Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-13 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes � OFq c Town of Reading Meeting Minutes '6AA'IMOArT v� �. Board - committee - commission - Council: 1811 NOV 28 PM 3: 01 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2017-02-13 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room Address: 49 Pleasant Street Session: Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Karen Goncalves-Dolan, John Weston Members - Not Present: Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Economic Development Director Andrew Corona, Selectman Kevin Sexton, Selectman Barry Berman, Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders, Thad Berry, Bill Crowley, Kathy Tierney, Cindy & Mike Hanson, John Russell, Charles Salemi Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chair Nick Safina called the meeting to order. Continued Public Hearing. Zonlna Bylaw Amendments - April Town Meeting Recreational Marijuana Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission of their prior discussion of recreational marijuana on January 9`h, and explained the process with regards to the April election and April Town Meeting. Both the prohibition and the moratorium will be on the Warrant, but only the prohibition will be on the ballot. If the prohibition fails, then that article will not be moved at Town Meeting. She noted that at their request, Town Counsel prepared a separate article for the definition of`marijuana establishment'even though he is not sure it is necessary. Mr. Safina inquired as to what would happen if the prohibition falls at the polls, and then the moratorium fails at Town Meeting. Mr. Sexton suggested that a Special Town Meeting could be opened within April Town Meeting for a vote on a Zoning Bylaw amendment that would allow recreational marijuana in certain districts. The Commission could decide whether to do this after the April election. Mr. Tuttle opined that this scenario is the reason for having a separate article with just the definition - it will allow the Commission to regulate the use in the event that the prohibition and moratorium both fail. Mr. Weston pointed out that a definition in and of itself does not do anything. Mr. Safina noted that an article crafted for Special Town Meeting, if needed, would include a definition. The Commission reviewed the moratorium article and discussed the timeframe. Mr. Weston stated that the timeframe works with the Subsequent Town Meeting timeline if the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) actually promulgates regulations on schedule. The moratorium is Page I 1 scheduled to end in August 2018, and the Warrant for Subsequent Town Meeting closes in September 2018. Mr. Safina pointed out that the Commission could petition to extend the moratorium if needed. Mr. Tuttle clarified that the CCC is supposed to have regulations in place by March 2018. The Commission reviewed the prohibition article. Ms. Mercier pointed out that it is not yet clear if the Town will have to allow a recreational marijuana establishment if a medical marijuana establishment locates in Town. Mr. Sexton added that though proponents for medical marijuana do not believe this will happen, word is still out at the State level. Mr. Safina expressed dismay that the State could make such a leap. Mr. Sexton said that there has been no Indication of when the State will answer this question. Mr. Tuttle asked what needs to happen tonight. Ms. Mercier said that the Commission needs to vote on the articles and on their positions on the articles. Mr. Weston opined that the intent of prohibiting `marijuana cultivator' needs to be clear so that voters and Town Meeting members know It does not pertain to personal cultivation and use. He suggested it be made very clear within the background information of the Warrant article. Ms. Mercier offered to verify with Town Counsel that M.G.L. Chapter 94G excludes personal cultivation. Mr. Safina asked what the Town ballots will look like. Mr. Berman suggested that fact sheets should be Included. Mr. Sexton stated that he thinks there are very specific laws regarding how to write ballots and how to inform voters. The Commission discussed the merits of having a separate article with just the definition. Mr. Weston stated that the option to have a Special Town Meeting if all else fails Is a safety net; the Commission could then account for definitions and regulations. Mr. Safina opined that the Commission should just put forth the prohibition and moratorium articles. Mr. Weston clarified that the prohibition would be first, and would be tabled based on the outcome of the polls. Ms. Mercier clarified that if the prohibition passes at the polls, both articles could still be acted on at Town Meeting - the moratorium would provide added safety in case the Attorney General does not agree with the prohibition. Mr. Sexton asked why the prohibition would need to be voted on at Town Meeting if it passes at the polls. Ms. Mercier clarified that Town Meeting action is necessary for the prohibition to be in the Zoning Bylaw. The possibility exists that even if it passes at the polls, it could still fail at Town Meeting, which would mean it does not become part of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Safina asked for public comment. There was none. