Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-01 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading ! I Meeting Minutes Board - Committee- Commission - council: 2019 in 26 p'M I1 38 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018-10-01 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julle Mercler, Staff Planner Andrew MacNlchol, Robert McIsaac, Mike DiBacico, Kevin Roche, Richard Bova, George Rio, Andrew Weaver, Christopher Vaccaro, Brian Kelly, Mary Ellen and Dennis LaCroix, Steven Cicatelli, Marcia Brown, Josh Latham, Bob Morelli, Mike Moynihan, Trevor Bloom, Armen Harootlan, Lois and Stephen Garneau, Nick Bonanno, Joe DeMita, Pearl Bolger, Claire Bolger, Louis Silva, Loretta Comeau, Sally Roemer, Shari and Kurt Therrien Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Minor Amendment. PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods. O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina, taking the agenda out of order, read into the record the Applicant has requested the hearing to be continued until November 5, 2018 at 7:30 PM. Ms. Hitch made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to November 5, 2018 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan 40 Grove Street, David Orvosh Attorney Josh Latham and Jack Sullivan were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read the legal notice. Attorney Josh Latham apologized to the Commission that due to a previous commitment the Applicant David Orvosh was not able to attend the public hearing; he then presented the proposal for the definitive subdivision at 40 Grove Street. Page 1 1 Mr. Latham provided the existing conditions: • The existing lot is 57,640 square feet with 167.13 frontage; • It Is within the 5-15 and Aquifer Protection Overlay (AQP) District; • The existing dwelling was built In 1850 and Is listed on the Reading Historical Properties list; • The garage is a newer outbuilding and not on the Historic list; • The property is wooded with mature trees and sloped; and • The property complies to zoning except for the front-yard setback on the existing dwelling. Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Weston arrived at the meeting. Mr. Latham discussed the proposal for one (1) additional house lot in the rear of the property: • The proposal can conform to all conventional requirements under the subdivision regulations; • The subdivision regulations are not entirely rational for the addition of one new house lot; • The Applicant Is Instead proposing a low-Impact subdivision that requires several waivers, and will include a 40' right-of-way layout and a shared driveway concept; • The entrance from Grove Street will be 24'wide and the driveways will be 11'to 12' wide; • The proposed "country drainage"design will result in less Impact to the site; • The existing row of 6"trees and the 50" Beech tree will not have to be removed; • The proposed rain garden will allow for a buffer zone between neighbors; and • There will be less impervious area. Mr. Latham reiterated the proposal conforms to the subdivision regulations but asked If it Is rational to require so much for just one additional house lot. He requested the Commission grant waivers to allow the low-Impact subdivision. Mr. lack Sullivan from Sullivan Engineering Group gave an overview of the property: • Trees 6"or greater will remain on the perimeter of the property; • The mature trees will not be removed for construction of the new dwelling; • Native trees will buffer the abutting properties; • One curb-cut, which is 24'wide at the street, will serve the existing and proposed dwellings; • A 2'wide crushed stone trench will be installed in the middle to separate the driveways and provide drainage; • Utilities will be provided to the new dwelling; • There have been two DIRT meetings and one Informal discussion with the CPDC; • Input from the Fire Department requested fire service to the new dwelling; • Soll testing that was witnessed by the Town Engineering Division in the proposed rain garden and drywell areas showed sand and gravel; • The proposal limits the amount of drainage structures; • The road will remain private and the Homeowners Association will be required to maintain it properly; • The drainage on the new dwelling will Flow to a trench drywell and crushed stone; • If there is a larger storm event, the trench drywell overflows to a rain garden with a rip-rap spreader at the entrance on Grove Street; • The Town Engineer supports the drainage and the waivers; • The right-of-way exists on paper but the Commission will be waiving all roadway construction; and • The proposed dwelling is —290' off of Grove Street. Mr. Latham concluded the presentation: • The right-of-way will be a private road; Page 1 2 • The proposal is for members of the Homeowners Association to have common responsibility to maintain the service, utilities, their own driveways, and to keep the right-of-way open; • The trash pickup will be on Grove Street along with the mailboxes; • The roadway will be treated similar to a driveway; and • The Homeowners Association Covenants will be submitted