Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-09 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesOF R O� r V. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes s�9�lMCOROO� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2017-01-09 Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 7:30 PM Location: Great Room Session: Version: TOWN CLERK READING. Ml SS. Z011 FEB 28 A 0 12 6,,. Chair Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Karen Goncalves-Dolan Members - Not Present: John Weston, Jeff Hanson Others Present: Board of Selectmen: Chairman John Halsey, Kevin Sexton, John Arena Town Manager Bob LeLachuer, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier Susan Bernstein, Caffe Nero Bruce Kidder, Caffe Nero Jay Gentile, Caffe Nero Jim Freeman, 505 Main Street Michael Doyon, 172 Main Street Tom Connery, 101 Beaver Road Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: The Community Planning and Development Commission and the Board of Selectmen held a joint meeting to discuss recreational marijuana, accessory apartments, and potential expansion of the downtown 40R District. Chairman Nick Safina called the CPDC to order at 7:34 p.m. Chairman John Halsey called the BOS to order at 7:34 p.m. Public Hearing - Zoning Bylaw Amendments April 2017 Annual Town Meetinq Recreational Marijuana Proposed Amendments: • Insert section 5.6.6 Temporary Moratorium on Marijuana Establishments and amend section 5.6.5.2 Applicability • Section 2.0 Definitions & Section 5.3.1 Table of Uses for Business and Industrial Districts & Section 5.3.2 Table of Uses for Residence Districts: add Marijuana Establishment' and prohibit it in all districts, and amend section 5.6.5.2 Applicability Page 1 1 Chairman Safina read the legal notice into the record. He stated that there are two zoning articles that will be discussed for the April Town Meeting Warrant in regards to recreational marijuana. He asked Ms. Mercier for an overview of the process to date. Ms. Mercier noted that in late November the Board of Selectmen met with Town Counsel to review options in light of the outcome of the State ballot initiative at the November election Though the State voted in favor of the initiative as a whole, the Town of Reading did not. The options that Town Counsel prepared for consideration included a moratorium, a full prohibition and a prohibition of just retail establishments. The Selectmen discussed the options and voted to send the moratorium and full prohibition to the Community Planning and Development Commission. The Community Planning and Development Commission then voted, at that same meeting, to hold a public hearing on both articles. Chairman Safina asked for clarification on the process for the articles. He asked whether the moratorium would be needed if the full prohibition passed at Town meeting. Mr. LeLacheur clarified that the Selectmen will have to decide how to frame the issue for the April ballot - before Town meeting. As the Town Meeting warrant needs to close in late February, both articles will be on the warrant; however, the article(s) presented at Town Meeting will likely depend on the results of the election. Chairman Safina asked whether the recent delay announced by the Legislature would affect the dates in the moratorium article, specifically what would happen if a Town moratorium expired before the Cannabis Control Commission and its regulations were established. Chairman Halsey replied that the Town could structure a ballot question to match up with the State, if that is what the Selectmen choose. He commented that one goal of the public hearing is to find out what the public thinks so that the Selectmen can determine how best to act. He noted that advertising the public hearing for the moratorium protects the Town, whereas doing nothing would leave the door open. Mr. Arena opined that the vote would allow the residents to understand there is more than one decision to be made, and will allow the Town time to see where the law is going. He suggested bringing both articles forward. The moratorium is a delay with a defined end date. However, as it seems unlikely the State will come up with regulations for marijuana within that time frame, he advised having a prohibition in place as well. He noted that a prohibition could be viewed as a form of moratorium, and could be overturned if needed when regulations acceptable to the Town are promulgated. Mr. Sexton noted that it is unknown how the State will react to any of these options. The State might disapprove the prohibition and require the Town to allow something. Chairman Halsey stated that his understanding was that the ballot initiative allowed the option of a prohibition or a moratorium by vote of the voters. Mr. Tuttle opined that instating a moratorium seems like the obvious first step, which could result in a decision to prohibit. However, absent regulations from the CCC, a prohibition could be challenged. The moratorium is more straightforward, as it simply states that the Town does not know enough and needs time for planning purposes. Chairman Halsey reminded everyone that there likely is not another election after April 4th but before the State establishes the CCC and its regulations. The Town needs to figure out what to put on the ballot for April. Mr. Tuttle opined that it is a tangled mess. The prohibition is a zoning action; a moratorium says the Town does not know enough from a planning/zoning point