Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesviJ4 Town of Reading e- 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 L ERR , M yA, SS. Pax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.r•eading.ma.Lis Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: December 12, 2005 Location: Police Meeting Room, 15 Union Street 7:00 PM Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Richard Howard (RH), and Neil Sullivan (NS). Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR) Michael Schloth Joe Delaney, Town Engineer - Attorney Donald F. Borenstein, Law Offices of Mark B. Johnson, 12 Chestnut Street, Andover, MA 01810 Ms. Cindy First, 3 Avon Street Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Avenue, Reading; MA Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. John D. Sullivan, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford, MA 01921 Mr. Joseph Westerman, 17 Avon Street Members and guests of the Historical Commission: Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission Ms. Karen Herrick, 9 Dividence Road Mr. Clay Jones Ms. Diane Jones Ms. Roberta Sullivan, 76 Minot Street Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) Ongoing review of Implementation Chapter and Master Plan finalization The MPAC began their meeting with a discussion of the results of the Master Plan Questionnaire. RH noted that the questions that had the highest positive response were those that asked respondents if they would like to see Reading's Historical features-, "village pattern", and woodlands protected. The question that had the lowest positive response concerned the establishment of a Town Commission for Economic Growth. The Committee noted that responses to the question of what respondents would like to see done with the Addison-Wesley site were all over the board. Page 1 of 10 RH pointed out that the sample size is small: only 110 questionnaires were completed and returned. It was the consensus of the Committee that the results of the questionnaire should be inserted into the Master Plan as an appendix. RH offered to develop a numerical score for the responses and Mr. George Katsoufis offered to develop a color-coded representation of the same. JS said he would draft a paragraph or two to be added to the Master Plan explaining the results of the questionnaire and their significance for the Master Plan. The Committee then discussed their goals toward the finalization of the Master Plan and reviewed the Implementation chapter. RH said that a point for future discussion is: how will the CPDC keep track of other departments' and Boards' progress towards achieving or maintaining their goals as set forth in the Master Plan? Also, how will the CPDC alert the responsible party or parties in each Department or Board if schedules start to slip? The meeting of the Master Plan Advisory Committee ended at 8:15 PM. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 8:17 PM. Public Comment JS asked for comments from the Public. There were none. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Vale Realty Trust, Piper Glen Lane at 15 Avon Street (Action Date: January 23, 2006) Mr. Sullivan summarized the plan and highlighted important points. • A landscaped island had been added to the cul-de-sac. • Drainage is still a major issue but soil testing shows that the site is better drained than originally thought. • The wetlands have been defined. • They will be going before the Conservation Commission this coming Wednesday (December 14, 2005). • They are still hooking for three waivers: • A reduction of the width of the pavement from 30' to 24' (he emphasized that the drainage system was designed as if the width was 30'); • The construction of a sidewalk along one side of the roadway only; • No traffic study. • They still are willing to contribute to the construction of a sidewalk elsewhere in town, i-11 l..u~ul~.vt dU~. L,.,iallcy ~J1UJU116GU 111J GU111111U111J allU UU11UC1115. fligilllg'llL, i U1 W111U11. are: Page 2of10 • As the applicant is looking for waivers to reduce the pavement width and amount of sidewalk constructed, the Board should double the amount of sidewalk the applicant should pay for elsewhere. • He didn't think it was fair to the abutters that this project would move the wetlands line closer to their properties. He said he would bring the matter up at Wednesday's Conservation Commission meeting. • He had not yet reviewed the drainage design, but would meet with Conservation Administrator Fran Fink about it tomorrow (December 13, 2005). He reminded the Board that the town does not have the means to maintain an infiltration system. If such a system fails, the only solution is to dig it up and rebuild it. • In response to the suggestion that Homeowners Associations might maintain landscape islands, he agreed it could be a possibility but added that he would not want islands to turn into a patchwork of ownership and responsibility. CR read a memo from the Town Manager that declared both his and the selectmen's support for landscape islands in cul-de-sacs. They are aware that they make the snowplowing of cul-de-sacs more difficult, but they feel they are worthwhile nevertheless. CR outlined what the Board should require from developers concerning landscape islands. • Proper turning radius. • A clear assigmrnent of responsibility for their maintenance. • A