No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-14 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes TOWN lVtU REAMN, ER Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2glg JUL - LG Community Planning and Development Commission 9 PM 5: 21 Date: 2019-01-14 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, John Weston, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: David Tuttle Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Attorney Brad Latham, William Bergeron, Jim & Holly Davidson, Anne Gray, Maribeth Canning Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. Sian Permit Aoolicatlon 587 Main Street. Your CBD Store There was no one present on behalf of the Application. The Commission briefly discussed if hemp/CBD is regulated under Chapter 94G of MGL. Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, suggested continuing the application until the next meeting to allow additional time to ensure the use is allowed. Mr. Safina agreed he did not want to vote on a sign until the use is approved. He made a suggestion that the sign design should include a band at the bottom of the awning. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the sign permit application for 587 Main Street, Your CBD Store, to February 11, 2019 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Minor Amendment, PUD Soecial Permit Johnson Woods. O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore O. Bradley Latham and William Bergeron were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. D'Arezzo recused himself and left the dais. Attorney O. Bradley Latham apologized for the Applicant Ted Moore not being able to attend the meeting. He said the Applicant filed a minor amendment when an abutter complained the foundation on Building 52, 6-8 White Page 1 1 Oaks Lane was not being built in the approved location. Mr. Latham presented the following: • A letter signed by thirteen (13) abutters to 6-8 White Oaks Lane supporting the existing foundation location and complimenting changes made by Mr. Moore to save trees or to improve the landscape; • A letter from Hany Hanna of 151 Johnson Woods Drive noting he originally had concerns about the foundation location but has reached a resolution with Mr. Moore; • A letter from Mr. Latham with details of the proposed resolution which can be added as conditions to the approval; and • Drawings showing proposed grading and species to be planted. Ms. Mercier said she updated the Decision based on the information submitted today by Mr. Latham. Mr. Safina asked for additional information on the grading. William Bergeron from Hayes Engineering replied the grading is proposed in the patio area of the unit and will be 6-12" maximum. Mr. Safina asked about the location of the fence that will be extended. Mr. Latham pointed out the fence area. Mr. Safina asked if other properties have fences. Mr. Bergeron replied some units do have fences. Mr. Safina asked if Mr. Hanna understands trees need time to mature. Mr. Latham replied that some species grow faster than others, but the height is noted on the plan. Ms. Mercier suggested that Mr. Hanna receive a copy of the landscape information and plan so there will be no misunderstanding. Mr. Safina asked about the memo Ms. Mercier received from Hayes Engineering relating to the garage. Mr. Bergeron responded the memo was submitted as part of the original filing. Mr. Weston requested the building numbers be added to the Decision. Ms. Mercier explained the reason why a potential garage at 162 Johnson Woods Drive is added as a condition to the Decision. Mr. Safina asked if a Comprehensive Plan was submitted showing all proposed buildings. Mr. Latham replied a plan was not submitted, and said he objects to any mention of the garage since it is an ongoing private matter. Mr. Safina pointed out that it is no longer a private matter because it is before the Commission. Mr. Latham reiterated that it is an issue between a private homeowner and the developer. He said the potential garage has nothing to do with Building 52 and that a proposed plan was previously submitted that the Commission rejected. Mr. Weston responded that the Planned Unit Development is not a plan of individual buildings. He said problems arose because of the piecemeal fashion in which the site was being developed; he stated that the Commission does not want to continue with piecemeal approvals. Mr. Latham said the private issue needs to be agreed upon and a location chosen before the Applicant can file with the Commission. He opined that it is inappropriate for the Commission to use the issue at Building 52 to control the private matter of the garage at 162 Johnson Woods Drive. Mr. Safina asked the status of the garage negotiation. Ms. Maribeth Canning of 162 Johnson Woods Drive provided a narrative and map outlining eight (8) garage locations that were infeasible to her or abutters, or deemed inappropriate by the Commission, or rejected by Mr. Moore. One of her suggestions