HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-10 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: April 10, 2006
Location: Reading High School Auditorium 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Selectmen's Meeting Room, Reading Town Hall 8:00 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Neil
Sullivan (NS), and Brant Ballantyne (BB).
Members Absent: Susan DeMatteo (SD).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Town Counsel Ellen Doucette of Brackett & Lucas, 165 Washington St.,
Winchester, MA 01890
Ms. Karen Bell, 24 Susan Drive.
Ms. Susan Blake, 291 South Street.
Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust
Ms. Hayes, Pearl Street
Mr. Huber, Rand Associates Consulting Inc., 495 Upham Street, Melrose, MA 02176
Mr. Stephen Hughes, 591 Main Street
Attorney Chris Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Ms. Maryellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue
Mr. Justin Ray, owner of Twin Seafood, 591 Main Street
Selectman Ben Tafoya
W/S Development Team
Richard Askin, Project Manager, W/S Development Associates LLC
Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing W/S Development Associates LLC
Bob Frazier, Vice President of Development, W/S Development Associates LLC
Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, W/S Development Associates LLC
Rod Emery, Traffic Engineer, Edwards & Kelsey
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:05 PM.
Page 1 of 9
Public Hearing (Continued): Zoning By-Laws Amendment
Business C Zone (Addison-Wesley), W/S Development
To conduct as required by MGL Chapter 40 A, Sec S the CPDC public hearing in advance of the Annual
Town Meeting on the zoning by-laws. amendment petition by W/S Development Associates, LLC, to change
the Business C zoning at Addison-Wesley to allow retail as a permitted use, with associated changes as
applicable.
(Action Date: April 10, 2006)
JS re-opened the public hearing. He said testimony from the applicant and public had been
taken at the last meeting (3/27/06) and the Board had continued the public hearing until
tonight to have additional time to review the case including any additional information
from the working group.
JS read aloud a letter addressed to the Board from Attorney Mark Favaloro, attorney for
W/S Development Associates [see attached].
The letter states W/S Development's intention to move to table Article 26 at Town
Meeting. Also in the letter, W/S Development requests that the Board close tonight's
public hearing "with a vote to recommend to Town Meeting to table the Article."
The letter further states that "...WS will be presenting a modified plan on April 12, 2006,
to the working group assembled by the Selectmen, which plan is intended to lead to a
- revised Zoning Article for consideration at a future Town Meeting session, the date of
which is to be determined "
Public Comment.
Ms. Susan Blake, 291 South Street.
Ms. Blake said she and her husband are for the developer's plan. She believes the silent
majority in town supports the plan. She said other towns have projects of similar or greater
density abutting residential properties. She said that all parties have had plenty of time to
express their concerns and we can't ignore creative uses of this property. She said the town
must remember that "40Bs are in the wings".
Ms. Ellen O'Neill.
Ms. O'Neill said she is tired of having developers set the town's agenda. She said the
residents supporting the plan are claiming to be the silent majority without evidence. She
asked the Board if tabling the Article would mean the developer would have to go through
the entire process again from the beginning. JS said the developer would have to start over
with the CPDC and go through the same public process again.
Ms. Hayes, Pearl Street.
Ms. Hayes said she supports the developer's plan.
"W Ms. Karen Bell, 24 Susan Drive.
Ms. Bell said she is also concerned by the possibility of a 40B at the site. She is "horrified"
by the development on West Street [Archstone]. She asked for all parties to work together.
Page 2 of 9
JB moved to close the public hearing.
NS seconded.
Voted approved: 3:0:1. RH abstained.
JS asked what the Board's options were. Town Counsel said there were not many: the
Board could give a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. Town Counsel added that
the way the Board drafts their recommendation is important. For instance, the Board could
say they do not recommend the article in its current form and recommend tabling it.
RH suggested adding words of explanation as to why they do not recommend the article.
Also, that the Board is encouraged by the formation of the working group to discuss a
scaled-down project.
JS said the Board is concerned with the complexity of the Article and the manner in which
it was presented. The changes to the bylaw were added in place and not seen as a whole.
The Board should not have to consider only a "redlined piece". For instance, heights etc...
are still in the Table of Uses. The Board should see the additions in context. He reminded
the Board that this same concern was brought up at the last meeting.