to the Town. Ms. Adrian said the property is in the S-15 District which allows a daycare; she asked If the driveway would accommodate vehicle tum-around In case a daycare Is proposed in the future. Mr. Latham responded the driveway was designed for a single-family dwelling and suggested adding to the covenant to limit the home to single-family use. Mr. Safina asked if adding to the covenant will override the Dover Amendment Rule. Mr. Latham explained it will not be a condition of the approval; it will be a private covenant. Ms. Hitch asked for clarification of the lot lines. Mr. Sullivan explained the location of the two lots. Ms. Hitch clarified she wanted to make sure a third dwelling could not be proposed In the future. Mr. Sullivan described how a third lot would not fit on the property. Ms. Mercier said she adds a condition to the Decision that further subdivision is not allowed. Mr. Tuttle said the existing home on Grove Street is on the National Historical Register and asked if the Reading Historical Commission (RHC) approved the proposal to change the frontage and reorient the existing home. Mr. Latham replied the RHC have been supportive and stated their approval at the earlier meeting. Mr. Tuttle commented he Is supportive of the proposal, but questioned if there are provisions in the Homeowners Agreement for disputes and resolutions. Mr. Latham replied the same language has been used for the last 20 years and has been well tested. The driveway and rain garden maintenance by the homeowner are common obligations. Mr. Tuttle cautioned over the years situations can get less friendly. Mr. Safina asked what is being proposed for fuel and If a truck could turn around at the back. Mr. Sullivan responded the fuel has not been chosen as of yet and there Is a turn- around for the homeowner that could be utilized. He agreed the driveway is too long for someone to safely back out onto Grove Street. Mr. Safina asked if there Is a restriction on where a propane tank can be located. Mr. Sullivan replied that the property is not in a conservation area and there is not a restriction on propane in the AQP District. Mr. Safina commented that the proposal Is for trash to be picked up on Grove Street and requested language in the Decision that does not allow a shed in the right-of-way. Mr. Latham replied a condition from the Engineering Department is that the right-of-way must remain open and natural, and structures are not allowed. Mr. Safina asked if there is a concern with the lot shape. Mr. Sullivan replied he does not believe it is an issue, but defers to the Planning Department. Mr. Safina opened the meeting for public comment. Attorney Christopher Vaccaro said he is representing Kurt and Shari Therrien owners of 48 Grove Street who abut the property of 40 Grove Street. He provided his clients comments: • Traffic is a concern in this area and a traffic study should be required; • Brush growing by the street interferes with the sight lines and the proposed plan does not account for the sight lines; • The existing utility pole located at the edge of his clients'driveway is a concern because when snow piles up around the pole it creates a visibility problem; • A condition should be added to the Decision that the brush should be maintained; • There is not a precedent for the wavier on the Environmental Impact Study - perhaps it could be mitigated but should not be waived even for a small project; and • Is there assurance the utilities will be Installed underground. Page 1 3 Mr. Latham responded there are provisions for the sight lines in the Homeowners Association and the brush cannot exceed 3' in height. He added the utilities are proposed to be underground. Mr. Vaccaro responded as follows: • Does maintaining shrubs 3' in height allow for adequate sight lines; • Who has the power to enforce the sight line covenant- Town, abutters etc.; • The abutters are concerned with the lack of screening between the properties; • The Homeowners Association should address the maintenance of the rain garden; • The abutters'driveway is close to the property line and they have not been successful in growing plants due to the lack of space In the area; and • To help with the sight lines, curbing and sidewalks should be installed between driveways to ensure there will be no growth in vegetation. Mr. Vaccaro acknowledged the Applicant strived to come up with a good plan but stated his clients have concerns that they have not been able to address with the owner until today. Mr. Sullivan addressed the location of the existing utility pole. He explained the utility company installs the poles at the edge of the lot line so as not to encroach onto private properties. He said there is some vegetation between properties that could be beefed up but the Town standard for vegetation is usually 15' to 20' back and 3' high. Mr. Sullivan gave opined that the proposal to add one dwelling should not require a traffic study. Mr. Latham said both the brush sight lines and the rain garden maintenance are addressed in the Homeowners Association Covenants and agreed the underground utilities can be added