was that she continue using the garage space that she has been using, which is quite a distance from her home and at the main entrance to the development, but Mr. Moore would not agree to it. Mr. Latham said Mr. Moore also proposed locations that were rejected by Ms. Canning. Ms. Canning clarified that she sent a letter to Mr. Moore approving a location but that she rejected the proposed three-car and two-car garages, because the abutters were opposed to them. Further, she was only interested in a single-car garage as listed in her P&S. She presented a plan showing a location of a garage that was discussed and approved at a previous CPDC meeting but after the meeting it was denied by Mr. Moore. Page 1 2 Mr. Safina opined that the garage is'relevant to the Decision. Mr. Latham replied that the location needs to be resolved. Mr. Weston commented that he approves the way the Decision is written; the garage is an amendment to the PUD but not directly tied to Building 52. He said if the PUD needs to be modified a Comprehensive Plan is required. Mr. Bergeron said a plot plan is submitted with a building application showing the location of a proposed foundation overlain on the approved location. He said foundation locations are changed to save a tree, etc. Ms. Mercier clarified she requested the overlaid plot plan once the error on the Building 52 foundation was brought forward. Mr. Bergeron said it is a procedure implemented going forward. Ms. Mercier replied that staff will use the overlaid plot plan to determine if a minor or major modification is required before issuing a building permit. Mr. Latham said there is already a Comprehensive Plan; the only change is on Building 52. A Comprehensive Plan should not be required for a new structure. Mr. Weston repeated that this development is a PUD. Mr. Safina said he appreciates the developer saving a tree, but that a foundation relocation could constitute a substantial change and adding a garage involves the siting of a building. These are things that should be reviewed. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that the last time Mr. Moore attended a meeting it was disclosed that he has a plan on his office wall that is different than what was approved. Mr. Weston added that there were three different plans provided at that meeting. Mr. Bergeron said every year the Town receives an updated plan on units that are constructed and units proposed. Mr. Latham informed the Commission that Mr. Hanna did not see a plan from Mr. Moore nor did he have any communication with Mr. Moore prior to buying his unit; the property was bought from a second tier buyer. He pleaded with the Commission not to hold construction of Building 52 hostage because of the garage. Mr. Latham said the existing accessory building on site was built by Mr. Johnson and is currently being used for materials storage but will be removed. Mr. Weston said it has been on site for approximately 15 years and asked when and how it will be removed. Mr. Safina asked when Building 5 will be constructed. Mr. Bergeron pointed out the next buildings to be constructed which included Building 5. Ms. Anne Gray of 28 Johnson Woods Drive said the buildings that are next to her property have been moved closer to her unit and asked if water mitigation is proposed. Mr. Bergeron replied there is a complete regrading plan. Mr. Safina said the Engineering Department should have seen the regrading plan. Ms. Mercier said she has seen this plan and believes the proposed building is farther away from 28 Johnson Woods Drive. Ms. Gray said water has been an issue on her property and agreed to come to the Town Hall to confirm the building location. Mr. Jim Davidson of 10 White Oaks Lane said he bought his property in May and his view is of a hole in the ground. He said there should be a resolution so the construction at Building 52 can proceed. Ms. Holly Davidson of 10 White Oaks Lane said she is"held hostage" as a property owner because her landscape cannot be finished due to the construction zone. Mr. Latham said the people who are affected by Building 52 would like the construction to proceed. He said the garage is not on any plans submitted to the Town and should be handled privately between the owner and developer. Mr. Weston agreed the Commission has not received a plan showing the proposed location and construction on one building should not be halted because of the garage. He expressed disbelief it took 18 months to resolve the foundation error, and commented he might not approve another change. Ms. Mercier made a suggestion to change the language to the Decision to allow construction to proceed but to withhold the Occupancy Permit until the process to resolve the garage issue is started. Ms. Canning said the first draft Decision connected the two items. She said she has been in discussion for a garage for the last eight years and expressed frustration Mr. Moore has Page 1 3 never approached the Commission for approval. Mr. Bergeron responded