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC n_qt include the Definitions article on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC include the Moratorium article on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC include the Prohibition article on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC recommend support for the Moratorium at Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC recommend support for the Prohibition at Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 3-1-0 vote. Page 1 2 Public Hearing Zonina Bylaw Amendments April Town Meeting Ames ry Apartments Mr. Weston read the legal notice Into the record. Ms. Mercier outlined the changes she made since the Commission last discussed the article. Mr. Safina described the graphics he created for inclusion in the article. The Commission discussed potential unintended consequences of not allowing the location of new detached accessory apartments between "any exterior wall"and "any right-of-way." Mr. Safina noted that an accessory apartment should be secondary and should not appear as a separate single-family unit. Mr. Tuttle suggested the Commission consider allowing accessory apartments in the A-40 Zoning District. Ms. Mercier noted that two-family and multi-family are allowed in A-40. Mr. Sexton asked if an owner of a duplex unit in the A-40 Zoning District could add an accessory apartment. Mr. Tuttle responded that the language in the Accessory Apartments bylaw specifies that they are only allowed in addition to single-family dwellings. Mr. Safina Inquired as to the extent of the A-40 Zoning District boundary. Ms. Delios put the Zoning Map on the screen. Mr. Safina opined that at first glance he is okay with allowing this in A-40. The members all agreed. Mr. Weston questioned the practicality of not allowing additions to a barn or carriage house to convert it. Ms. Mercier clarified that additions would only be prohibited to structures within the area between "any exterior wall" and "any right-of-way."A structure at the rear of a lot could be added onto in order to be converted. Mr. Weston suggested this language be made clear. He asked about a scenario in which a portion of a carriage house is within the front but the rest is in the back - and whether the Commission care if someone added onto the back. A lengthy discussion ensued, resulting In the addition of"No Build Area" language to the article. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that Subsection j specifically addresses increases in gross Floor area to structures built prior to 1910. Mr. Safina asked for clarification of the wording and the intent. The Commission agreed that an existing structure that is partially within the"No Build Area" should be able to be added onto but only to the portion that is outside of the"No Build Area." No extension or additions would be allowed to the portion of the structure within the "No Build Area." Mr. Safina asked for public comment. There was none. Mr. Tuttle moved to dose the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC include the Accessory Apartment article, as amended, on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC recommend support for the Accessory Apartment article at Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 4-0- 0 vote. Page 1 3 Public Hearing Zoning Bylaw Amendments - April Town Meeting Downtown Smart Growth District (40R Overlay) Mr. Weston read the legal notice Into the record. Ms. Mercier outlined the changes she made since the Commission last discussed the article. Splitting the percentage of affordable units by tenancy type, and excluding small projects of 12 units or less from the affordability requirement, are both allowed under Chapter 40R. Mr. Safina mentioned that the Commission has received letters of support for expanding the Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD). He opined that the 12-unit threshold for small projects seems too high, and he suggested that the Commission should consider creating sub-districts that acknowledge the unique Identity of the neighborhoods at a later date. Ms. Mercier explained that the 12-unit threshold came directly from the Chapter 40R statute. Mr. Weston clarified that two articles are under consideration - a language amendment and a map amendment. He asked about the logic behind bifurcating the affordable percentage by tenancy type. Ms. Mercier explained that Increasing the rental project requirement from 20% to 25% aligns with Chapter 40B regulations and allows all the units in a rental project to count towards the Town's Subsidized Housing Inventory. This same provision does not exist for ownership projects, so keeping the ownership