Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-07 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 1994 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission of the `1_'own of Read-3 nr-- was held in the Selectmen s Meeting Room of the Town Hall. 16 Lowell. Street in Reading, Massachusetts on February 7, 1994. In attendance were Richard Howard, Cl-hair; -arid Members William Goodrich, and Jonathan Barnes. Also present were Town. Planner Jonathan Edwards and Town En-aineer William Robertson. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES The minutes of the Commission's meeting: of January 24, 1994 were amended and accepted. Ms, Shipes joined the quorum. POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION., STARR REALTY TRUST, 125-131 FAIN STREET, SITE PLAN REVIEW Mr. Howard called to order a discussion with the Town Counsel, H. Theodore Cohen, and with the applicant's representatives, Willard Perkins, Jr. and Attorney Charles Arthur, concerning responding: to a judge's direction that the litigation over unfulfilled site plan review conditions of 1986 and 1983 be attempted to be settled before trial. Mr. Cohen reviewed the history of the case, drawing attention to aJune 27 , 1988 site plan review deci- sion, and proposed that settlement be reached on the outstanding items of noncompliance: a barrier preventing vehicular access to the property from Hopkins Street across residentially zoned land, installation of a tree island in the rear parking; lot, and ade- quacy of screen plantings along: the rear Property line. After considerable discussion with the applicant, -the Commission vested 4:0 to approve a motion made by Mr. Howard, seconded by Ms. Shipes, that the case be submitted for settlement relative to the barrier/gate, tree island, and screen planting; matters, according to the attached document from Town Counsel. POTENTIAL PRD'S--MILL STREET AND VAN NORDEN ROAD Mr. Jack Rivers, representing the property owners, requested that the Commission recai3.est that articles for placement on the Zoning Map of a PRD--C Overlay District can two properties--a 4.286-acre tract on Mill Street, Map 2:36 Lot 14, and a 14.67-acre -tract be- tween Van Norden Road and Fairchild Drive, containing extensive wetlands, Map 179 Lot 2 and Map 180 Lot 1. Mr. Rivers briefly outlined his ideas for geese sites, and the Commission pointed out some immediately obvious matters that should be addressed in the PRD plans. The Commission then voted 4:0 to aT=~prove a motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Goodrich, to request that the --Beard of Selectmen place -articles on the -Warrant for the Spr M~ Town Meeting to place on the Zoning: Map P RD--C Overlay Districts on these two tracts. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REVISION The Commission discussed with Messrs. Robertson and Edwards the on-going revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The consensus was to use the newly-adopted) Regulations of the Town of Bur- lington as a model, and to consider a section or two at each meeting up to the Continued Public Hearing in May. Mr. Edwards distributed copies of this to the Members. Major matters for consideration include: fees', design standards, forms , off-site mitigation, earth removal, gas and electric plans , survey stan- dards, and interim maintenance bonding. OTHER BOSSINESS Mr. Edwards presented three possible warrant articles for Spring Town. Meeting. One, the deletion of Section 6.3.4. "Nonconforming Signs" from the Zoning By-Laws, was approved for request to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the Warrant by vote of 4:0 in approving a motion to that effect, made by Ms. Shipes, seconded by Mr. Barnes. The other two, concerning amending the PRD Open Space requirements so that PRD open space could be added to ad- jacent public open space, including cemetery, and concerning placing property adjacent to the Batchelder Field cemetery in a PRD-G Overlay District, were voted 4:0 not, to be requested to the Selectmen for placement on the Warrant, according to a motion made, by Ms. Shipes, seconded by Mr. Goodrich, as this would be con - Crary to the intent of the PRD open space requirements. Mr. Edwards presented a Lot Release for Lot 11 as shown on the Duce Load Subdivision Plans dated November 20, 1936 as revised through. October 20, 1987, as had been requested by the closing attorney for that lot for the Commission to execute, as the lot had been sold, by the subdivision developer prior to bonding of streets and thus not included in the original Lot Release for that subdivision. The Commission voted 4:0 to approve a motion of Mr. Goodrich., seconded by Mr. Barnes, to execute the lot release, and the Commission so executed. As a result, of discussions about implementation priorities of Master Plan action strategies, the Commission reached a consensus that those dealing with Downtown, and the use of public improve- ment, programs as a catalyst to promote public/private cooperation towards establishing a Main Street Program, should be have priority for attention and action. The Commission agreed to elaborate, on this matter at the nest meeting. ADJOURNMENT At. 10:49 PM a motion was made and seconded to adjourn and the Commission voted unanimously to do so. Signed: _ Date: c,._...._.,. 