of view to allow these establishments. Chairman Safina opined that it will need to be made clear that a prohibition would not be for personal recreational use, growing, possessing in one's home, etc. Mr. Arena noted that it is just a prohibition of retail use, testing, and commercial growing. Page 1 2 Mr. Arena said that a prohibition is really just a pause, and can be overturned at a future Town Meeting. The moratorium will end in August 2018, and there is no confidence any of the issues surrounding the use and how to regulate it will be resolved by that date. Mr. LeLacheur clarified that the August 2018 date was chosen based on the December 2016 start date. It is what Town Counsel believes to be the longest possible moratorium. He said that he will ask Town Counsel whether the State's 6 -month delay should be added to extend the Town's moratorium beyond August 2018. He agreed with Mr. Tuttle that there is a risk the Attorney General will overturn a prohibition. Having the voters vote on both articles could yield better protection for the Town. Chairman Safina asked how the ballot question would be presented to the voters. Mr. LeLacheur cautioned that it may have to be two stand-alone questions, versus an and/or question, which might be hard to explain to the voters. Chairman Halsey expressed concern with having two ballot questions, but that decision does not need to be made tonight. Mr. LeLacheur commented that in his discussions with other town managers and mayors it does not seem that other communities view a No vote on Question 4 as tied to allowing a commercial facility in their towns. However, most towns in the area are considering a moratorium/prohibition ballot question, but are not as far along as Reading. Mr. Halsey pointed out that neighboring communities voted similar to Reading. Chairman Halsey reiterated that there is flexibility with a prohibition vote. Mr. Tuttle expressed hesitancy that the definitions are embedded into the articles and are not a stand-alone article. He suggested an independent article for definitions in case neither article passes. This way the definitions will at least get into the Zoning Bylaw, and will add clarity to what is intended under the Medical Marijuana bylaw. Mr. LeLacheur clarified that the ballot will be voted on first by the voters; then the outcome of that vote will be taken up at Town Meeting. Town meeting will vote on amending the Zoning Bylaw. There may be a need to split out definitions into a separate article. Chairman Halsey agreed with Mr. Tuttle's suggestion to add an article for definitions. Chairman Safina opened the public hearing for public comment. There was none. Chairman Safina opined that the articles are written simply enough and commented on the Town's success with the medical marijuana moratorium. After discussion, the CPDC agreed to continue the public hearing. Mr. Tuttle moved to continue the public hearing until February 13, 2017. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Discussion of potential changes to zoning for Accessory Apartments Ms. Mercier explained that the recent construction of a detached accessory apartment in Town has raised some concern regarding the intent behind the accessory apartment bylaw. She noted that it is very difficult for zoning bylaws to anticipate all possible scenarios, but that some changes to the bylaw might help better align intent with realization and make it easier for Town Boards to preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Mercier showed a diagram of what was intended for an accessory apartment. Chairman Safina added that the intent was to allow a detached accessory apartment to be next to or behind the primary structure, and to allow an attached accessory apartment to be within or adjacent to the primary structure. Mr. Arena noted that a recent accessory apartment approved by the Zoning Board does not reflect the diagram. He listed a few of the elements that surprised him: built in front of the main structure, at the front of the property, with a two car garage and a separate driveway. Page 1 3 Chairman Halsey added that the accessory apartment has a two -car garage and a carport, and appears to be the primary residence. Mr. Arena opined that an accessory apartment should appear secondary to a primary single- family structure, should be complementary to it, and should utilize the same driveway and parking areas. However, even if a detached accessory apartment that complies with these requirements is only allowed in the rear of the property, it could still become a problem if it dominates the primary structure. Chairman Safina agreed that in practice the language allowed something different than what was intended. He stated that the proposed language may clear up concerns. It allows for an existing structure to be converted, but not expanded, and it puts the CPDC as the Special Permit Granting Authority rather than the ZBA. The CPDC is better suited to issues related to neighborhood character and impacts to abutters. He suggested that additional graphics be added to the bylaw. Chairman Halsey stated the he understands allowing the conversion of an existing structure, but questioned why the Town allows new detached accessory apartments at all. Chairman Safina replied that not every property is conducive to an addition, and there is a level of privacy that comes with a detached accessory apartment. He noted that anyone can live in an accessory