as a condition. He noted that adding a sidewalk deviates from the Intent to reduce Impervious area. Mr. Safina said there are no sidewalks on that side of the street and questioned why the Commission would require one In that area. Mr. Kurt Therrien from 48 Grove Street further explained a few points Mr. Vaccaro brought forward: • The existing berm will raise the brush higher than 3'and would block his view; • Installing a sidewalk would prevent vegetation growth and allow someone to stand in the area and enjoy the rain garden; • He suggested planting trees to provide screening for the abutting property when the season changes; • The existing utility pole blocks his view when pulling out of his driveway; and • There is a 20'easement requirement for sight and moving the utility pole in line with the easement would not affect anything. Mr. Safina said the site will be regraded to allow for the rain garden which will reduce the grade. Mr. Sullivan clarified the scrub brush will be eliminated and the area will be opened up, but once the vegetation grows back It cannot exceed 3'In height. Mr. Safina said the edge of pavement slopes to the edge but questioned how much grading was needed from the property line to the rain garden. Mr. Sullivan responded there will be regrading for the rain garden but there Is a minor change in order to save the existing 7"tree at the property line. Mr. Safina said the property line is back from the edge of the pavement, so trees and shrubs are not actually in the way. Mr. Sullivan said removing the shrubs will improve sight lines, but the existing utility pole will remain a problem. Mr. Safina stated he would be surprised if the utility company would move the pole. Mr. Sullivan replied Reading Municipal Light Department has to authorize the move of a utility pole. Mr. Safina requested evergreens be planted. Mr. Sullivan agreed to work with the abutters on where to add more screening to'Parcel A'. Mr. Latham confirmed the Applicant will work with the abutters on additional screening. Page 14 Mr. Safina asked if the Environmental Impact Study (EIR) is required. Mr. Latham responded the subdivision regulations are somewhat outdated. The study is intended for a subdivision with many lots, this proposal is just two lots with a low-Impact design. Mr. Tuttle said the plan shows the existing garage to be razed, and asked if there is a proposal for a new garage. Mr. Latham replied the owner does not Intend to have a garage at this time. Mr. Weston added that the right-of-way must stay clear of structures. Mr. Therrien commented on the response from Mr. Latham that the EIR, traffic and storm water is not an Issue when adding one house lot. He said the EIR is more than what was presented; it is about archeological, historical and habitat concerns. Mr. Steve Garneau from 39 Grove Street who lives directly across from 40 Grove Street gave his approval for the proposal. He said the new dwelling is set back from the road and the only person who should have a concern is the resident on Lowell Street. The proposal will not impact the existing heavy traffic. Mr. Garneau asked for clarification on the rain garden and who is responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Sullivan replied It Is a shallow depression with plants that collects stormwater. The rain garden will require maintenance as written in the Operations & Maintenance Report and will be honored by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Garneau asked the grade of the rain garden. Mr. Sullivan said the grade is lower than the roadway. Mr. Armen Harootian from 327 Lowell Street said he has no concern with the proposal and gave his opinion It will have no Impact on the abutters. A resident said he is an abutter and commented he did not have a problem with the development. Ms. Mercier, Community Development Director, said the lot shape could be a zoning Issue. Mr. Sullivan presented a solution to make sure the subdivision compiles with Town Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Mercier said the change will be added to the Decision as a condition and new plans shall be submitted. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision at Nichols Estate on 40 Grove Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0- 0 vote. Ms. Mercier received the document from the owners of 48 Grove Street reflecting their concerns with the development. Ms. Mercier said the lot line will be required to be changed and the updated plan submitted before the plan can be endorsed by the Commission. She said the condition for additional screening will need to be addressed prior to occupancy. Ms. Hitch asked If a condition should be added requiring the utilities to be underground. Ms. Mercier replied she will add a condition, but believes the Town requires all new utilities to be underground. Ms. Hitch asked If the area where the abutters requested a sidewalk and curb could be addressed. Mr. Safina said decreasing the grade will Improve the area and give residents a place to stand. Mr. Sullivan explained a solution that will not compromise the existing tree. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant will need to seek Engineering approval to level the area in the public right-of-way. Mr. Safina agreed the area should be levelled, but stated it should not be brought down to the street because It will cause the road to erode. The Commission reviewed the request for waivers. Ms. Mercier said she confirmed with Chuck Tirone, the Conservation Administrator, that there are no wetlands. Page 1 5 Mr. Safina asked what a traffic study would prove. Ms. Hitch said she is familiar with the area and understands the concern from the abutters. Mr. Tuttle agreed there is an existing concern but said the proposal doesn't add to it. Mr. Weston said if mitigation were required, this proposal is exactly what he would propose. Mr. Tuttle said removal of the existing driveway will improve the traffic flow. Mr. Vaccaro provided a view from the abutter's driveway. Mr. Safina said the best the development can do Is clean up the area between the two properties and create a sight line to the right. Mr. Vaccaro asked if the area would be cleaned up too much and a parking space will be created. Mr. Safina said according to the plan there is plenty of parking available on the property. Mr. Safina asked if waiving the EIR would be an issue. Ms. Mercier responded that other recent subdivisions have required Conservation approval because of the presence of resource areas. In this case, the Conservation Administrator has reviewed the plans and commented on the rain garden and storm water features. She gave her opinion the reduced amount of impervious in the AQP is a step in the right direction. Mr. Safina asked if the Applicant will light the driveway. Mr. Latham replied there will be no light poles installed. Ms. Mercier said the Commission needs to vote to waive the requirements to construct a full right-of-way and create the driveway. She reviewed with Mr. Sullivan the requirements of the size of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Safina asked what material will be used on the driveway shoulder. Mr. Sullivan replied It will be a crushed stone trench on one side with loam and seed on the other side. He added everything is graded toward the trench. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the waivers as amended for the Definitive Subdivision at Nichols Estate on 40 Grove Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Latham said he has no Issues with the conditions in the Decision. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision at Nichols Estate on 40 Grove Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Safina announced Johnson Woods has continued until November 5, 2018. Continued Public Hearino. Site Plan Review 292_faka 288) Grove Street. Meadow Brook Golf Club Attorney Brian McGrail, Andrew Weaver, Bob Morelli, Kevin Roche and Jack Sullivan were present on behalf of the Application. Attorney Brian McGrail, representing the Applicant, reminded the Commission the proposal is to raze the existing clubhouse and construct a new clubhouse. Since the last meeting In July there has been correspondence with Town staff. He introduced Kevin Roche the President of Meadowbrook Golf Club, Andrew Weaver the Architect and Jack Sullivan the Site Engineer. Mr. McGrail handed out a packet to the Commission. Mr. McGrail said many concerns by the Commission at the last meeting were engineering - curb locations and drainage. He said Mr. Sullivan has been working with the Town Engineer and read the recently submitted memo from the Town Engineer. Mr. McGrail brought forward the seating and occupancy analysis that was requested by the Commission. He said the Applicant has continuously stated It Is Meadowbrook's desire to Page 1 6 construct a new clubhouse and provide their memberships a state-of-the-art building, but the club does not want to substantially extend the non-conforming use of the building. Mr. McGrail said a memo prepared by Mr. Weaver that relates to the occupancy has been provided to the Commission. He addressed the correspondence from the neighbors that questioned the accuracy of the submitted documentation. The neighbors believe the allowable occupancy load of the existing clubhouse Is 184; this number contradicts what was submitted by Mr. Weaver. Mr. McGrail said his client wanted to investigate the discrepancy and attended a meeting with the Building Commissioner, Assistant Fire Chief, Community Development Director, Staff Planner and Assistant Town Manager to discuss the allowable occupancy load. In the process, it was found that dating back to 2014 the Certificate of Inspection occupancy load incorrectly matched the 184 seating count that is submitted to the Town Manager's Office for the Common Victualler's License and the Health Division for food permits. The Certificate of Inspection occupancy load should be based on the Building Cade calculation not the seating. Mr. McGrail provided previous applications that were submitted to the Town, previous Certificates of Inspection that were issued and an email that was sent by Kim Saunders, Permits Coordinator, to Ms. Mercier as backup to prove how