The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-10-23 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesR GEIV D T MINI H CLERK 1e 37 TOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1995 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission of the Town of Reading was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street in Reading, Massachusetts on Oc- tober 23, 1995. In attendance were Bryan Irwin, Chair; and Mem- bers Jonathan Barnes and Richard Howard. Also present were Town Planner Jonathan Edwards and Town Engineer Joseph Delaney. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 PM. SUBDIVISION MATTERS The Commission endorsed the Definitive Plans for the Strawberry Hill Subdivision according to its vote at a previous meeting. The Commission voted 3:0 to approve a motion of Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Barnes, to endorse a Plan of Land at VanNorden Road and Harold Avenue, dated October 19, 1995, provided that notes are placed thereon that Lot A may or may not be a buildable lot if it is less than 20,000 square feet and if the dimension from the proposed lot line to the existing deck is less than 15 feet; and the Commission did so endorse the plan. The Commission voted 3:0 to approve a motion of Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Barnes, to endorse a Lot Release for the Nugent Lane subdivision, and did so endorse. SITE PLAN REVIEW WAIVER REQUEST The Commission was approached by Mr. Ronald Ranieri, architect, on behalf of the Daniels Nursing Home on Middlesex Avenue, re- questing the Commission to consider Site Plan Waiver in regard to a proposed addition to the rear of their building. The Commis- sion voted 3:0 to approve a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Barnes, to table the matter to 7:45 PM on November 6, 1995, pend- ing further information on zoning compliance and appropriateness of considering this as a waiver and Town Counsel's advice thereon. ZONING WARRANT ARTICLES Mr. Irwin called to order a public discussion concerning Articles placed on the Warrant for the Fall 1995 Town Meeting. Although this had been scheduled to be a public hearing, the public hear- ing could not legally be held at this time due to an error in the publication of the legal notice thereon in the newspaper. Mr. Irwin announced that the actual public hearing will be held on November 6, 1995, and that these minutes will be entered into the record for that hearing. Public comments relative to these ar- ticles were as follows: Article 14-- Don Smith: favors the article 1 Al Minotti, son of owner of property from which easement is proposed to be acquired: against the article because he feels that the acquisition and construction will not work since water comes from elsewhere and flows east under Main Street from his mother's land; would prefer having the watercourse piped and covered Nancy Eaton, Chair of the Conservation Commission: the Con- servation Commission does not look favorably on cul- verting drainage channels Diane Costello: Mr. Minotti's description of the water flow is not accurate; the water flows west into the Minotti property and the blockage causes this to back up into the properties on the east side of Main Street Joe Delaney: confirmed Ms. Costello's description Mrs. Smith: the State had cleaned the area out when Main Street was repaved in the mid-1980's and there was no flooding for a while thereafter, but since the flooding has(gradually increased because the Town has not been able to clean the drainage out. At this point Mr. Baillie joined the quorum. Article 15-- Greg Randall: the article would restrict business opera- tions in that it would not allow the public to know what merchandise is available (no name given): it is important for potential customers to know brand names offered Rocco Connell: does not see any importance to distinguishing brand names from generic product identifications Tom O'Connor: against article, too restrictive on business Article 16--no comments Article 20-- Michael Larkin presented sketch plans showing his intended PRD development of the site Sherri Crow: lack of detail in the proposal makes it dif- ficult to evaluate it Rocco Connell: asked if this is thesame as the PRD proposed last spring; 2 houses would be okay but not more Ray Gagnon and Al Scott: why does the developer want to do a PRD and not a subdivision? Michael Larkin: a PRD is preferrable because it allows bet- ter flexibility for the design of the site and reduced construction costs Article 17--,~,o~~~~ Mike ZM this article may be in conflict with federal regulations Redmond Sheets: would like to see the article set aside, but he would find height and setback limits and re- quirements for sound materials acceptable; the proposal is an unneeded intrusion Brad Latham, speaking to Commercial Structures provisions: the definition of facility applies over-broadly in that it includes "enclosed electronic devises"; commercial 2 structures could be construed as private and suggests deletion of the words "private or" in the Private Structures definition; commercial structures should be allowed in Business A and B districts as businesses are likely to have a growing need for such devises; the re- quirement for screening rooftop structures from view from other properties or public ways is impractical; annual certification is unreasonable and exposes owners to unneeded risk of inadvertant noncompliance; the need for reapplication for the special permit by a new owner would extinguish an8sgrandfathered rights; and one-year disuse standard is contrary to MGL Chapter 40A two-year abandonment standard Paul Callahan: asked what the definition of a structure is, and was afraid that normal aerials would be a structure and therefore prohibited on houses Mrs. Sylvester: would Town-owned CB structures be allowed?; objects to screening, fencing, interference, notifica- tion requirements and other details; asked why CPDC wants to eliminate a hobby Mike Reardon: electronic interference is not necessarily caused by the transmittor; this proposal is not needed and federal standards are all we need Phil LeBlanc: local by-laws currently offer no protection to abutters or the public against possible adverse im- pacts of towers. Article 18-- Nancy Eaton: 65-day review period for Final PUD plans for joint hearing may not match up with the legally man- dated 21-day review period for Notices of Intent; the article contains no requirement to notify abutters or the public of the first joint meeting Article 19-- Brad Latham: issues and problems were not caused by the subdivision developer but by lot-buyers; street trees have been installed as directed by the Tree Warden on the front lawns of the house lots; asked that this ar- ticle be tabled and other methods pursued against the lot-owners. PUBLIC HEARING--FINAL PRD-G PLANS: 48 MILL STREET Mr. Irwin called to order a public hearing to consider Final Plans for a proposed five-house Planned Residential Development (PRD-G) at 48 Mill Street. Mr. Paul Finocchio, engineer for the applicant, presented the plans. Messrs. Delaney and Edwards presented staff comments. Mr. Baillie pointed out that the plans do not show the required locus map. Ms. Nancy Eaton, Chair of the Conservation Commission, pointed out that the wetlands delineation hasnot been finalized and a Notice of Intent filing has only recently been submitted; under the Limited Project criteria, the Conservation Commission must examine all alterna- tive accesses besides the proposed wetlands crossing and the 3 developer is required to minimize the extent of the crossing; she suggested that the Aquifer Protection impervious surface limita- tion should be specified in any approval conditions and that clear-cutting of the site is not acceptable. Concerns of the public in attendance were: Construction vehicles are too heavy for the load limit on Mill Street. Mill Street is not adequate to handle traffic generated from the cumulative effects of development in the area. Mill Street should be made one-way. The development's drive should be moved to the southern part of the site; the development's drive should not be moved to the southern part of the site. Short Street should have a Stop sign at its intersection with Mill Street. The Commission voted 4:0 to approve a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Baillie, to continue the public hearing to a new public hearing scheduled for 9:00 PM on November 6, 1995. Mr. Irwin informed the public of the continuance, and cautioned them that the hearing may well start later than 9:00 PM because of the zoning article public hearing on the agenda beforehand. OTHER BUSINESS AND ADJOURNMENT The Commission briefly discussed the condition of the Autumn Lane in regard to lot drainage, detention pond slope, and pavement quality issues with Mr. Delaney, Ms. Eaton, and Mr. Stager, a home-owner in the subdivision, and repeated that its vote on the matter was not to consider any bond reduction request until it received a written recommendation from Mr. Delaney. At 11:45 PM a motion was made and seconded to adjourn and the Commission voted unanimously to do so. Respectfully Submitted: i ~ Signed :f1 Nancy hipes/ Secretary Approved : t 1 G 19'S Date: - 4