HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-03 Planning Board MinutesM
Minutes of the Meetina of April 3. 1985 -
The Board was scheduled to meet in the Community Center Auditorium
for the public hearing. Because there was a scheduling conflict,
the Planning Board agreed to use the Selectmen's meeting room at
Town Hall for the public hearing. Notice of the meeting was
conspicuously placed to inform the interested citizens /parties
of the change of meeting place.
At 7:15 P.M., the Chairman called the meeting to order in Room 2,
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street with all Board members (Mr. Devine,
Mr. Slezak, Mr. Wood and Ms. Trainor) present. There were approxi-
mately 50 citizens present and members of the Conservation Comm /Board
of Public Works present. Chairman Rich asked that the petitioners
present their proposal and any changes, then the town boards /depart-
ments would have a chance to respond, the public would be given
an opportunity to speak and the Planning Board would then speak
to the proposal. The Clerk read the meeting notice into the record.
Attorney O. Bradley Latham and Mr. Robert Connors represented
Continental Wingate in their presentation of the facts. The
proposal as presented to the warrant has 3 major changes:
- under Section 4.6.1. - maximum allowable number of
townhouse units would be limited to 100.
- under 4.6.4. - provision for low /moderate income
family housing would be raised from the proposed
58 to 108 of units built; alternate cash contri-
bution was raised from $1000 to $2000 /per unit;
option for cash /housing would be given to the town.
Attorney Latham continued his presentation on the proposal and
outlined the process for ohtaininq a special permit to allow
townhouses to he built in residential districts. Mr. Latham
stated that they tried to give the town as much control as
possible to he sure that such a development would have few or no
adverse effects to the neighborhood in particular or to the town
in general. The low and moderate- income housing requirements
were to he raised from the original five (58) per cent to ten
(10 %) per cent, or $2,000 per townhouse unit. Mr. Connors spoke
on behalf of Continental Wingate and cave a history of his
cornoration's experience in developing, owning and operating such
developments. The traffic firm of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike
presented their study on the impacts such a development would
have on the traffic on Salem Street. Mr. Gary Hebert, traffic
engineer, stated that there would he about a four to five per
cent (4 -58) increase during peak traffic times and that traffic
from this development would have little impact on Salem Street
traffic.
A letter from Police Chief Marchand was read into the meeting
record by AttorneV Latham. Chief Marchand felt that there would
be no serious problems with such a development. Attorney Latham
quoted a conversation from Fire Chief Redfern stating that Chief
Redfern saw no problems with servicing such a development as long_
as turn - arounds and roadways were adequate to accommodate the
fire equipment and all State and town fire code requirements were
met.
Chairman Rich had the letter from Building Inspector Charles
Stamatis read into the meeting record. Mr.- Stamatis stated in
his letter that there are current provisions within the by -law
which would allow these townhouses to he built and felt that to
create another zoning change for this use could be "misleading_"
and should not be allowed.
A petition from approximately 20 citizens against such a
development was also read into the record. The letter stated the
citizens' concerns with allowing such a high density development
in this area, especially the sewer and water problems this area
experiences during the spring because of the high water table.
Also noted were their concerns with the traffic impact to
surrounding streets, pedestrian safety, and problems with the
environment because of the extensive wetlands in the area. They
asked the town to assess the adverse impacts to current citizens
and residents before allowing such a development.
Mr. William Redfern spoke on hehalf of the .Department of Public Works
and noted many concerns with the by -law. Mr. Redfern stated that
the current by -law is in contravention of some of the Board of
Survey's Rules and Regulations governing sub- division control.
Ms. Camille. Anthony spoke on behalf of the Reading Conservation
Commission noting their strong concerns regarding such a high
density development in this area. Problems with displacement,
fillino and adverse impacts to the environment were noted.
Chairman Rich opened the discussion to the townspeople present.
Among the concerns noted were:
4/3/85 -2-
- traffic impacts to Salem Street and surrounding feeder
streets, especially during backups on Route I -95 (128);
- proximity of such a development to surrounding single family
residences;
- matter of allowing the density to increase by a factor of 2
when the Single Family 10 district was already the most
densely populated area of town;
- question whether this would be considered "spot zoning"
because the Adams /Gentile land was the only parcel of land
in an S -10 district under single ownership that would
qualify under the restrictions as written.
The Planning Board members then discussed their concerns with the
current proposal:
* problems with allowing this kind of development to take
place before the comprehensive plan for the town had been
updated so that the town could more effectively assess its
ability to service the needs of continuing demand for high
density development in both residential and commercial areas
of town;
* problems with adverse impacts to traffic on Salem Street and
surrounding streets, especially during peak traffic hours
and backups on Route 1287
* concern over particular wording within the proposed by -law
which would he in contravention or more restrictive than
lannuage in the current by -laws for apartment /multi - family
districts;
* problem with the town's ability to adequately handle the
runoff and sewer problems, especially in light of the
backups that the current wastewater station has had during
- spring runoff; and
* questions of town's ability to service this area with water,
sewer and other needed services.
The Board then called for a vote and upon a motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted not to recommend acceptance of these
articles by Town Meeting. The vote was: 0 - in favor; 4 -
4/3/85 -3-
opposed; and 1 - abstention.
There being no further business before the Board, it was
unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
John D. Wood, Clerk
4/3/85
-4-