and when the discrepancy happened. Mr. McGrail continued his discussion on the occupancy load and said at the meeting with the Town officials the study that was generated by Mr. Weaver was discussed. The Town officials suggested doing an analysis of the entire building and not just where the events occur. He said the occupancy load for the existing clubhouse Is 427 people and for the proposed clubhouse is 292 people. The occupancy load for areas where people will be congregating In the existing club house is 336 the in the proposed club house is 225. The outdoor decks are not Included in the occupancy load. Mr. McGrail said the number of seats and the occupancy load are two different items. The neighborhood feels that the Intensity of use Is predicated on the seating capacity. He reiterated that Meadowbrook has no desire to expand the non-conforming use of the building. The existing occupancy load is much greater than the proposed. The Applicant is requesting 200 seats, but Is amenable if the Commission wants to ensure no extension of use and add a condition to the Decision that only 184 seats are allowed. Mr. McGrail said in addition to the inside seating, there is seasonal outside accessory deck seating. The existing deck allows 36 seats; the proposed terrace deck will allow 36 seats with two couches and two stock chairs with a total of 10 additional seats. To limit the use of the site, the terrace deck will not be utilized for private functions after 9:00 PM. Mr. McGrail said the proposed outdoor pool deck will have 20 seats and is intended to accommodate the members who are at the pool and would like to have lunch and not have to change Into street clothes. The area could be closed after 3:00 PM except for egress and access to the clubhouse. He said adding a condition to the Decision limiting the seating of the deck and porch, and use of both the terrace deck and the outdoor porch shows the Intent is not to extend the non-conforming use. Mr. McGrail stated another concern that has been raised Is that the new facility will Intensify the functions. He noted that the Applicant recognizes the concern and to be cooperative is willing to entertain conditions. Mr. McGrail provided data since 2013 on events and functions at Meadowbrook Golf Club and pointed out all of the community events. The events that have been held are small in nature and do not exceed 140 people. He brought forward the neighbor's memo dated September 12, 2018 that references the 140 seats that is advertised on the website and read the language that was on the website. Mr. McGrail reiterated that the sole purpose of the construction of the clubhouse Is to provide a state-of-the-art facility and there will be no substantial extension of use. The draft Decision reflects what has been proposed tonight, but the Applicant is willing to add Page 1 7 conditions if the Commission deslres. He gave his opinion of"substantial extension"and said the neighbors raised a good Issue on the occupancy. Mr. Tuttle said the Certlficate of Inspection needs to be corrected. Ms. Mercier replied the Certificate of Inspection will be corrected this month when the new Certificate is issued. Mr. Roche said the Inspection with the Building and Fire Department is scheduled on October 17, 2018. Mr. Weston said he has been concerned that the proposal would create a more intense facility with an Increased use of the facility. The opportunity to have more or larger events was a concern, not more members. He said based on a prior website that used 150 seats as an event maximum and the discussion tonight, he has no concerns with limiting them to 200 seats. The Applicant submitted enough information to prove that the past and future uses are more or less the same. Mr. Safina said he was trying to reconcile the numbers between the July 301h and Octoberl" memos and asked the difference with the seating. Mr. Weston clarified that the difference is that the new memo does not Include the outside seating. Mr. Weaver confirmed the October 1" memo eliminated outdoor seating because it is not considered part of the occupancy load. Mr. Safina read a few numbers from the memo. Mr. McGrail explained the seating in the July 30'h memo goes with the earlier Certificate of Inspection, and after a discussion with the Town agreed outdoor seating is seasonal and is limited In time. Mr. Weaver explained that between the two memos, the occupancy load is the same but the seating is different. Ms. Hitch said she is trying to understand the complicated situation and asked if the occupancy load is 184. Mr. Weaver said 184 is the seating capacity not the occupancy load. Ms. Hitch asked based on the Certificate if there were 200 people in the club whether that would violate the occupancy load. Mr. McGrail said the occupancy load error happened to other businesses throughout Town. Ms. Mercier confirmed the error is not limited to the Club. Ms. Hitch asked for clarification of whether the occupancy load would be limited to 200 people in the proposed building. Mr. Roche clarified 200 is indoor seating and the occupancy load is outlined in the memo from