apartment, related or not. The lot shape of a property may mean an owner cannot expand the primary structure, but can add a detached accessory apartment. Mr. Arena pointed out an apparent conflict between the word "accessory" and the diagram in the bylaw. The word "accessory" suggests it should be subsidiary to the main house. The intent was not for it to be independent with a separate driveway and parking area, rather to be a space for parents and family members to age in place. Mr. Sexton questioned existing structures and setbacks if a garage were proposed. Ms. Mercier said the language changed recently, and explained what was approved at the Town Meeting in November 2016. Mr. Sexton asked if an existing garage that is tight to a lot line would be allowed to be used as an accessory apartment. Ms. Mercier explained that under the current bylaw, Zoning Board of Appeals approval would be needed, and that they would use the Performance Standards in the bylaw as a basis for what could be approved. Mr. Arena asked for clarification of what would be allowed in an existing structure in the front yard. Ms. Mercier stated that an existing structure could be converted to an accessory apartment but would not be allowed to be added onto. Mr. Arena asked about the potential for more than one story. Ms. Mercier explained that structures that meet zoning setbacks are allowed to be more than one story, and could be used as an accessory apartment as long as the total square footage meets bylaw requirements. Chairman Safina opined that neighborhood character would need to be maintained. Mr. Tuttle stated that the zoning bylaw allows one curb cut per lot. Ms. Mercier said that as long as a curb cut meets requirements, the whole lot can be paved. Mr. Tuttle questioned the separate walkway shown on the diagram leading to the attached accessory apartment. Chairman Safina said the intent was to show that the entrance to an accessory apartment needs to be on the side of the property. Mr. Arena expressed concern that the current language might encourage more detached accessory apartments, because it does not prohibit them, which could cause anxiety for the neighborhood. He opined that 1,000 square feet can get big if it does not include a garage. Ms. Delios explained that the Special Permit process was added to allow the neighborhood to be notified and weigh in on the proposal. The Special Permit process is a burden to the Page 1 4 applicant, but allows another whole layer of review. She said that no abutters attended the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing about the aforementioned detached accessory apartment. Mr. Arena asked what criteria are used to determine whether a detached accessory apartment can be granted. Ms. Delios pointed out the Performance Standards under Section 5.4.7.3. She noted that the proposed language includes slight revisions to the Performance Standards so that some criteria cannot be waived. Detached accessory apartments will not be allowed in the front yard unless they are created through conversion of an existing accessory structure. Chairman Halsey asked about the language limiting what is allowed between building facades and right-of-ways. The definitions of front yard and facade were discussed and it was agreed the language should be modified to better capture corner lot scenarios. Chairman Halsey opined that allowing accessory apartments is a good idea, but the Town has to be careful not to set an alarming precedent. Chairman Safina opened the meeting to public comment. There was none. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Accessory Apartments bylaw on February 13, 2017. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Discussion of potential 4OR District Expansion Ms. Mercier explained that recent vacancies and activity downtown have spawned renewed interest among Town officials, staff and local developers in considering an expansion to the existing Downtown Smart Growth (40R) District. She reminded the Commission that both the Main Street corridor and Business B zone were deemed priority areas for rezoning and/or redevelopment at the public forums in 2016. Chairman Safina showed the areas under consideration and explained that the discussion is about finding ways to take advantage of zoning alternatives and potential 40R expansion to spur economic development in underutilized pockets of the downtown. Chairman Halsey asked about the area being considered. Mr. Sexton commented that it was mentioned at the July forum that the lots along Main Street are not deep enough for good redevelopment. Ms. Mercier explained that the area under consideration corresponds to the existing Business B Zoning District, which includes some split -zoned properties behind Main Street. However, no solely residentially -zoned properties are within the area being considered. Mr. Tuttle commented on what was proposed in the past for the 40R District. Chairman Safina questioned if the property at 400 Main Street should be included to allow mixed use of the property. Ms. Mercier clarified that 400 Main Street is within the area under consideration. Chairman Halsey stated that allowing an overlay does not infringe on property rights, it expands options for the property. He asked that parcel lines be shown for discussion purposes. Mr. Arena said that the term Overlay District' has a negative connotation to people who are unfamiliar with planning parlance because it sounds