The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-02-19 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of February 19, 2004 Members present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Susan Miller Paul Dustin L i ~d },-cs wzf ii: A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts at 7:00 P.M. Also present was Chris Reilly, Town Planner, and John Gannon, Town Counsel. Case # 00-10 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of James T. Lynch, Trustee of L.A.B. Realty Trust who seeks a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct 10 townhouse units on the property located at 23 George Street. The Chairman said they were continuing the public hearing because they had received some direction from the Road Commissioners at the Board of Selectmen meeting. The Road Commissioners voted 4-1 to send the minutes of this meeting to the Zoning Board of Appeals which were then read aloud. There also was a working meeting held on February 11 th with the Petitioners and their attorney, the Town Manager representing the Road Commissioners, The Chairman of the ZBA, and Town Counsel. The discussion at this meeting centered around where the case was at this point and to see if there was another solution. The Board asked if the settlement line on the George Street lot could be split and eight feet taken from either side of that to George Street. The intent would be 16 feet of usable land. The Petitioner was asked to come up with engineering plans to accomplish this. The Board is very concerned about the access/egress for the development behind George Street. They thought a solution would be to use one way in and one way out. The Chairman then discussed the previous litigation, that this is not a brand new hearing per say and the Town Manager's comments regarding this being a private litigation. The Board is interested in looking at what it's predecessors have done utilizing the access off of Curtis Street. The Board did petition the Road Commissioners in writing requesting some direction from them. The intent of the meeting tonight was to report on the working session and to give an idea of what the Board's intentions were. The Board is waiting for the actual engineering plans and the response from Attorney Lamond regarding where his clients stand on the issue. Attorney Cicatelli said at the Board's request he did deliver a letter to Attorney Lamond advising him of the comments of the working meeting. Attorney Cicatelli said he came in to this meeting with a proposal for settlement and he was prepared to go by the agreement they have with the neighbors. Attorney Lamond said this is the first time they have seen this proposal and there is nothing for him to respond to. If an engineering plan is proposed they will react to it; until then they have nothing to react to. He thought there were serious inconsistencies in this speculative proposal. He reminded the Board they are back before them as a remand from the court. The Chairman said on the website there are some of the conditions the Board has seen before in the past two major 40B's and this is a redraft of those major conditions. If there were new information coming in he would not close the public hearing but if there were no new information then he would close the public hearing. Attorney Lamond said there may be more information coming in and he requested that the public hearing be kept open. Rick Shubert, Road Commissioner, said he would be interested in elaborating on his comments made at the meeting the Zoning Board had with the Board of Selectmen. He said the appropriateness and safety of the access is the main issue. The ultimate goal is to build housing and what they do not want to see is a roadblock. He said it is worth the applicant's efforts to come up with a solution that really works. The present results are a less than adequate design. If the project was completed as submitted there is nothing that could be done to correct deficiencies in the access. In the end this is all part of the same neighborhood and the new residents will coexist with the prior residents. Appropriateness and safety are the issues being dealt with. After the developer moves on the Town will have to deal with any issues. The Chairman said he agreed one hundred percent and that the other two major 4013's were treated this way. This case was the first 40B submitted to the town. If the Board knew then what they know now this would have been handled differently. None of the present Board members sat in on this case so how does this Board restructure what was agreed to by it's predecessors. The Board has been frustrated in working with all the conditions involved in this case. All the Board can do is put conditions on the development that they think is fair and adequate. This is one major neighborhood and the Board wants all the residents equal and pleased with the town. The Board discussed how it appears there may be an alternative plan in the offering and it may be possible to reach an agreeable revision regarding the access to this property which the Board has been concerned about from the beginning. The one way traffic loop offers a good solution and may result in appeasing some concerns about looping the town facilities. The Board would like to see this plan if it is in the offering. The Chairman said there are 16 feet still available on George Street and how that buffer is determined will be done by engineering. The other major concern right now is that we do not have clear access to the development through Curtis Street, it is through an easement. The Chairman said that as of last Friday everything that was available relating to this case was ' posted on the website. If new engineering plans are submitted a small version of that could be put on the website. This will give people an opportunity to keep up to date. Attorney Lamond requested the Board take a walking tour of the area. The Chairman said he learned to not set foot on someone's property without advance notice and consent. A Curtis Street resident wanted to know if the issues regarding the widening of Route 128 and the taking of the end of Curtis Street had been addressed. The Chairman said the Board could not afford to wait two more years to see what the state is going to do with that intersection. Attorney Cicatelli reminded the audience that this project was proposed before the state began their process regarding the 128 interchange. Fred Doherty of Curtis Street said he went to the fire station and measured the fire trucks and the ambulance and said there was no way any of these could fit through the proposed access. The Chairman told Mr. Doherty if he felt the Fire Chief had erred in any way he should discuss it with the Chief because the Board has to accept the decision of the Fire Chief. Tim O'Connor of Curtis Street asked if the amendment by the Petitioner was reasonable or unreasonable as presented. A petition submitted by the ten abutters was read and it urged the Board to reject any amendments that use more than one lane of traffic on Curtis Street The Chairman said it would not be a breach of the litigation that is pending to request that the Petitioner submit a plan for the use of the 16 feet off George Street and a one way loop through the development as well as the looping of the utilities. Attorney Cicatelli said they did not think they had the authority to do this because of the settlement. He said they could not submit a plan without Attorney Lamond's consent but since they now had it they can send the Board a plan within one week. He also requested that the Board make a decision they can report to the judge when they return to court. Attorney Lamond requested that the plan be sent by March 18th so they can have adequate time to review the material. The Chairman said if they have the engineering plans back by March 24th it would give them one week to let the court know what the Board has requested. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted ill to continue the case to March 11, 2004. Motion approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Minutes Minutes of December 4, 2003 were approved. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Minutes of December 11, 2003 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Minutes of January 8, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Minutes of January 22, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully auto Maureen M. Recording S 4