detailed Planting Plan. CR read a memo from the Safety Officer regarding the impact this subdivision might have on traffic in general and accidents in particular. The Safety Officer wrote that there have been six accidents in or near the area over the past two years. Two were right at the intersection of Avon and Main Streets and the others were further up Main Street. It was the Safety Officer's opinion that this subdivision would not have an impact on area traffic. Regarding landscape islands, JS asked if there was any condition the Board could add as a requirement of a Homeowners Association to mitigate the snowplowing problem? The Town Engineer said he would like to see curbing around the island but the fact of the matter is that there is no way to mitigate the problem. It simply takes longer to snowplow a cul-de-sac that contains an island. JS asked if the turning radius requirements have been met? CR said the design meets the current standards and a waiver would be required to accommodate the radius the Fire Chief would like to see there. The Town Engineer noted that such a change would not require a waiver since the Board has the authority to make changes to the design standard. CR said, in that case the Board could just put the Fire Chiefs radius request into the decision. JS asked the developer if that would be an issue. Mr. Sullivan said it would not. JS then asked CR to cite in the decision the specific subdivision regulation to which the Town Engineer referred. CR said he would. a 1 ree inventory riad been made. UK and Mr. Sullivan said one JS asked if the public had any comments. Page 3 of 10 Ms. Cindy First of 3 Avon Street asked if the proposed road could be a private road? Mr. Sullivan said it was the developer's intention to build a public way. He and the Town Engineer noted that the town still provides basic services on a private ways (snow plowing, trash pick-up...). The Town Engineer added that it is not so much a question of if it is a private or public way although the town prefers public ways as it is a question as to who will maintain the landscape island and detention pond. Mr. Joseph Westerman of 17 Avon Street asked if the developer had any plans to provide landscaping to block abutters from the Business District? Mr. Sullivan said there would be street trees and if they receive the one-sidewalk waiver they would have even more room for buffering landscaping. CR said a landscaping plan is not required, but the Board could require one. It was the consensus of the Board that the developer be given guidance on a suitable landscape buffer. The Board was looking for something substantial. RH asked the Town Engineer what the cost/foot of a sidewalk would be. The Town Engineer did not know but could provide the Board with a number later. CR said he would need that number before the first building perinit could be issued. RH said he had no objection to any of the waivers. He noted that to grant a waiver you must show its value to the town and reducing the pavement width and allowing one sidewalk gain the town less impervious cover. - CR said be would add the Fire Chiefs cul-de-sac radius request into the list of waivers. The Board agreed. The Town Engineer said he will be presenting his review of the proposed drainage system to the Conservation Commission Wednesday night and he pointed out that what the Cons Comm decides at that meeting could have a bearing on the plans for this subdivision. The Board took his point. It was the consensus of the Board not to render their decision until after the Conservation Committee sleets. RH moved to continue the Public Hearing until the January 9, 2006 meeting at 8:OOPM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Attorney Donald Borenstein asked to speak to the Board. On the matter of Homeowners Associations, he said he could provide documentation on how such associations have been used successfully in other towns. Regarding landscaping, he said the developer wants to provide a landscaping plan. Regarding the contribution to a sidewalk fund, Attorney Borenstein requested that the Board consider requiring payment of the contribution when the units are ready to be occupied rather than asking for it up front. Page 4 of 10 The Town Engineer said that the matter of Homeowners Associations is more of a policy issue: does the town want to get into this? It was the consensus of the Board that the Town Counsel should be asked to look into the legal issues of Homeowner Associations. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Richard Merrill Trustees, Dwight Road at 175 Franklin Street (Action Date: December 31, 2005) JS said that the Board has received a memo from Attorney Brad Latham requesting a continuance and an extension. Mr. Latham said the drainage basin changes are almost but not yet ready. The Town Engineer said he had looked at the plans over and they looked good. RH moved to continue the Public Hearing until the January 9, 2006 meeting at 9:OOPM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. CR said Mr. Latham has an ANR request for the Kylie Lane subdivision. Mr. Latham said Deer Run Developers need to take ownership of certain properties from Mr. Bassett and the signatures of the CPDC members are need to consummate the land swap. CR said he had reviewed the plans and they looked fine. RH moved to endorse the ANR for land on 161 - 165 Wakefield Street on plans dated November 28, 2005. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board signed the plans. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness (continued) 470 Main Street, TD Banknorth (Action Date: December 12, 2005) JS recused himself. This left the Board without a quorum. CR said he had spoken with Carolyn Johnson (she is the representative of the sign company ~ - contracted by Banknorth) and she said that as Baiilmorth has not yet taken down the violating sign she would not be attending the meeting. Page 5 of 10 RH said the Board cannot grant a Certificate of Approval in violation of our bylaws and we can't deny it because we don't have a quorum. The Town Planner said he would send Banknorth a letter stating that they are in violation of Reading's signage bylaws and then reschedule this issue for a later CPDC meeting based on their response. The Board noted that no representative of Banlcnorth was in attendance. No action taken. Zoning Workshop Historic Preservation Zoning Relief By-Law Proposal by Historical Commission to reduce setbacks by special permit on lots with historical structures to encourage preservation The Historical Commission met with the Board to review the language of the Commission's proposed bylaw. CR said the Town Counsel had reviewed the language and sent him a copy of the draft with her comments and questions inserted into the text. CR distributed copies of this draft and it was the version the Commission and Board worked from. CR said he has not yet heard anything from the ZBA on the proposal. The Board asked how many parcels might be affected by this bylaw. Ms. Roberta Sullivan said it would take more research to determine that but there are roughly 240 historical structures in the town and few of them are on lots large enough to be affected by the bylaw. Madam Chair Virginia Adams said that they used the language from similar bylaws already on the books in Andover and North Andover. The Board emphasized that the language must make clear all possibilities and scenarios that apply. In particular, the structure might end up in the same location but on a smaller lot (split from the original larger "parent" lot); or it might be moved to an entirely different location. And if the structure is moved to a different location, that location might be in a different zone possibly even a non-residential zone. Attorney Brad Latham said he thought that some subsections could be dropped either because other subsections say the same thing or because they are covered under other statutes. h1 one_section of.the bylaw, the_Commission -addresses the possibility--that-an owner might claim their historic structure will be demolished when in fact they had no intention of doing so. JS asked how you would prove bad intent? The Board thought the Commission might have a hard time trying to determine the intent of any owner who wanted to take advantage Page 6of10 of the bylaw. CR said he thought the ZBA would be nervous about having to challenge an owner's intent. He added that it is critical that the ZBA provide its input on this bylaw. CR said the bylaw attempts to regulate interior space - something not allowed under Massachusetts law - and he wondered how it passed in Andover and North Andover. He said he would review those towns' decisions and see what, if anything, the Attorney General has said about such bylaws. The Historical Commission thanked the Board for their comments and suggestions. Ms. Adams said they would incorporate tonight's changes into a new draft for the Town Counsel to review. Modify Section 4.3.2.8 (Accessory Apartments) Of the Zoning Bylaws to remove the restriction that an accessory apartment must be occupied prior to 1982 in the portions of the residential districts adjacent to the Depot RH had put together a packet containing the definition of "Accessory Apartments" and the specific bylaws that cover them. RH said the modification would remove the following restrictions from the current bylaw: 1. The apartments must have been occupied prior to 1982, and 2. No more than 1.0% of the single-family homes in the overlay district could have an accessory apartment RE said there were two key issues: 1. Where and how is the overlay district for accessory apartments defined? He asked CR if a map could be found that shows the homes affected. CR thought one could. 2. Should an affordable housing component be imposed and if so should it be imposed temporarily or permanently? RH said the purpose of this modification was to both diversify Reading's housing options and to move the town closer to the 10% affordable housing threshold. JS had two observations. 1. The Accessory Apartment overlay district should not overlap the Mixed-Use district. 