like another layer of regulations. He commented that language should be chosen carefully for the Town Meeting presentation. Mr. Tuttle commented that after some discussion at the zoning forums, people eventually understood. He noted that many people do not realize the area is currently constrained by the Business B Zoning. He opined that it is better for the Town to create an overlay instead of expanding the 40R District, as 40R is constrained by the State and might not work here. Mr. Arena made a suggestion to rename the Overlay District something like "Business B+", so it sounds positive, and then add in the 40R language later. Mr. Tuttle replied that it might Page 1 5 be okay to do it that way. Chairman Safina disagreed noting that the 40R language allows for enforceable Design Standards that complement zoning and govern the Plan Approval process. Chairman Halsey asked why Mr. Tuttle does not think that 40R and the type of project that is currently at 30 Haven Street would be applicable in this area. Mr. Tuttle responded that there are too many issues with parking, road access and lot size in the downtown, but that the 30 Haven Street project has a parking lot behind the building and a garage under the building. Chairman Safina pointed out that this area has the advantage of grade change, which could allow for underground parking. Chairman Halsey stated that the Town should not limit itself. Developers should be given opportunities to be creative. Mr. Tuttle suggested adopting the tenets of 40R without involving the State. Chairman Halsey asked for clarification about how that would work. Mr. Arena asked if the Design Standards could just be added into the "Business B+" area. Chairman Safina said they would be considered Design Guidelines not Design Standards, and would be outside of zoning unless adopted as part of the 40R District. Chairman Safina gave an example of how the proposed Reading Village 40B project would have been required to look if it had been a 40R project. Chairman Halsey said residents have told him they now regret denying the original proposal to extend the 40R District across the railroad tracks. Having 40R there would have given the Town more control over development in that area. He added that the 40R District language exists for this purpose, and asked why the Town needs to reinvent its own local leverage. He opined that an extension of the 40R District would invite economic development. Mr. Tuttle said he is 100% in favor of what Chairman Halsey suggested, but hopes it will work the second time around. He said opportunities need to be added to spawn change. He suggested asking for the biggest extension the Town can approve. Chairman Safina suggested creating different Design Standards for different areas. Mr. Arena asked if 40R compels the Town to enforce the regulations. Chairman Safina replied that the Town can waive anything, but needs to consider the edges and what happens to abutting properties under a maximum build condition. He cautioned that the Commission should be careful when determining where the edge of the District should be. Chairman Halsey opined that creating opportunities for property owners is the goal, and that if 40R does not work, it can be reversed. The triangular area bounded by Haven Street, High Street and Main Street was discussed. Mr. LeLacheur asked about potential negative impacts to the existing apartment buildings in that area. Chairman Safina commented that these apartments are affordable for residents, though not on the Subsidized Housing Inventory, and that redevelopment would likely mean the Town would lose some of its more affordable units. Mr. Halsey stated that 40R includes an affordability component, and that higher value units would generate a better revenue stream for the Town which would help all boats rise. Mr. Arena asked about historical properties in the area. He commented that it is better to expand the 40R District that is already in place. Chairman Halsey said the 40R expansion creates many opportunities for the Town, residents and business owners. Chairman Safina asked if an affordability component can be added to other zoning districts. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative, through inclusionary zoning. Ms. Delios explained that the State has modified the 40R Regulations to allow different affordability requirements for projects depending on tenancy. She explained that 20% can be required for homeownership projects and 25% can be required for rental projects. Mr. LeLacheur asked if Design Standards were included when the 40R District first went to Town Meeting. Chairman Safina replied in the affirmative, and commented that these same Page 1 6 Standards may not be entirely applicable to the triangular area. He mentioned the possibility for sub -districts, especially for the Green/Gould Street area, within the 40R District. Chairman Halsey requested that preparation begin so the 40R expansion can go forward Ms. Mercier said that modifications to the Design Standards are not part of the Zoning Bylaw and can come later if needed. Mr. Tuttle added that the Design Standards can be negotiated with a project proponent as long as there is something appealing to attract development. Chairman Safina opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Rich Haggerty of 531 Main Street thanked the Town for having this discussion. He said that the downtown area needs opportunities and that he is always thinking of ways to redevelop his property. He opined that the proposal will be positive for tax revenue, and will bring people downtown to patronize the businesses. He noted the merits and drawbacks of 40R versus a regular overlay. 