The Commission deliberates on all the information presented and reviews the submission plans and filing for its conformance with State requirements, local zoning ordinances and the Town's applicable Rules and Regulations. The Commission encourages all individuals affected by this planned activity to offer input consistent with the provisions of the Site Plan Review provisions contained within Reading's Zoning By -Laws during the hearing process. This hearing will follow the procedure described below; 1. Chairman calls the hearing to order. 2. Secretary reads the legal notice of the Public Hearing. 3. Chairman introduces Commission, Department, Applicant, etc. 4. Presentation of proposed Activity by Applicant. S. Comments on the proposal and Review of submitted information: a) Department of Public Works - Engineering Division; _ b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Written correspondence by any Boards, Officials, and or public. 6. Chairman opens the hearing to discussion: a) Community Planning & Development Commission; b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Attending Public. 7. Chairman indicates that the Commission intends to close the hearing, deliberate on the information presented, and act on the submittal prior to August 2S, 1986; and indicates that the plans and the department are available for additional review and comments. B. Secretary makes motion to close the hearing. 9. Commission votes on motion to close the hearing. The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments! 1. Formal action on this submittal is required by August 25, 1986. 2. The proposed construction does not conform to the Zoning Bylaws dimensional controls (10' sideline setback). 3. No Lighting information has been submitted. 4. No Landscaping details have been provided. S. No Parking space information (additional spaces required due to the proposed construction) has not been submitted.