2. Regarding parking, the laws against front-yard parking would have to be strengthened in case owners decide to pave their front yards to provide tenant parking. NS asked if inlaw apartments would be included. CR said accessory apartments are inlaw apartments. He added that it did not matter if the tenant was or was not a relative of the owner but at least one of the units - main house or apartment - must be owner occupied. Regarding the affordability component, JS suggested it might be less of a burden on owners if they were given the option to make a contribution to a housing fund of some kind instead. RE thought this was a, great idea. CR pointed out that it was unnecessary since under State Law "any accessory apartment lawfully created by special permit is considered by the State to count as an affordable unit." RH asked: for how long? CR said: forever. RH said: no matter what the rent is? CR said: that's right. Page 7 of 10 CR added that he believes that currently there are enough accessory apartments all over Reading to reach the 10% affordable housing threshold. Unfortunately, they are not recorded with the town because no one feels the need to come in for a Special Permit. Not one Special Permit has been taken out for an accessory apartment but all year long people come in and call on the phone asking if their neighbor had pulled a permit for the apartment in their house. Maybe it's a case of many people asking about the saline few apartments but he didn't think so. JS asked how they would go about getting hard numbers on these apartments. The Board needs to find out why no one is coming forward for the Special Permit. If it has something to do with its requirements, perhaps the Board could tweak them. Virginia Adams asked: what kind of incentive could you offer? JS said we need to say to residents that if they are tired of 4013s they should register their accessory apartments because each one puts Reading closer to the 10% threshold. CR said there is an incentive for families to build them to keep their parents out of nursing homes. JS said that this should be added to the list of topics to discuss with the Selectmen on January 3'd. The Board agreed. Cluster Development (PRD) Zoning In all S-15 rend S-20 zoning districts provided one in eight units is affordable and $30,000/rnurket unit is contributed to Housing Trust Fund RH explained the concept. Several homes would be built closer together on smaller lots and the remainder of the land would be placed under the common ownership of the homeowners. This would not increase density. A similar plan had been put before Town Meeting but without the affordability and contribution components. The hope is that these components will make it more appealing to Town Meeting members since with these components in place PRD Zoning would help the town meet the affordable housing threshold. JS asked if there were other incentives. RH said there were: more open space, and a less expensive utility layout CR added that the huge incentive is, if, as a non-PRD, the development could not be built because of wetlands, then you may be able to build it as a PRD if the wetlands could be fit into the common-ownership, open area. RH suggested that the subdivision they reviewed tonight (Piper Glen Lane) was an example of a subdivision that would be perfect for a PRD. CR agreed. JS recapped: you're suggesting making a change to the PRD bylaw [Section 4.10] such that the PRD covers all of zones S 15 and S20 so that developers do not have to go before Town Page 8of10 Meeting for any PRDs in those zones; and you're adding the affordability component to make it appealing to Town Meeting. RH said he was correct and added that the PRD also fits the Master Plan's promotion of Open Space. Virginia Adams said PRDs might encourage more tear-downs. NS asked if this was just like "McMansions"? RE said, no, there would be no increase in density. NS said he would not buy a house across the street from a cluster of houses. JS said he might if a large open space accompanied it. NS said he was against it. He said it goes against the character of the Town. JS agreed that it would change a neighborhood's character. CR said it is a Special Permit so if a development looks like it might turn into what NS is against, the Board could deny the permit. JS suggested adding it to the list of items to discuss with the Selectmen on January 3` RH said they might as well add the Historical Preservation bylaw to the list too. The Board agreed. Virginia Adams said that the Historical Commission was thinking about amending the Demolition Delay from six months to twelve months. She asked if they would need to discuss it in a Zoning Workshop. CR said the Demolition Delay is in the General Bylaws so no workshop was necessary. Administrative Review 2006 CPDC Schedule The meetings of January 2006 through June 2006 will be held in the Police Community Room at the Police Station, 15 Union Street. The Board approved the 2006 schedule. Review of issues for January 03, 2006 Joint Meeting with the Selectmen JS suggested removing from the list the discussion of the extension of the Business Zone to include the four lots on Sanborn Street. The Board agreed. JS suggested the following items as topics of discussion with the Selectmen: • Legal, Policy, and Communication Issues • Enforcement Issues Zoning Changes (the three discussed tonight) • Status of Addison/Wesley • Master Plan Page 9of10 The Board agreed with these suggestions. Minutes RH moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2005 as amended tonight. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 2005 as amended tonight. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:20 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on February 13, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on February 13, 2006. Signed as approved, F t 12 710 is rd D. Howard, Secretary Dat Page 10 of 10