40R allows for expedited permitting but requires a difficult level of affordability. Mr. Haggerty asked if the Town has considered different affordability requirements for small projects in the 40R District. Ms. Delios said that the CPDC cannot waive the affordability requirement, but that Chapter 40R does have a provision for projects under a certain threshold. Ms. Mercier agreed to look into the threshold and add it to the 40R language amendment. Mr. Haggerty said he agrees parking is an issue downtown, but parking might be solved with development. Attorney Brad Latham spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He recommended the Town proceed with two different warrant articles for the areas under consideration. He agreed with a 20% affordability requirement for ownership projects. He noted that 40R allows for two sub -districts within an area, which could be added at a later Town Meeting. Mr. Jim Freeman of 505 Main Street thanked the Town for initiating the changes. He noted that he is a developer and is looking for a win-win with the Town. He said the eastern edge of the Business B Zoning District is a sensitive area and that some of the properties it abuts are investor-owned and might welcome being included, while others will not. He questioned if those properties should be included in the District. Chairman Safina responded that it is unclear whether the residential properties could be included or not, but that the Standards could address what happens along that edge. Mr. Tuttle added that the adjacent zoning in that area is A-40, which allows flexible multi -family residential uses. Mr. Mike Doyon, member of the Chamber of Commerce, opined that nothing negative will result from this proposal. The mixed-use will bring in a variety of people and new revenue. Mr. Arena asked the public to be sure to attend future hearings and meetings on the issue, and to show support at Town Meeting. Chairman Safina reminded everyone that 30 Haven is a good example of how a 40R project will work in the downtown area. Chairman Halsey commented that while the State seems to want maximum build -out, he believes residents just want opportunities. Chairman Safina asked if the warrant articles will be ready by the end of February. Ms. Mercier indicated that they are already in progress. Chairman Halsey agreed that having two articles is good strategy, as there might be a different vision for each district. He asked for the results from the CPDC by February 21St, and offered to add a meeting if needed. Mr. Arena requested that the vision for each area be provided for the public before Town Meeting. He suggested thinking about what is wanted and what might result. Page 1 7 Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Downtown Smart Growth District language and map on February 13, 2017. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Arena moved to adjourn the Board of Selectmen meeting at 9:37 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sexton and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. The CPDC took a short break and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Certificate of Appropriateness for Sicinaae, 676 Main Street AADWicant: Bruce Kidder, Caffe Nero Susan Bernstein, Bruce Kidder and Jay Gentile were present on behalf of the application. Ms. Bernstein said she is representing Caffe Nero. She introduced Bruce Kidder, Director of Construction, and Jay Gentile, Director of Operations. She explained that Caffe Nero will be going into the former wine shop location at 676 Main Street. She gave a brief overview of the history of the business and their specialty coffee product. She said they are requesting approval for three signs. Mr. Kidder described the proposal. He noted that the letters will be black and copper, and that the proposed blue color is trademarked. He said that the building faSade will be painted to match the existing color. The only lettering on the awning will be on the valence, and the only lighting will be the existing lights, which will be shifted slightly to accommodate the wall sign. Ms. Mercier agreed to correct the colors cited in the draft Certificate. Chairman Safina said he has no issues with the proposal. Mr. Tuttle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Caffe Nero, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Other Topics Minutes Mr. Tuttle moved to approve the November 7th minutes and November 29th minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 1/09/2017 CPDC Minutes 11/7/2016 and 11/29/2016 Recreational Marijuana Public Hearing: a) Copy of Legal Notice b) Draft Moratorium article prepared by Town Counsel c) Draft Prohibition article prepared by Town Counsel d) Miyares & Harrington Newsletter Brief Accessory Apartments: a) Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendment, prepared by Community Development Director 40R District Expansion: a) Background information from public forums b) Maps of areas under consideration c) Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendment, prepared by Community Development Director Caffe Nero Signage: a) Sign Permit Application and supporting documents b) Draft Certificate of Appropriateness Page 1 8