Mr. Weaver. The occupancy load is required by the Fire Department and Building Division to determine the load for the building. The 200 seating is being proposed to limit maximum seating to help eliminate any concerns about expansion of use. Mr. Safina said the occupancy load is based on safety features such as egress. Ms. Hitch asked what the maximum would be allowed inside the facility. Mr. Tuttle replied 324 is the Occupancy load. Mr. Roche said the 200 maximum seating will be conditioned for the new facility. Mr. McGrail added that private functions will be limited to 140 people. Mr. Roche clarified that all dining and seating will be upstairs and the maximum is 200 seats. Mr. D'Arezzo said his concern was if there was seating and dining on both Floors the amount of people could have increased. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comments. Attorney Steven Cicatelll, representing the direct abutters across the street, said he was not aware of the memos that were provided to the Commission. He stated that the Commission should be concerned about whether there is a change in quality and character of the use. The Common Victualler and Liquor License presume inside and outside seating, and the 184 count Is documented for the pre-existing use. The outdoor seating will increase the number of seats. He said the change of use will be expanded and the facility has more unique spaces that can be combined to service functions. Mr. Cicatelli commented on the following: • There are concerns with traffic and delivery trucks; • This is a commercial development in a residential zone and a traffic study will provide Information if the character or the quality of use will change; • There are photographs provided by Mr. Bonanno that show trucks Idling on Grove Street waiting to get into the site; page 18 • There are some larger trucks that cannot take the turn on Grove Street; • A traffic study will provide Information on the level of service or other intersections relative to queueing; • The discussion of adding conditions is taken out of order - first it should be determined if the proposal is an expansion then conditions placed; • How can the conditions be enforced and events monitored - the Building Inspector and Select Board will not get Involved in daily monitoring of the club; • What exactly Is being permitted - the Applicant announced to the neighborhood that pieces of land will be sold for new house lots to help fund the new facility; and • What Is the validity of this permit if some land Is sold off to fund the project. Mr. Cicatelli concluded that the building should be relocated to provide additional parking, a longer driveway for better queueing and safety for pedestrians. Mr. Mike DiBacco from 422 Grove Street asked if there will be additional off-street parking spaces. Mr. Safina said at the last meeting the Applicant was asked if parking along the street will be allowed. Ms. Mercier replied currently there Is no regulation on that side, but the Engineering Division requested granite curbing be installed in that area. She said that head-in parking is not ideal, and If parking is allowed, it will need to be formalized. Mr. Weston requested the use Issue be addressed separately from the site issues. Mr. Louis Silva from 19 Grove Street said there are no regulations on Grove Street and there is no safe space to park on Grove Street. He feels this concern should be dealt with separately from the project. Mr. Safina said the Select Board members are the roadway commissioners. Ms. Mercier commented that the Engineering Division Is not favorable to parking on this stretch of Grove Street and has requested it to be curbed. Ms. Adrian said there am 'no parking'signs on the other side of the street. Mr. Safina requested the discussion of parking to be tabled until the use issue is addressed. Mr. McGrail pointed out the following: • The abutters determined they do not like the clubhouse location, but the proposal is to pull it away from the street and It will meet zoning setbacks; • The concern about land being sold for a future development is hypothetical; • The outside seating has been vetted; • The traffic study is not warranted; • The site plan conditions are enforceable - a report can be filed with the Planning Division detailing the list of functions; • If Meadowbrook decides In the future to do something different they will have to file with the Town. Mr. Weston said he agrees with the Information presented that the proposal is not an expansion of use. Mr. Tuttle asked if a determination will be required. Mr. Nick Bonanno from 283 Grove Street commented on the following: • There are'no parking'signs on the east side of Grove Street, after 293 Grove Street; • The setbacks are non-conforming which was approved previously; • He is glad the 184 seating count has been clarified; and he read a statement from the Building Inspector; and • The new building has the capability to host more events than the existing building but nobody knows the future; this new building opens Pandora's Box. Mr. Saflna replied that if they do expand the use, they will have