'T~io~~ia5 Baillie, Secre~t,ar`y 2 TYLER & REYNOLDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE BOSTON PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 TELEPHONE 617-523.6550 TELECOPIER 617.523-2157 February 8, 1994 BY TELECOPIER Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager TOWN OF READING Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Settlement of Case Against Starr Realty Trust Middlesex Superior Court No. 91-1115 Dear Peter: In 1991 the Town,and the. Building Inspector brought an enforcement action,against Willard Perkins.as.Trustee of Starr Realty Trust to enforce the terms of a 19'85 variance granted by the Board of Appeals and,, a 1985 site plan approved by the Plan- ning Board as modified in 1988 by CPDC. That case has,been called for trial for February 16, 1994. On February 7, 1994, CPDC agreed to settle the case in accordance with the terms set forth in this letter, and I hereby request that the`Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Reading General Bylaws, authorize such settlement. The facts of the case are as follows: In 1985, Perkins applied to the Board of Appeals for a variance to allow for the expansion of the commercial building at 125 Main Street. To expand the building it was necessary to obtain a variance to allow the rear portion of the property, located in a residential zoning district, to be used as parking for the commercial building. The Board of Appeals granted such a variance subject to certain landscaping and site lighting. In 19851 Perkins also sought and obtained.site plan approval from the Planning Board which required certain items to:be.included on the site plan and landscaping plan. The most significant remain ing such .item,_is a landscaped island in.the'middle of the parking lot. Subs:equently,_ Per.:kins obtained an..abutting parcel of - residential property,,, which contain,an accessway from Hopkins Street to the commercial parking area, and people began using - - this accessway. CPDC objected and in 1988 the Building Inspector issued a cease and desist notice based on this and other viola- TYLER. & REYNOLDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION February 8, 1994 Page 2 tions of the approved 1985 site plan. Thereafter, in 1988 Perkins sought and obtained certain modifications to the 1985 site plan, which modifications included that unless authorized by a decision of the Board of Appeals to the contrary, a permanent fence was to be erected to prevent vehicular access from the Hopkins Street accessway to the commercial parking area. Perkins did not fully comply with the 1985 site plan and 1988 modifica- tions, and in 3,991 this enforcement action was commenced. In late 1991, Perkins finally applied to the Board of Appeals for a variance to allow the use of the Hopkins Street accessway and for an unrelated variance to allow a garage to be used as an accessory building to the commercial building. The Board of Appeals unanimously denied both variances. As of yesterday, Perkins had complied with all the require- ments of the 1985 variance and the 1985 site plan and 1988 modifications, except for the installation of the landscaped island in the parking lot and except for the installation of the permanent fence. At CPDC's meeting last evening, the parties agreed that an Agreement for Judgment could be entered in the pending case providing as follows: (1) A new site plan would be submitted by Perkins showing the elimination of the landscaped island in the parking lot. In return for eliminating the island, an additional six (6) trees eight feet (81) in height at the time of planting would be evenly spaced between twenty (20) and forty (40) feet from the edge of the parking lot on the easterly side of the property to create a more densely vegetated barrier between the Perkins property and the abutting property. These trees are to be either white pines or hemlock and no existing vegetation is to be removed. The trees are to be planted by May 30, 1994. (2) A permanent barrier shall be located on the accessway approximately ninety feet (901) from Hopkins Street as shown on the attached plan. This barrier will be locked and will be opened only for emergency vehicles or for access to the garage on the residential property, but it is not to be used for an access- way to the commercial parking lot. This barrier is to be made permanent by May 30, 1994. In the event that the accessway is conveyed by Perkins at some future time, and if it is still located in a residential zoning district, then the barrier is to - be relocated to where it was initially proposed to be located 6A31\.lGl \.11G 1J V V 1ltw\.1 J_`I-. 4 1WAL. \ W "-AaG v1.rG t.J i[.lll • - Lv KvaM _ language about the property remaining in a residential zoning district because their master plan would rezone this residential TYLER Sc REYNOLDS PROFESSION, CORPORATION February 8, 1994 Page 3 area into a commercial district and then the rationale for prohibiting access to the commercial parking lot would be moot. Since this settlement would be memorialized by an Agreement for Judgment filed in court, in the event Perkins did not comply with the terms of the Agreement it could be enforced by a con- tempt proceeding. If the terms of the foregoing settlement are acceptable to the Board of Selectmen, I would appreciate it if they would authorize the settlement so that the case can be resolved before the February 16th trial date. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Very t 1 yours, H Theodore HTC/cf cc: Mr. Jonathan Edwards Mr. Richard D. Howard 9Z 31noa rrovn' 13381S NIV Vy 00,0001-a CHI: E: J1814gli, Z cn O O ~ 1Q X17(3 8 IrQ~+ S ng ~ r / ~ m m b s FA I~ Ir r SINA7•RA roti.. Wl a 1+ f 2 = •:w,a 148.40' t Y ,p 8 CMMIA 7AI - { 'EfBE ✓•a/f5 8 ELINOR£ M ROGERS N/F THO! Z O m A D 7 r "I a