JB and JS were both for recommending against the Article and also for recommending that
it should be tabled. NS said the tabling of the Article was not up to the Board and that the
Board only has to say they are either for the Article or against it.
JB asked if a negative recommendation from the Board would put the applicant at a
disadvantage with respect to any future plans they might present. Town Counsel said the
CPDC is advisory only and Town Meeting can do as they like, but if Town Meeting votes
the Article down, it is gone for two years unless the CPDC recommends otherwise.
JB moved to give an unfavorable recommendation of the Article to Town Meeting and to
recommend that Town Meeting table the Article because:
• The Article in its present form is inappropriate
• The applicant expressed in a letter dated 4/5/06 a desire to have the Article tabled at
Town Meeting
• The Board is encouraged by the discussions of the working group that a scaled-down
version of the applicant's plan is forthcoming
• There is a need for additional time to better scrutinize the matter and to consider
alternatives.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:1. RH abstained.
THE BOARD RECONVENED AT THE SELECTMEN'S MEETING ROOM AT
8:20PM. Jonathan Barnes did not attend.
j
Page 3 of 9
Public Hearing (Continued): Site Plan Review
25 Walkers Brook Drive, Stop & Shop
Application to demolish existing structure and redevelop site in entirety for a 63,000 sq. ft. Stop & Shop,
with related utility, drainage, screening and other site improvements (Action Date: April 10, 2006)
JS said the Board had received a request to extend the review until the meeting of 5/8/06.
The Board had been considering adding an extra meeting on Wednesday 4/19/06 and it was
the consensus of the Board to extend the Stop & Shop review until that date.
There would be no additional notice sent to abutters. The meeting will be posted.
RH moved to continue the Site Plan Review of 25 Walkers Brook Drive until 4/19/06 at
7:30 PM.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0
Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review of 505 - 519 Main Street
Interior Work
CR said this was not on the agenda. Attorney Mark Favaloro is requesting to speak to the
Board. The Board agreed to hear what Mr. Favaloro had to say.
- Mr. Favaloro said Reading's Boards had already granted waivers and variances to this site.
In 2005 this site had been before the Board for a waiver on a fagade change and it was
granted. Later, Quiznos went before the ZBA fora parking variance and it was granted.
Now, Quiznos, the sandwich shop, is seeking a waiver for interior work that needs to be
done. There will be no outside reconfigurations either to the fagade or the parking.
JS asked if this was for both 515 and 519 Main. Mr. Favaloro said it concerns the portion
of the building with the address of 505 Main Street only.
It was the consensus of the Board to continue this discussion until the meeting of 4/19/06 at
9:00 PM. The Board asked Mr. Favaloro to bring a better picture of the building to that
meeting. Mr. Favaloro said he could bring full-size blow-ups.
Administrative Review
Bond Release - Baldwin Lane Extension
CR said the Engineering Department has reviewed the site and they recommend not
releasing the tree money.
No vote was required.
Danis request for compliance certification
JS said a letter had been submitted by Danis requesting compliance certification on two
issues: the lighting along General Way, and the Sign at the entrance to General Way.
Page 4 of 9
Attorney Mark Favaloro represented Danis Corp. Mr. Favaloro said the lights have been in
place with no complaint from neighbors since last before the Board on a minor
modification (five weeks). We are looking for some statement from the Board to the effect
that the lighting plan is final.
In the Board's opinion, such a statement was beyond their enforcement purview. The
decision of compliance rests with the Building Inspector.
On the other hand, the Board was grateful for Danis Corp's efforts towards resolving the
problem of glare from their lights along General Way by volunteering to reduce the
wattage of said lights to 175W; and it was the consensus of the Board to have their
gratitude reflected in the minutes.
Regarding the sign, Mr. Danis said the sign's manufacturer did not meet the specifications.
They have been back and forth over it and now the sign meets the specifications.
Mr. Danis said he was pleased that the CPDC asked to have the minutes reflect their
appreciation of Danis Corp's efforts to resolve the lighting problem.
Kylie Drive Subdivision Endorsement
CR said both he and the Engineering Department have reviewed the plans and they agree
they are OK. He said the Board needs to endorse the mylars. Also, Forms "H" and "N" of
the covenant agreement need to be endorsed by the Board too.
The Board endorsed all necessary documents.
Town Meeting prep/review
It was the consensus of the Board to add an extra meeting on Wednesday, 4/19/06.