to seek Town approval. Mr. Tuttle said there is no evidence that the new building will have more capacity or an increase in functions and events. He added the proposal is the same size or smaller. Mr. Bonanno said all the walls are removable and allow them to attract different functions than they currently have today. Ms. Mercier explained that the Site Plan Decision and conditions are enforceable. If a list of functions is a condition and is required every year, the Commission will be able to determine if a Special Permit is necessary. Page 19 Mr. Bonanno discussed the outside decks and asked how the seating will be conditioned or policed. Mr. Tuttle said if there Is an outrageous event, the neighbors will notify the police. Mr. Safina said he agrees with Mr. Weston, the proposal Is not a substantial change from the existing. He gave his opinion the building arrangement is an Improvement, the building has a better look, presence and scale. Mr. Safina said his concern is with the loading area and parking along Grove Street. Mr. Weston agreed and said he Is concerned with the loading as proposed and parking along Grove Street. The new plan does solve part of it, but there is still a concern with the loading. Mr. Tuttle said truckers don't always do what we want, but the proposal is an Improvement over what is there now. Ms. Hitch asked why the parch was not included In the seating count, and commented that it could become a "party"deck. Mr. Weaver replied that under the Building Code, decks are not Included in the occupancy load. If you build a deck there is not a maximum or minimum capacity. He said in terms of seating, it comes down to servicing the space and what can fit comfortably, including the size of tables and chairs. Mr. McGrail clarified that the number of seats will be a condition added to the Decision. Mr. Roche reiterated the conditions that will be added to the Decision In regards to the deck and porch. Mr. Safina said he is not opposed to both the deck and porch having the same time limit. Mr. Roche explained that the Club is comfortable allowing the porch to be open for lunch. Mr. Bob Morelli, General Manager at Meadowbrook Golf Club, said he has been with the Club for 15 years and aside from the occasional tournament the deck is never full. He said many golfers prefer to sit inside after playing. Mr. Safina asked if there were any additional concerns with the discussion on the use. Ms. Lindsay Baker from 236 Grove Street said she Is concerned with the project. There should be a traffic study required because the Town Forest and Compost Facility cause a lot of traffic on this stretch of road. Mr. TJ Carroll from 260 Grove Street said he is in the construction business and doesn't want to cause trouble. He has concerns with the traffic and safety of children because the area is busy and he believes a traffic study should be required for the Increase in use. The Town Forest and Compost Center cause the majority of the traffic, but a new facility will add to the traffic. Mr. Carroll suggested adding a stop sign to the top of the hill. Mr. Weston replied that a traffic study would only look at peak times and where the vehicles go. The Commission has agreed there is not a substantial change in use, and a traffic study Is not required if there is not a substantial change. He said the Town knows there are issues with traffic on Grove Street around the Town Forest and Compost Center, and with the speed coming down the hill and narrowness of the street as It goes around. A traffic study does not get into the type of Issues. These traffic Issues are not because of Meadowbrook or this reconstruction. Mr. Carroll said last weekend there was an Increase in traffic going to Meadowbrook and gave his opinion that a traffic study will help everyone understand more. He asked if Meadowbrook will be planning on developing the area. Ms. Mercier said no one has approached the Town about a development, and explained the Approval Not Required Plan (ANR) process. Mr. Cicatelli mentioned a scenario that would affect the property at Meadowbrook and asked if a Special Permit would be required. Mr. Safina replied if the club continues to operate as a nine-hole golf course then there is no change in use. Mr. Weston said there are a lot of things that could happen but the Commission is not discussing them tonight. Mr. Safina said in his opinion the use is not changing; the proposal is a much better building that is flexible and will be able to have different size functions, including smaller ones. There Is not Page 1 10 a change in character or quality. Ms. Hitch said the traffic last Saturday was due to a cross- country meet at the Town Forest. She said the concern with the traffic Is valid, but the traffic study results will be frustrating because they won't capture all the traffic going to the Town Forest or Compost Center. Mr. Safina advised the neighbors to bring their concerns to the Select Board. Ms. Mercier said she will have a discussion of safety measures on Grove Street added to the next internal staff Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) meeting. She