there has been significant survey and engineering work done for the single-car garage. Mr. Safina said the former proposed location was ridiculous. Mr. Bergeron said that location was least obtrusive to the abutters. Mr. Safina asked about Building 5. Mr. Bergeron said it is a 3-unit dwelling. Mr. Safina asked if the proposal is for a detached single-car garage. Ms. Mercier questioned if Mr. Moore made an agreement with other potential buyers for buildings that were not approved. Ms. Canning said the stakes showed the proposed garage location in front of her building. Mr. Safina asked if there would be an objection with the revised language by Ms. Mercier that allows the construction on Building 52 to proceed, but require a plan to be submitted that showed several acceptable locations by Mr. Moore and Ms. Canning. Ms. Mercier said the plan should be required before the occupancy of 6-8 White Oaks Lane. Mr. Latham questioned what would happen if an agreement cannot be reached. Mr. Weston commented it will need to be resolved at some point. Ms. Hitch stated the Commission wants it resolved. Mr. Safina clarified what he meant with his suggestion. Ms. Canning expressed concern how many times Mr. Moore has requested a continuation and said he has shown utter disregard to the process. She said allowing the construction to proceed at Building 52 would allow Mr. Moore to prolong an agreement. Mr. Safina commented Building 52 cannot be sold without a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Latham responded there have been extensive negotiations with Mr. Hanna. Mr. Weston said that it has taken 18 months to come to the resolution to add a few shrubs. Mr. Latham said there is no objection to submitting an updated site plan. Mr. Weston said the Commission should receive a plan if a garage will be built to avoid cascading issues. The Commission discussed for a length of time the proposed garage and language to the Decision. Ms. Mercier stated that the residents at Johnson Woods will be notified once a plan is submitted for the garage location. Mr. Safina made a motion to close the public hearing for Johnson Woods. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo returned to the dais. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street. Reading CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read that the Applicant has requested the hearing be continued to February 11, 2019. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC to February 11, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Updates Definitive Subdivision Plan Endorsement 40 Grove Street Ms. Mercier confirmed that she and the Town Engineer have reviewed the Definitive Subdivision Plan and the Applicant has complied with requests made by the Commission. Mr. Weston made a motion to endorse the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 40 Grove Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page 1 4 Approval of CPDC Minutes of October 1. 2018 & December 10. 2018 Mr. Weston made a motion to approve the minutes from December 10, 2018. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Hitch departed the meeting at 9:35 PM. Mr. Weston made a motion to approve the minutes from October 1, 2018. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2019 Ms. Mercier recapped the last discussion on the potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November 2019 Town Meeting. The following were pointed out as priorities: Lot Shape It needs to be revised to account for lots on a cul-de-sac. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission this was brought forward during the approval of 40 Grove Street subdivision. Footnote 1 of the Table of Uses Mr. Safina said he read Town Counsel's analysis on Footnote 1 and thought it was clear. Ms. Mercier explained the subjective nature of interpreting the Footnote and what is allowed causes confusion at the counter. She said it is her understanding that the intent of the bylaw was to allow large old homes to be altered to two-family dwellings while retaining their single-family character. Mr. Safina asked whether removing Footnote 1 will take away the right to a two-family dwelling. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative, because two- family dwellings are not allowed in single-family districts without the benefit of Footnote 1. She said it appears the intent of Footnote 1 has been deviated from the intent of the bylaw. Mr. Safina reiterated his agreement with Town Counsel's interpretation. He added that if a developer cannot construct a two-family dwelling within the existing structure then it should not be allowed. Ms. Mercier said Town Counsel's original analysis has been expanded to include guidance on specific questions that have arisen with new proposed construction. She noted that Town Counsel has advised removing Footnote 1 from the Zoning Bylaw entirely. Mr. Safina asked for assurance that removing Footnote 1 would resolve the issues. Ms. Mercier said it will remove the ability to alter homes into a new two-family dwelling by right in the single family zoning districts. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there should be a condition under Footnote 1 stating that a converted two-family dwelling cannot be razed and reconstructed as a two-family. Ms. Mercier said the time period between when a property owner converts a dwelling and when they propose to raze the same dwelling should be considered. She noted that it might be hard to keep track of, but that once the dwelling is razed, the rights to the two-family no longer exist. The Commission discussed the nuances of non-conforming uses, and the complications of allowing something by-right and then removing the provision that allows it by-right. Mr. Weston said it will be difficult to historically remember why a two-family was allowed in a single-family zoning area if Footnote 1 is abolished. Mr. Safina opined that the intent of Footnote 1 was to allow a smaller two-family dwelling that does not impact the abutters. Ms. Mercier asked if language should be added to clarify that a property owner is allowed to renovate the existing dwelling but not allowed to add on to it in a significant way to create a two-family. She said the original intent needs to be clarified or the footnote removed. Mr. Safina said his concern is if Footnote 1 is removed, the protection for the original intent would be gone. He suggested the Commission review draft language. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that the amount that is allowed to be added on should be vetted. Mr. Safina requested the public hearings for the warrant articles be scheduled for early June. Zoning on south Main Street Page 1 5 Ms. Mercier said there are challenges for redevelopment along south Main Street. She suggested the Commission make some surgical fixes to the bylaw as well as potentially look at an overlay. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission review allowing multi-family in Business A in a viable way, but that would not overwhelm the commercial corridor along south Main Street. The Commission discussed the comments that Ms. Mercier provided on the dimensional requirements in the existing bylaw. Mr. Safina suggested a GIS Study to review each lot for impact. Mr. Weston opined that the building and business at 306 Main Street will change the atmosphere on Main Street. Ms. Mercier said that meaningful redevelopment is not viable because of all the restrictions. She noted that other uses in Business A are allowed to have lesser setbacks, greater height, and greater lot coverage than multi-family. She suggested reducing side yard setbacks, and increasing lot coverage in line with what is allowed for other uses. She also suggested that explicitly allowing and encouraging mixed-use should be considered. Mr. Safina said he would not destroy the back edge to give the developer approval. Mr. D'Arezzo recommended a percentage of residential units be allowed based on the commercial. Mr. Weston said the Commission should not conclude that with distance there is protection. Ms. Mercier noted that the changes proposed for Business A on south Main Street will need to work in the small Business A zone along Main Street up by North Reading. Mr. Weston stated he was surprised 1342 Main Street has not been redeveloped. Mr. Safina said the development at Calareso's happened when the zoning changed at 100 Main Street. He said each lot should be looked at to see how a potential change will impact the property. Mr. Safina suggested significantly smaller units be constructed over a commercial business. Mr. D'Arezzo said parking will be required. Mr. Safina agreed parking is an issue, and shared parking should be mandatory. Mr. D'Arezzo recommended an incentive for shared parking lots. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about lots in two districts and why the Aquifer Protection District is being removed. Ms. Mercier and Mr. Weston explained how the Engineering Division addresses properties that are only partially within the Aquifer Protection District. Mr. D'Arezzo explained how he interpreted the bylaw. The Commission discussed overlay districts. The Commission discussed established businesses and potential developments. Ms. Mercier said she will continue to work on ideas. Mr. Safina commented how bright the lights are on the Fantasia Building at 274 Main Street and asked if the Town approved. Discussion of 40R Desian Guidelines There was no discussion of the 40R Design Guidelines. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: Page 1b CPDC Agenda 01/14/2019 CPDC Minutes of 10/1/2018 CPDC Minutes of 12/10/2018 Sign Permit Application, 587 Main Street Continuance Request, 258-262 Main Street Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendment language Johnson Woods - Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit a) Draft Decision, dated 1/14/19 b) Developer agreement with Hany Hannah c) Resident input Page 1