It was the consensus of the Board to have JB, as the only member of the Board also a
member of Town Meeting, present the Board's report at Town Meeting on Article 26.
RH reminded the Board that their Accessory Apartment Bylaw Amendment is also going
before Town Meeting.
CR said the Town Meeting pre-meeting was set for Tuesday, April 18 at 6:00 PM and the
Board of Selectmen (BoS) want to hear about the. Master Plan action items at that time too.
The alternative date for the meeting will be Tuesday, April 25.
For Administrative Review on 4/19
• The list of outstanding compliance/enforcement issues. It was the consensus of the
Board that they should maintain this list rather than the Building Department or the
DRT. CR said that he had advised the Town Manager that the Board would maintain
the list.
• Master Plan Action Items. The Board noted that they still need to assign their own
action items and would do so at the 4/19 meeting.
Page 5 of 9
• Draft letter for the Permits Coordinator. The Board would discuss this at the 4/19
meeting.
• Canopy Illumination [see minutes of 3/27].The Board would discuss this at the 4/19
meeting. RH asked the Town Planner if the ZBA had given their opinion on this matter.
CR said: not yet. JS said the Board needs to discuss the matter first.
• Responsibility for writing decisions. It was the consensus of the Board that issues on
this matter should be brought to the Town Manager for resolution.
Zoning Workshop
Per Town Meeting Instructional Motion,
Review of Zoning By-Laws Section 2.2.21 Lot Coverage
Ms. Maryellen O'Neill said this matter concerns both Lot Coverage and all bylaws that
reference residential garages. She said some garages are larger than you would expect for a
stand-alone garage. She said the Building Inspector thinks the bylaws covering garages are
minimal. CR said if the structure is stand-alone, then it is an accessory building and the
25% lot coverage restriction in the Table of Dimensional Controls does not include
accessory buildings. JS presented the example of a large deck. CR said if the deck was
attached to the principle dwelling then it is assumed to be a part of the principle dwelling.
JS asked if a stand-alone garage was considered a principal dwelling. The Town Planner
said that was the issue. He said residents are covering their yards with these structures - not
just garages but sheds, pool houses.... He said people argue that they are all accessory
buildings.
JS said the Table of Dimensional Controls does not mention minimums. CR said that was
also an issue. JS asked if this means there are no controls for setbacks. CR said those are
located elsewhere under the bylaws concerning "Yards", for example. RH pointed out
that 5.2.7 states that in "Apartment 40" and "Business A" zoning districts, not less than
twenty-five (25) percent of the area of a lot containing apartments shall be landscaped and
in "Apartment 80" districts the minimum is thirty-five percent landscaped.
JS said there is no mention of height controls. RH said this relates to the "mansionization"
issue.
Ms. O'Neill noted that the issues of drainage and impervious surfaces are directly related to
lot coverage. The Board agreed.
It was the consensus of the Board that there is enough confusion in the lot coverage bylaw
in its present form to warrant taking testimony to help the Board to clean up the bylaw's
language through the addition of better definitions and the clarification of the intent of the
bylaw as it relates to type of structures, impervious cover, etc...
Design Standards.
Selectman Ben Tafoya said that the results of the community survey on the Master Plan
showed that residents see the need for further design standards on developments. He gave
Page 6 of 9
the example of the recent Stop & Shop plans for 25 Walkers Brook Drive. He said the town
would like to see the building re-orientated on the site but does the town have the authority
to require such a change? People are becoming more critical of building designs and the
implementations of those designs and are asking if there are tools that can give the town
more power over those designs.
The Board noted that this was also the thrust of Ms. Sally Hoyt's recent letter to the Board
of Selectmen and CPDC.
CR reminded the Board that 40B developments can sidestep design standards. The
sticking-point is: Who determines the appropriate design?
It was the consensus of the Board to collect and review model laws on design standards
from other towns and to use their best efforts to provide an article on the matter by Fall
Town Meeting.
Master Plan Status
The Master Plan has been officially adopted by the CPDC. This did not require the formal
adoption by either the Board of Selectmen or by Town Meeting. More than twenty Priority
Objectives of the Master Plan will be tracked.
A one-page executive summary will be handed out at Town Meeting and posted to the
website too. RH suggested having the summary read into the Town Meeting minutes. CR
said the Master Plan should be used in official deliberations.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review
157 Main Street, Steven Hughes
Application to allow addition with law office
(Action Date: May 22, 2006)
JS opened the review, introduced the Board and staff, and explained the procedure to be
followed. RH read aloud the public notice.
