Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-15 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCk t- TOWN OF READING - 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 j Phone: 781-942-9012 Pax: 781-942-9071v 1 i y Email: akrieg@ci.reading.ma.us " COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: October 15, 2001 Members Present: Richard Howard (RH), Chairman; Kathryn Greenfield (KG), Secretary, Jonathan Barnes(JB); Neil Sullivan, (NS) Also Present: Joseph Delaney, Town Engineer (JD); Anne Krieg, Town Planner (AK) The Chair called the meeting to order at 7 :40 PM. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FANTA DRIVE Mark Favaloro updated the Commission on information pending to be submitted for review. The Commission agreed to the following schedule, pending receipt of all necessary documents: Bond Estimate/Endorse Plans - 29th Release from covenant/post bond - 5th SUNSET ROCK LANE After discussion of the work yet to be completed and the possible reduction of a pending bond receipt: JB moved to accept a bank check in the amount of $9,308.60 to cover the costs remaining for the completion of Sunset Rock Lane. The Commission hereby releases all remaining lots held under covenant at this subdivision. Motion seconded by KG. All in favor. The requisite form for recording at the Registry of Deeds in Middlesex County was witnessed and notarized by Mark Favaloro, Esq. building and/or occupancy permits at this subdivision. C:\MyDocuments\CPDC\Agenda-Minutes\10.15.01 minutes.doc Created on 11/02/01 2:52 PM Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 10. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING: 4 WEST STREET Mark Brobowski, attorney for the applicant, reviewed work progress on the application with the Commission. The Commission discussed the following items with the applicant: • Signage may be in excess of required • Lighting no specification given, needs to be submitted • Lighting height is shown at 25', should be lowered to 20' for less light intrusion • Traffic allows for 18 cars queuing Commission requesting for review after occupancy - 6 months or 1 year The intention is to prevent queuing on Right of Way Applicant contends there would be 20 minute wait for last car in line Dunkin Donuts Gas Station typically has 5-7 cars; existing queue is 12 cars in Woburn • Cesspool proposed to be abandoned as per Title V AK reviewed layout option to move parking to I-93 and away from the abutters. JB added the intention was to stay on I-93 site. • Snow storage was discussed, its plan is to be pushed to rear of property. The Commission questioned and discussed: -Will it collect to side against fence blocking through access by drive-thru -Require vigilant snow removal as condition -One circulation signed as such -Enter Only, Exit Only • Curb and sidewalk should be replaced at street edge • The applicant needs to make an appointment with Health Director to witness the soil tests • Long term maintenance of site and stormwater needs to be reviewed. • The existing tree in the rear of the property will be preserved by constructing a well to hold the grade around it. • Welcome to Reading sign - It was agreed staff will coordinate after occupancy. • The applicant will have to move the location of the utility lines - can't go under slab/canopy. There are also separation requirements for utility lines. Engineer should meet with Joe Delaney, Town Engineer. JB discussed canopy issues, requesting a peaked canopy be considered. The applicant maintained they do not want to do peaked canopy because: -Oil companies prefer flat canopies - durability & cost issues, and Paul Madeiros - City Alderman in Woburn, Massachusetts spoke on the following issues: Page 2 of 6 Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 10. -Washington Street Dunkin Donuts queues on street -Questioned zoning compliance with parking -53' long truck for Dunkin Donuts, will there be sufficient capacity on site to store and .load a truck of this size -Residential buffering concerns -Ordering station volume being audible off-site -Hours of operation concerns -Sidewalk approved for adjacent gas station Joe Irving of 5 Dragon Court questioned further the plan for snow removal and lighting concern of reflection upward/off building and of an overload lighting of area. He also discussed the hours of operation for the building uses and the blind entrance in and out of the site as planned. He is also concerned with monitoring of the site and what will be done upon monitoring the queuing. Fencing location was discussed by the Commission. JB moved to continue the public hearing to 7:45 p.m. on November 5`h, 2001. Motion seconded by KG. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AMENDMENT FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT - KG commenced reading of the legal advertisement into the record. JB moved to dispense with the reading. Motion seconded by NS. All in favor. AK-reviewed the document. Virginia Adams of Precinct 2 asked general questions about the map. JD discussed the current interpretation is a lot-by-lot determination by owner as to elevation. There is typically a lower elevation by FEMA. This variation makes enforcement difficult for staff. The Commission asked staff to delete Essex County reference in the language. In order to determine the comments from the By-Law Committee, JB moved to continue the public hearing to October 29, 2001 at 8: 00 p.m. Motion seconded by NS. All in favor. The Commission then took a short break in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PIERCE STREET KG read legal advertisement into the record. Page 3 of 6 Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 10. AK read 10/9/01 memo to Peter Hechenbleikner into the record outlining the events leading to this hearing. The Hildreth's of 20 Pierce Street commented in early summer, the developer had started marketing to all prospective buyers and not just to age-restrictions. Darcy Hildreth further commented the realtors had indicated to her early in summer of 2001 the requirement for age restriction was lifted, thus alluding the requirement previously had been in place. Joan Langsam, Town Counsel recommended the agreement with the applicant should remain as part of executive session. George Hines, Selectmen commented in his view, it was the clear intention of CPDC the project would be age-restricted to be 55+. He questioned what options there are available. RH indicated litigation may be an option if the Commission maintains their previous intention. The Commission also has the option to allow the project to continue its occupancy, with the provision of one affordable unit and the other units as non-restrictive market-rate units. The affordable unit would be constructed so it will count towards the Town's affordable housing numbers. Bob Brown of Precinct 6 questioned if the affordable is available. Donald Borenstein, Attorney for the applicant commented the unit would qualify affordable and is available. Kevin Keating of 35 Pierce Street questioned if comprehensive permit was filed for the property, how many units would be made affordable? AK indicated 25-30% of the units would be, as required under the Comprehensive Permit process. He further commented the project was a smaller scale project at first and now this change constitutes a different projects, separate from what was previously discussed and approved. He felt the ZBA decision was based on 55+ age restriction of the units. RH indicated the Commission had supported 55+ restriction to the ZBA formally as well as part of their written comments. He questioned how the ZBA used this distinction in their deliberations. Hildreth's questioned the applicant's marketing them at no restrictions. RH responded he noted the applicant was working with 55+ residents until recently. David Gillette of Pierce Street maintained the design of the units were not for 55+ aged Page 4 of 6 Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 10. Kevin Keating commented his opinion the demographics are available in Reading for 55+ in that income bracket and he doesn't agree with argument they couldn't sell. Donald Borenstein, Esq. Attorney for the applicant two units already are 55+ people intending to purchase and about to close on their units. Judith Gillette of Pierce Street raised ethical arguments of the Commission's intention with the legal overriding argument of the record. She indicated there are a pattern of unresolved issues with this development through the hearing and construction process. George Hines, Selectman urged the Commission to correct the record's error to get back to intent of their decision. The attorney for the applicant indicated there are five units in purchase and sale agreements with none restricted as to age. Two units have sold, three are pending. A roll call vote was taken by the Chairman to enter into an Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. for the express purpose of discussing pending litigation related to this project. Vote taken: KG - Aye NS - Aye JB - Aye RH - Aye Session closed to the public. Roll call vote was taken to exit executive session at 10:35 p.m. Vote taken: KG - Aye NS - Aye JB - Aye RH - Aye RH indicated the following settlement agreement resulting from previous negotiation: -five units 55+ age restricted - one unit to be made affordable as defined - six units sold at market rate with no age restrictions RH indicated the above settlement was accepted by Applicant at the previous meeting. The attorney for the applicant subsequently found possible discrimination within the applied, at least 80% of the units must be so restricted. Page 5 of 6 Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 10. The Commission, he further stated, is offering the following optional agreement: - 80% or 10 units with 55+ restriction if Town Counsel confirms Fair Housing Act's restriction If this agreement is not acceptable to the applicant, the Commission voted to instruct the Town Planner to file a confirmatory decision as to its original decision on the project with all units having an age restriction of 55+. RH further indicated: If Town Counsel maintains the Fair Housing Act does not apply to this restriction of this property as requiring 80% of the units as a minimum to impose the restriction the original agreement will apply. This agreement again is: - five units at a 55+ age restriction - one unit as affordable as defined - six units to be sold at market rate without age restriction The Commission derived positive consensus as to these optional agreements. KG moved to continue the hearing on this matter to 9:00 PM October 29`x`, 2001. Motion seconded by JB. All in favor. Motion to adjourn at 11:00 PM, made by JB, seconded by KG. All in favor. These minutes were prepared by Anne Krieg, Town Planner, and submitted to the CPDC on November 2, 2001. Minutes were approved by the CPDC on November 5, 2001. Signed as approved: Kathryn 3 g oZ Date Page 6 of 6