Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-14 ad Hoc - Zoning Advisory Committee Minutesr Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Advisory Committee Date: 2014 -05 -14 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Marsie West David Tuttle George Katsoufis Eric Bergstom Erin Calvo -Bacci Members - Not Present: Jeff Hansen David Traniello Others Present: Time: 7:30 PM i�.:`CrIV�U CAN CLERK DING, Mr,SS. 1014 JUN - 3 P 4: 1 1 Location: Conference Room Session: Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Virginia Adams - Resident Micahel Webb - Reading Resident Tom Wise - Reading Resident Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson, Community Development Administrator Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Recap from Public Forum The ZAC discussed the comments received from the Public Forum. Ms. West noted that there was a significant discussion on Accessory Apartments, and some discussion on the Aquifer Protection District. Ms. West also reported that Vanasse Hagen and Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) would look into the Aquifer Protection District and our current regulations. We also recommended that VHB look into what other communities have for thresholds. Mr. Tuttle replied that he could not find the consent decree in regards to the protection of the aquifer. The ZAC recalled the roadway accident with the fuel tanker back in 1992. There was additional discussion on why the Town needs to maintain the wells. Ms. Wilson said that in regards to Accessory Apartments, she felt that there was a general consensus for the zoning to be clearer on the regulatory requirements. Especially when it comes to additions and whether the apartment would be allowed in the addition. The ZAC agreed, noting that education is very important and informing people what the regulations are and understanding the requirements. Page I 1 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes Mr. Bergstrom said there was some interesting discussion regarding Medical Marijuana. He felt it was interesting that a suggestion was made to put the facilities on Main Street. Ms. Adams felt that presentation could have been stronger to ease some of the concerns from the audience in relation to accessory apartments. Mr. Michael Webb said the current language is not clear. He is concerned that the appearance factor of accessory apartments is important and concerned that it may change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. West replied that yes, the ZAC wants to make the language clear as well as flexible to accommodate the needs of the Town. Ms. Adams wanted to clarify the number of Carriage- House - Stable -Barns located in town. So 64 of 150 structures had a barn or a garage and almost all predated the 1910 which meets the cutoff for accessory apartments. And of those 64, there were 39 that had carriages and 16 stables /barns. She noted this research did not include Summer Street or Woburn Street. Mr. Tom Wise asked when the parking regulations would get clarified. Ms. Wilson explained the review process for the CPDC. Mr. Tuttle added that the Lexington model was much more restrictive in regards to the accessory apartments and the parking requirements associated with that bylaw. Mr. Webb is concerned that the addition of a second driveway with a second entrance for an accessory apartment would constitute it as a two family home. And it could affect property values. Evening Reception at Reading Co -O The ZAC reviewed the draft presentation and made some minor changes. The ZAC confirmed the date and time of 5/20 at 5:30PM. Ms. West asked the public what the best way is to reach people. Mr. Wise said that email is usually the best way. He said the school blasts are also very effective. He did say that he left a comment on the VHB website and no response was heard. Continue Review of Site Plan Review Section 4.3.3 Ms. Wilson said that last week the ZAC wanted some additional information related to the thresholds. In regards to Site Plan Review, Mr. Katsoufis said that there are 5 categories he feels are important when thinking about site plan review. Demolition, Addition /Modification, Exterior Element Alteration, Interior Remodeling, Major Development. He noted that the percentage and size of the addition can be important to consider when thinking about site plan review. Gross floor area he says is related to intensity of use. For example, for a project that exceeds an addition that is 50% or more, he would recommend that trigger site plan review. Ms. Calvo -Bacci said one of the challenges related to small business is that they get lumped into a wide range many different types of small business that is not your "typical small business ". Mr. Katsoufis said gave a hypothetical example of a restaurant adding a second floor of 1,900 square feet of space. He felt that should go through site plan review. Ms. Wilson explains how they handle site plan review under the current regulations. Mr. Katsoufis said that a simple number related to square footage may not be the only way to measure a threshold. He suggested that Ralph look into this more. Page 1 2 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes Mr. Wise said that record retention is important as new owners may do something new and understanding whether or not the site had undergone review previously. In regards to interior renovations, Mr. Katsoufis said that it should not be a threshold unless there is a change of use. However, if there is non - conformity and they want to do an interior remodel, is that an issue? The ZAC reviewed the Minor Site Plan Review language and the revised language from Mr. Tuttle. Ms. Wilson said it appears that the Minor Site Plan Review language conflicts with the proposed thresholds for full Site Plan Review. Mr. Katsoufis expressed concern regarding exterior alteration and feels that it should be under the jurisdiction of Site Plan Review. Ms. Wilson recalled the example of Harrows and how that qualified under Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Tuttle felt that it was appropriate for them to go before the board because it was such a large fagade on Main Street. Mr. Katsoufis reiterated the importance of being able to quantify the thresholds especially when it may be a "hybrid" project of many different elements. He suggested we talk with Architects in Town to see what they think of our process. Ms. Calvo -Bacci suggested reaching out to Webb. Mr. Tuttle said we need to tune up the Applicability section of the bylaw. Ms. Wilson suggested the applicability section and that Minor Site Plan review be in the same location and that the requirements and procedures included in that section. Currently the procedures are in an Administrative Rule and Regulations by CPDC that is not included in the zoning bylaw. It was agreed the follow up items are: - Review the thresholds again in terms of 2,000 square feet - Consider thresholds related to Mr. Katsoufis' suggestions. - Consider language for exterior alterations that are not routine maintenance or replacement in -kind. - Include procedures Minor Site Plan Review. - Simplify the site plan contents and should be eliminate unnecessary items or consider administrative rules and regulations. The ZAC continued to discuss the site plan review requirements. Mr. Katsoufis feels that it is too onerous for Applicants. He suggested that it be an administrative rule and not in the bylaw. He said that many of the Applicants may not have the resources to go through the process. It was discussed how to make it more tailored so that all the site plan requirements may not be needed for all projects. Ms. Calvo -Bacci moved the ZAC to adjourn at 9:3OPM. Mr. Bergstrom seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Page 1 3