project affordability requirement at 20% helps maintain the economic viability of such projects. Mr. Safina said he would like to hear the 20% versus 25% affordability argument from developers. Mr. Tuttle opined that expanding the 40R Overlay creates opportunities, and pointed out that the map amendment aligns with the extent that was originally considered in 2009. Mr. Safina explained the outlines on the map. Ms. Mercier clarified that the green shading depicts all the owners who were notified of the proposed change, while the blue line is the Business B Zoning District boundary. In some areas, the green shading bleeds beyond the blue line, which indicates a split-zoned lot. Mr. Safina asked for public comment. Jim Freeman, developer and owner of 505 Main Street, expressed his support for the map change. He noted that he is currently doing a 16-unit 40B project in Plymouth and is barely breaking even due to the 25% affordability requirement. He asked if the 12-unit threshold could be higher. Mr. Safina replied that the commercial aspect of 40R could help subsidize the residential component. Mr. Freeman noted the need to stimulate opportunities on upper Floors, and stated support for the small project relief. Mr. Safina expressed concern that the Commission will be inundated with small projects. Mr. Freeman responded that the overall density requirement could help mitigate the number of small projects. Jill Mayberry of 16 Chapin Avenue asked how a potential 4011 development would work on a split-zoned lot. Ms. Mercier noted that the lots are currently split-zoned, and that the 40R district expansion is proposed to fallow the existing Business B Zoning District boundary. Mr. Safina opined that splitting lots is not good practice. Ms. Mercier agreed, but noted that It is a Town-wide problem, and is not just limited to this area. She pointed out Zoning Bylaw Section 3.4.1, which allows a 30' zone extension for lots in two zoning districts. Mr. Safina noted that continuing the split by following the Business B boundary works against what is intended, and opined that the 4011 Overlay could be expanded further Into the A-40 area. Mr. Sexton opined that if the 4011 Overlay is not expanded enough it is useless to expand it at all, as the point of this change is to entice development. He said that expanding It partly into a residential zone may be what is needed, and suggested that the Commission include the entirety of the split-zoned lots, at a minimum. Ms. Mercier cautioned that the Commission has to stay within the four corners of what was advertised and who was notified if they put forth different boundaries for expansion. Page 1 4 Mr. Safina asked If anyone in the audience is opposed to expanding the 40R Overlay. No one responded. He asked for opinions on the boundaries and sub-district guidelines. Mr. Tuttle opined that the existing bylaw Is workable. Mr. Weston agreed and noted that there has been a lot of discussion about Green Street and Gould Street, but that it Is hard to see that area changing dramatically. Mr. Weston opined that the 12-unit threshold is too high and that the Town could take an enormous step backward in terms of reaching the 10% affordable housing goal. He noted that while 40R is not going to solve all of Reading's affordable housing problems, the Town should not move backwards. Ms. Mercier reminded him of the 40R statute. He commented that one-size does not fit-all when it comes to a town's capacity for development. Mr. Tuttle mentioned that it would be nice not to be subject to 40B developments but that In his opinion meeting the 10% is unrealistic for Reading. He stated that the Town is well built- out with the character it wants and that it should not spend so much time chasing an unattainable goal. Mr. Weston responded that the Town will continue to have developments It does not want pushed on it if it does not keep trying to meet the goal, and those projects will change the overall character of the Town. He pointed out that the Town already has a lot of ground Floor commercial space, but that adding housing downtown will add people and vibrancy to the area. Mr. Safina commented that 40R will not solve the housing problem but that it may help with economic development. He opined that some of the existing commercial could be improved. He asked for clarification of the 40B safe harbors. Ms. Delios responded that permitting or constructing 0.5% of 10% In a 12-month period achieves a one-year safe harbor from 40Bs for the Town. For Reading, 0.5% is equivalent to 48 units. Mr. Safina stated that the Town has to hope developers choose 40R over 40B. He noted that he would like to see pro formas that demonstrate that the affordable percentages really do not work. Ms. Mercier asked how the Commission wants to draw the boundaries for the proposed 40R expansion. She suggested two articles might be best - one that includes the whole area, and one that just Includes Main Street. The Commission pushed back on having two separate articles. A