Attorney Chris Latham represented the site's owner, Mr. Steven Hughes, who was also in
attendance.
Mr. Latham said Mr. Hughes is an attorney looking to put an addition onto his home to
serve as his law office. The property is in zoning district "Business A" and the ZBA has
issued a variance. The property will be graded and landscaped for drainage and parking.
Drainage calculations have been made and Mr. Huber of Rand Associates is here to answer
any questions regarding drainage. A free-standing sign will be on the property. Trees have
been placed as per the Town Planner's request. The driveway egress has been widened.
The estimated time to complete the project is roughly 18 months.
CR said a DRT meeting was not held for the site but he did request comments from staff.
Conservation Officer Fran Fink has submitted an extensive memo on the project. The
engineering consultant, Judith Nitsch, also submitted a review of the project which speaks
Page 7 of 9
to pre-treatment as per DEP regulations. Regarding his own comments on the project, CR
said the applicant has addressed them.
CR said the main concern is drainage. The engineering consultant had four comments
which Mr. Hubert said could be done and the applicant agreed would be done.
• Provide sediment and erosion controls
• Add a deep sump manhole for pretreatment of runoff.
• Raise the bottom of the leeching pit two feet above the seasonal, high, ground-water
level
• Submit an operations and maintenance plan
Mr. Huber said a revised Site Plan Review will reflect the drainage changes.
NS said that the Board prefers parking in the rear for buildings on South Main Street and
asked if the parking for this site could be moved to the rear or a berm added to the front?
Mr. Latham said there is a retaining wall in the front and it may be difficult to put a berm
on top of it. Mr. Hughes said he plans on putting a picket fence on the retaining wall and in
front of the parking space. Mr. Hughes said he would rather save the rear yard for his
family's use. He reminded the Board that the property will also be his residence. JS asked
if the fence would block headlights. Mr. Hughes said it should.
CR suggested adding a three foot hedge of something substantial to the space between the
fence and the parking area. The Board agreed.
JS asked if there was sufficient sight distance at the driveway entrance. CR said he did not
see this as an issue.
JS asked if the parking area flood lights would shine into the street. CR said he did not
think they would. The Board suggested mounting the lights closest to the street at a height
of eight feet and shielding them. The Board said this would not be a condition but would
have to be noted on the plans.
CR noted that the free-standing sign does not require a Certificate of Appropriateness but
the Board could make the certificate a condition. The Board said they were more concerned
with the wattage of the sign's lights. The Board added the condition that the wattage of
each of the two lights (one on each side of the sign) should be no more than 150.
The consensus of the Board was to continue the review until the next meeting (4/19/06) at
9:45 PM. The Board requested to see the four changes suggested by the engineering
consultant reflected in the plans as well as more specificity with regards to the fence and
landscaping in front of the parking area.
Mr. Huber said the revised plans would be ready by the end of the week. The Board said
they do not need to see them.
f, .
`F
RH moved to continue the Site Plan Review for 157 Main Street until 4/19/06 at 9:45 PM.
NS seconded.
Page 8 of 9
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
591 Main Street, Twin Seafood
(Action Date: May 8, 2006)
The owner, Mr. Justin Ray, appeared for Twin Seafood.
Mr. Ray said his sign will be the same style as Clockfolk's. The background and letters will
be made of wood.
JS asked if this was one sign or two. Mr. Ray said it was one sign divided into two parts to
conform to the structure. One sign says "Twin" and the other "Seafood". CR said it is all
considered one sign for purposes of determining sign area.
RH moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Twin Seafood sign.
NS seconded.
Mr. Jay interrupted to ask the Board about the fence they had said he should put around the
dumpster behind his building. He said adding the fence would eliminate a parking space
and he asked the Board to reconsider having him erect it. He said only a glimpse of the
dumpster is visible from the street.
The Board noted that it was a condition of their approval of the site plan that a fence would
be placed around the dumpster. It was the consensus of the Board to have the Town
Planning to look into the situation. CR said he would.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
RH moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The meeting ended at 10:55 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on May 22,
2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on May 22, 2006.
Signed as approved,
D. Howard, Secretary
m/W
Date
Page 9 of 9