No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-10 Board of Selectmen Minutes Board of Selectmen Meeting June 10, 2003 The meeting convened at 7.30 p.m. at the Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Matthew Cummings, Secretary Richard Schubert, Selectman George Hines, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Planner Chris Reilly, Conservation Administrator Fran Fink, Fire Chief Greg Burns and the following list of interested parties: Neil Sullivan, Barbara Whitman, June and John O'Keefe, John Barry, Sue and Joe Prew, Lauren and Phil Liaboe, Cheri Crow, Robert and Laurie Lane, Matthew Mackoul, Jerold Lamhut, Susan Buckley, Stephen Ippolito, Barbara and Tom O'Connor, Tod Jacobs, John Davie, John Grayson, Larry Goulet, Robert Scarano, Will Finch, Carol Coswell. Discussion/Action Items Development Review Team—Gaels Chase— Chairman Camille Anthony indicated that we have heard a presentation on this project before. What the Board wants to hear is whether there is anything new on the project, or any development that we would want to consider for this site. Town Planner Chris Reilly reviewed the status of Chapter 40B and the status of current regulations. Conservation Administrator Fran Fink reviewed the status of Conservation issues. The issues that Conservation would have are concerns about the delineation of vernal pools (these have been delineated), storm water drainage that meets standards. Chairman Camille Anthony asked how this would be done on site, and Fran Fink reviewed a number of options. 1. Setbacks from vernal pools. 2. The stream crossing as proposed is a concern with respect to potential compensation areas or bridging. 3. Parts of the site are pretty steep and would need retaining walls or rip rap. 4. Long term maintenance would be required. Vice Chairman Matthew Cummings noted that the 25 foot buffer seems to cut through two units. What does that mean? Fran Fink noted that the requirements are for the 25 foot setbacks and structures being set back 35 feet. Chairman Camille Anthony asked if variances would be required on storm water management. Larry Goulet explained why the Conservation Commission is concerned about development on the site and any affect on endangered species. He questioned the proposed improvements in water quality because he did testing on the site and found that for dissolved oxygen, chlorides, and PH, the water quality was fine. The Conservation Commission has not seen the drainage plan and would not speculate on it. Board of Selectmen Meetin4—June 10, 2003 —Page 2 Chairman Camille Anthony asked if these are certified vernal pools, and it was indicated that they were. Fran Fink noted how information is gathered on endangered species to the actual wild life programs. Fire Chief Greg Burns noted that he would have the following concerns: I. The plans are not very detailed at this time and so his comments reflect that lack of detail. 2. The plans call for a six inch water main and fire codes require a eight inch main. 3. Fire hydrants are required at the end of each cul-de-sac. 4. The roadway width needs to be a minimum of 24 feet if there is no parking, 30 feet if there is parking on one side, and 36 feet if there is parking on both sides. Where parking will not be permitted, the Police will need the authority to ticket and tow. 5. A 27 foot interior radius and 44 foot outside radius crawl circles free of cars is required as a turnaround at the end of each cul-de-sac. 6. The slope of grade adjacent to all buildings must be 6% or less. 7. Designated parking areas for guests will be required. 8. If a bridge is constructed across a wetland, it will need to be capable of supporting 50,000 tons. Chris Reilly had the following comments: 1. Staff comments have been reviewed related to the 16 unit building. 2. A balance between the need for affordable housing and environmental constraints on the site need to be addressed. 3. The issue of partnering with the developer needs to be addressed by the Board of Selectmen. The quality of design needs to be appropriate to the site. 4. Sixteen units is not achievable on this site. 5. Even less than 16 units could be problematic on the site. 6. The previous application for six units was withdrawn by the applicant. Neil Sullivan, member of CPDC, spoke and noted that he understands that the EPA is looking into reducing requirements for storm water regulations from five acre sites to one acre sites. This would have a big bearing on this site. Board of Selectmen Meeting—June 10. 2003 —Page 3 John Grayson and Bob Lane, members of the working group and residents in the neighborhood, € spoke. Bob Lane presented an outline and presented information on the Scarano site in Tewksbury. He indicated that the Board needs to evaluate this partner based on past performance in Tewksbury. John Grayson noted that in Billerica, the Planning Commission had to repeal the performance bond. This developer has not represented good faith efforts in dealing with the issues here in Reading. He has not paid the Conservation filing fees. He has appealed the Conservation Commission's Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD). He has refused to properly delineate the vernal pools. Mr. Grayson and Mr. Lane further reviewed site issues and the 40B status. Bob Lane noted that the working group recommends that the project not be approved. This is a challenging site, and there are significant environmental issues. There is no spirit of cooperation from the proposed partner. The project is not needed in order the meet the Town's current 40B requirements. The neighborhood position is for the Board to say no to this site. The Board needs to embrace the constituents' concerns expressed, and they need to make a decision. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the working group had worked well in terms of gathering information. He outlined the differences between the 40B application and the LIP application. He noted that the 16 units as proposed are too dense. He felt the following issues need to be addressed. 1. Does the Board want to do a LIP application with this applicant? 2. Does the Board want to do this application with this applicant? 3. What future development might be appropriate for this site? Vice Chairman Matthew Cummings commented that the project has been before the Town for months. The only thing that has changed is the number of units. He does not believe that the Town of Reading is in the driver's seat on this project. This is a private project on private land. In visiting the site, the only quandary was the extent of the water and when the water level would go down. He feels that this site was unacceptable for a six unit PRD, and it is unacceptable to be developed. Development on this site is infeasible and unacceptable. Selectman Richard Schubert felt that the Board should express their intent as to what can be developed in a total number of units that they can support. He also felt that there should be detailed involvement in the design. Robert Scarano, the developer, noted that this is exactly what the LIP is designed for. The Town just has to finish the process. Final negotiations have to take place. The problems can be solved with the site. The constituents are not only the neighborhood but the people who need to live in affordable housing in Reading. The Town needs to continue to attempt to negotiate. Part of the site is appropriate for housing, respecting Conservation and fire safety issues. We need to continue to explore all options with the developer including the percentage of units that would be