lengthy discussion ensued. Ms. Mercier commented that many people, who do not speak the 'planning' language, know what they experience and are not familiar with the nuances of zoning. The Green and Gould Street area is residential and owners live there, whereas Main Street is commercial. Despite the fact that no new residential is allowed under Business B, and that expanding the 40R Overlay primarily encourages the development of housing, mixed-use might feel more Intuitive to people along Main Street. She expressed concern that just going forward with the whole area may not be a home-run because there is not enough time for the education that is needed. Mr. Sexton suggested that two articles would give Town Meeting a choice, and cautioned that Town Meeting may not see this issue as cut and dry. Mr. Weston opined that going with two articles sends a message that the Commission does not know what It wants, but it does know what it wants, and that it is not good planning to just do one piece at a time. The area under consideration Is not that big, and the optics of doing two articles are not good. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that all the residential downtown is pre-existing non-conforming. Ms. Mercier stated that It seems many people who live downtown do not realize that. Mr. Safina questioned whether going with the easy option is the best solution. Page 1 5 Mr. Sexton asked the Commission their thoughts on the split-zoned lots. Mr. Weston stated that if they extend the 4011 Overlay to the Business B Zoning District boundary, then they need to look at Section 3.4.1 more closely - perhaps at November 2017 Town Meeting. Mr. Sexton suggested the Commission consider how Town Meeting will view splitting lots. Mr. Freeman stated his recollection of the Zoning Workshop last April was that the Main Street corridor had the most support for re-zoning, and then the Green/Gould triangular area was added. He suggested that the Main Street corridor be treated as a corridor and proposed as a separate area for 40R Overlay expansion. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that a decision Is needed tonight for the Warrant. Ms. Delios mentioned that the Main Street area is important due to upcoming property turnover. Mr. Safina suggested proposing the whole area as one article. Mr. Weston agreed. Mr. Tuttle moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves- Dolan and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC include the DSGD language amendment article on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC include all of the Business B Zoning District in the DSGD map amendment article, and include the article on the Warrant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC recommend support for the DSGD language amendment and the DSGD map amendment articles at Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Definitive Subdivision - `Lyle Estates' Applicant: Jamieson Properties LLC 364 Lowell Street Thad Berry, P:E., and Bill Crowley, Attorney, were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Mercier gave an overview of progress since the Commission last discussed the project in June 2016. She noted that the Applicant figured out a way to comply with the cul-de-sac radius requirements of the Fire Department, has reduced the pavement width, removed the sidewalk, and Is in ongoing discussions with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Berry explained that the Conservation Commission has done a site walk and asked for some plan changes. The wetlands and lot boundaries have been staked out and the Conservation Commission has done a site walk. The Applicant hopes to be back before the Conservation Commission in late February. He mentioned that additional signage will be added along the side property line to prevent abutters from dumping into the wetland areas, and that existing trash will be cleaned out and invasive plants removed. The swale at the rear of the property up to the start of the MBTA culvert will be cleaned and restored to proper function. Mr. Safina asked whether the Applicant has addressed the lengthy memo from the Town Engineer. Mr. Berry responded that most of the comments have been addressed or are being worked on. Mr. Safina asked about landscaping and screening to abutters. Mr. Berry pointed out the landscape strip on the Wetland Restoration Plan, which provides for trees and shrubs along the back of the lots as buffers. Mr. Berry also noted that the tree inventory has been revised to Include trees of 3" caliper or greater. Page 16 Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant will be cutting into Lowell Street and asked that it be conditioned that they repave from curb to curb and 10' beyond. Mr. Berry said this is already noted on Sheet C6. Ms. Mercier agreed to add a condition to the Decision. Mr. Safina noted that 20 degrees off axis is okay in terms of solar orientation, and stated that tree cover should also be considered when determining solar feasibility. Mr. Safina