recommended the neighbors subscribe to the CPDC agenda. Mr. Weston said his concern is the larger tractor trailers have to park on a slope. Mr. Sullivan replied that large tractor trailer deliveries are once or twice a week and the existing tractor trailer parking is similar and historically it works. He said there is a dedicated loading zone provided for smaller trucks. Ms. Mercier asked if the turning-movements are on the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied the movements are not shown on the plan. Mr. Morelli said the Club requests deliveries to be made in box trucks but the vendors don't always comply. Mr. Roche said the deliveries are Monday-Friday. Mr. Safina asked why the tractor trailers are not pulling up next to the building then taking a natural left turn. Mr. Roche replied the proposed location is close to the loading docks but that Mr. Safina's suggestion sounds reasonable. Ms. Hitch agreed and said vehicles won't have to wait on Grove Street. Mr. Bonanno asked if smaller trucks can make the turn Into the circle. Mr. Weston requested the turning-movements be shown on the plan. Mr. Sullivan reviewed the revised site plans: • Eliminated head-in parking, added green space and mimicked curve on Grove Street to narrow throat; • Added vertical granite curbing (VGC) to the left side of the entrance, which will extend beyond the catch basin to channel Flow; and • Added a trench drain across the entrance with a deep sump catch basin and rain garden and a catch basin In upper lot. Mr. Safina said to help with the sight line there should no parking along the curve. Mr. Weston said adding curb means there won't be any parking. Mr. Roche said the head-In parking will be eliminated, and pointed out areas where a few vehicles could park. Mr. Weston requested the cover of the trench drain be bolted down or fixed so It doesn't bang every time someone drives over It. Mr. Sullivan said he Is looking for a larger trench drain cover. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the entrance would look like approaching from the south. He had concerns with drivers bumping into the green space but realized this wont happen. Ms. Hitch asked if the driveway will be expanded or is It wide enough for both a truck and passenger car to pass. Mr. Sullivan replied the 24' wide curb-cut is standard for two-way traffic; the Select Board would have to approve anything larger. Mr. Tuttle said he is strongly In favor of the revised street line, but requested enhanced enforcement. Mr. Safina said it is the responsibility of the Club to enforce their members' parking. Mr. Weston said it is not a Town enforcement Issue, parking is allowed today. Mr. Safina commented if vehicles are allowed to park In this area the sight line will be blocked. Mr. Weston agreed there should be no parking, but said the Commission does not have the power to stipulate no parking on a Town road. Mr. Sullivan said Installing the VGC will help deter someone from parking there. Mr. Silva said parking is allowed on Grove Street and this Isn't the right Commission to discuss changing Town parking rules. Mr. Safina disagreed with the resident and said the Commission is discussing a Site Plan Review and parking at the entrance will block the sight line. Ms. Mercier asked about the width of Grove Street. Mr. Sullivan replied It is 28'wide in this area. Ms. Mercier said the Commission can condition that Meadowbrook patrons are not allowed to park along Grove Street. Mr. Roche agreed the granite curbing will deter parking, Page 111 but showed on the plan where the patrons have the opportunity to park where it is not an Issue. Mr. Safina said he is not in favor of any parallel parking in that area. Ms. Mercier said the Commission can only regulate the site and the patrons of Meadowbrook. Mr. Weston requested that the PTTTF review parking in this area. He said the Commission can request Cape Cod berms over granite curbing. Ms. Mercier said the Decision needs to be updated with all the new information and suggested that the hearing be continued. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for Meadow Brook Golf Club to November 5, 2018 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Updates Approval of CPDC Minutes - September 17, 2018 The approval of minutes was tabled until a future meeting. Discussion of 40R Desion Guidelines The discussion of 40R Design Guidelines was tabled until a future meeting. Discussion of Master Plan Potential Updates The discussion of Master Plan Potential Updates was tabled until a future meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents renewed at the meet na: CPDC Agenda 10/01/2018 Johnson Woods Continuance Request 0 Grove Street-Definitive SubdMsion a) Deflntive Plan-Civil Plan get 8/29/18 b) Full Drainage Report 9/29/18 c) Requested Subdivision wat,amff/29/18 d) Memo from Town Engineer 9/26/18 el Draft Decision 10/1/18 Meadowbrook Goff Club-See Plan Revlew a) Site Entrance Plan Sheet-9/12/18 b) Memo from Town Engineer-9/17/18 c) Draft Decision-9/17/18 d) Documents submitted by Applicant at Hearing e) Neighborhood letter Page 1 12