asked for public comment. Kathy Tierney of 33 Plymouth Road asked whether plantings would be proposed along the southern property line as well. Mr. Berry responded that restoration will be done after that area Is cleaned. Cindy Hanson of 17 Plymouth Road asked if the plantings will be large enough to provide screening. Mike Hanson of 17 Plymouth Road asked what digging of the trench behind his property would entail and expressed concerns about additional water running into his yard, which is already a problem. Mr. Safina explained that the water is potentially due to the fact that the ditch has not been maintained and that overgrowth is preventing the flow. Mr. Berry added that once the trash, debris and invasive plants are removed, the drainage situation will be vastly improved. He explained that the stream's connection to the ditch was severed when sewer and gas lines were Installed in the late 1950s, that the ditch was filled In when the Plymouth Road development was built, and that subsequent dumping into the wetland have exacerbated the situation. He urged the Commission to visit the site, and noted that an overflow and control valve will be added so that the ditch can function even if it gets clogged in the future. Mr. Weston asked whether the intent is to leave the Zone of Natural Vegetation (ZNV) on Sheet C3 in a natural condition. Mr. Berry responded that some of It is already disturbed or filled in with phragmites, but that the intent is to plant and revegetate it so it replicates the visual and natural impact of a wetland. Mr. Hanson commented that over the past 60 years he has never seen any trash in the ditch, and that there Is no way the ditch can be cleaned without an excavator. Mr. Safina said that the Conservation Commission will ultimately decide how the ditch Is cleaned. John Russell of 23 Plymouth Road asked how the Applicant was able to comply with the Fire Department's turning radius requirement. Mr. Berry indicated that the radius was increased to 46', the lot lines were adjusted, and that the home sizes were decreased. Charles Salemi of 374 Lowell Street explained that there is a 100' foot pine tree behind his house that will be exposed and unsafe after the trees are removed for the development. He said he will have to pay for removal, which will be expensive. Mr. Berry suggested it could be removed when they remove the other trees. Mr. Weston noted that since it is on private property, and not on the development site, the Commission cannot require the Applicant to take it down, but suggested that Mr. Salemi work it out off-line with Mr. Berry. Mr. Weston noted that snow storage areas should be coordinated with landscaping and Conservation Commission requirements. Mr. Berry responded that there is a large grass area and a 5' roadway maintenance easement area for snow stockpiling. Mr. Hanson asked the reasoning behind the waivers that the Applicant Is seeking, and what it means for the Commission to grant waivers. Mr. Crowley explained the road width waivers and noted that the existing house and curb cut limit the width and location of the proposed road. He explained that`No Parking'signs will be added along one side of the road. Mr. Weston pointed out that the Commission has granted waivers for every subdivision they have seen in the past 10 years. He explained that issuing waivers is not a big deal if there is Pape 1 7 appropriate justification for doing so, and opined that the roadway layout requirements of the Subdivision Regulations are wider than need be. Ms. Mercier noted that the Commission may want to revise the Regulations at some point in the next few years. She explained that the Town Engineer has reviewed the requested waivers and has no problem with them. Other Topics Minutes The Commission decided to review the minutes at their next meeting. Mr. Tuttle moved to adjoum the meeting at 10:56 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 2/13/2017 CPDC Minutes 1/9/17 Recreational Marijuana - Continued Public Hearing: a) Revised Moratorium article, prepared by Town Counsel b) Revised Prohibition article, prepared by Town Counsel c) Definition article, prepared by Town Counsel Accessory Apartments - Public Hearing: a) Legal Notice b) Accessory Apartment bylaw amendment, Public Hearing Draft, dated 2/13/17 Downtown Smart Growth District- Public Hearing: a) Legal Notice J) Proposed 40R Expansion Area Map c) Downtown Smart Growth District bylaw amendment, Public Hearing Draft d) Materials and presentations from prior zoning workshops and public forums 364 Lowell Definitive Subdivision - Continued Public Hearing: a) Summary of Revisions, dated 1/3/17 b) Project Data Report, dated 1/3/17 c) Revised Waiver List, dated 10/17/16 d) Lot Closure Report e) Operations & Maintenance Plan f) Revised Definitive Subdivision Plan Set, dated 1/3/17 g) Revised Drainage Plans, dated 1/3/17 h) Memo from Town Engineer, dated 2/8/17 i) Memo from Conservation Administrator, dated 2/8/17 j) Revised Draft Decision, dated 2/13/17 Page 1 8