Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-28 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading J n Reading MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us ; s Community Planning and Development Commission 16 Lowell Street CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: November 28, 2005 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Jonathan Baines (JB), Richard Howard (RH), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Neil Sullivan (NS). Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission Ms. Adele Blunt, 22 Linden Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Mike McManus, M.G.Hall Contractors, Inc., 286 Park Street, North Reading, MA 01864 Ms. Carolyn Parker, Carolyn Parker Consulting, 3 Lorion Avenue Worcester, MA 01606 Ms. Roberta Sullivan, 76 Minot Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30PM. Public Comments/Minutes Zoning Map Change Ms. Adele Blunt of 22 Linden Street asked to speak to the Board on Article 21, the Zoning Map Change to expand Business B, which was tabled at the Town Meeting. She said the letter sent to the abutters describing the rezoning was not clear. She said you could not tell by the letter that it was referring to her neighborhood. It did not mention addresses only Lot Numbers. She said she has the signatures of 75 neighbors against the rezoning. Some neighbors are concerned by the prospect of a parking garage in their neighborhood. Some feel "blindsided" by the proposal. JS said the request for the zoning change carne from the Town Manager. As he recalled, there were at least two reasons for expanding the Business-B zone into that area • Two of the four lots affected were locations of businesses already (medical) • Combined with the Mixed-Use overlay, the town is hoping to qualify for State funds under the State's Smart Growth program. Page 1 of 8 JS explained that although the Board did not initiate the rezoning, any zoning change must be vetted by the Board and part of that process is the notification of the abutters. JS said it was the Board's responsibility to ensure letters sent to abutters for Zoning changes are clear. CR said the letter was written with the burned-out lot on 16 Sanborn Street in mind. The abutters list was created off of that location. Everyone within 300 feet was sent the letter. Ms. Blunt asked if it is possible to slip this zoning change through the next Town Meeting. The Board emphasized that this was not possible. If it is brought forward again, it must go through the same procedure and that means another letter will have to be sent to the abutters. After the Board vets it, it must pass Town Meeting by a two-thirds vote. The Board assured her that if another letter were sent to her and the other abutters, it would be more specific and mention the addresses and lot numbers of the properties to be rezoned. The Board also said they did not know if the Town Manager wants to bring the article forward again. The Board suggested that Ms. Adele Blunt bring her petition and signatures to the Board of Selectmen. JB said that on the evening the Article was tabled the Town Manager approached him and acknowledged that it was best to table it. The Town Manager also acknowledged that if it came forward again it would require a more public airing. Zoning Relief for Historic Properties Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historic Commission, asked the Board to consider adopting a new bylaw that would allow for the reconfiguration of lots containing historic structures. The Historic Commission's proposal allows an historic structure to stand on a non-confonning lot so that the remainder of the parcel can be developed with conformity. She said this was being driven by a case where a house is under threat of demolition because the owner cannot develop elsewhere on the property because of wetlands. She feels this proposed bylaw would be an adjunct to the Demolition Delay Bylaw. She would like to see it on the warrant for Spring Town Meeting 2006. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a Zoning Workshop for this bylaw at the next meeting, December 12, 2005. CR said Town Counsel is reviewing the bylaw. RH asked Madam Chair Adams if she had any data to go along with her proposal. Ms. Roberta Sullivan said the Commission was working on compiling a list of properties that when it is completed. Page 2 of 8 JS suggested to the Historical Commission that they try to define the proposal in ternls of its tie-ins with the Master Plan. Madam Chair Adams agreed. RH said the Board has other Masten Plan initiatives to discuss before Spring Town Meeting, naively: • Accessory Apartments • Cluster PUD-Rs Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 470 Main Street, TD Banknorth (Action Date: December 12, 2005) JS recused himself. Banknorth has merged and requires new signage. Ms. Carolyn Parker represented the sign company. Ms. Parker said there will be a color change, the existing awnings will be re-skinned, and the sign's size reduced. RH said there are outstanding issues with the site, namely: 1. the Drive Thru sign is non-conforming (too large) 2. the sign on the side of the building is not allowed Ms. Parker asked if the "Clearance 9'6"" sign were allowed? RH said it was, but it was too large. CR explained that Directional Signs cannot exceed certain dimensions. CR said that the sign has already been put up on the building. The Board was not happy to hear this and the Board's inclination was not to issue the permit. JB said the Board went through the same thing with the original signage. Back then, the bank put up violating signage almost immediately. CR said that at the time of the original violations, he had written Banknorth more than one letter on the matter. The Board was disappointed that Banknorth was still out of compliance and had once again put up signage before receiving approval from the Board. Ms. Parker asked the Board if they could finalize what they wanted to see done. She said the sign company only takes down and puts up signs. It doesn't know what is in violation and what isn't. The Board appreciated Ms. Parker's position and understood she was caught the middle of the situation. Page 3 of 8 It was the consensus of the Board that although the new sign on the front of the building was fine, the "Clearance" sign on the Drive Thru must be smaller, and the sign on the South side of the building must come down. CR said that you could still see the outline of the old sign. The new sign is smaller and doesn't cover it. He suggested the Board specify that the old outline should be painted over. CR offered to meet with the Bank's officials to point out what is in violation. JB asked if the Board should put this on the agenda for December 12. CR said it could be squeezed in. RH emphasized that the Board must have an agreement up front. CR said the issue is that Banknorth was always in violation and they are still in violation. The Board agreed and asked CR to put that in a letter to Banknorth. CR said he would. No action taken. JS returned. Public Hearing(continued): Definitive Subdivision Richard Merrill Trustees, Dwight Road at 175 Franklin Street (Action Date: November 30, 2005) CR said this item concerns a continuance and an extension. CR said he had met with the Project Engineer who said the plans were being revised but they would not be ready before the Action Date. Attorney Brad Latham was asking for the continuance. JS pointed out that an extension to December 30 would be moot since there is only one meeting in December and that is on the 12th. RH moved to continue to December 12, 2005 at 9:OOPM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 2 Haven Street, True Value Realty Trust (Action Date: December 12, 2005) Mr. Mike McManus appeared for True Value Realty Trust Each first-floor shop will have a sign over the door and on either side of this sign will be smaller signs listing the businesses on the upper floors. The signs will be made of 3/4" MDO (Medium Density Overlaid) with flat, vinyl, gold-leaf letters. Mr. McManus presented a sample sign to the Board. Page 4of8 The Board asked if the signs would be weatherproof. Mr. McManus said they would. The Board liked the look of the sign but thought it might look better with raised letters and scalloped edges. Mr. McManus was not sure what it would cost to add raised letters, but he said it should be no problem to add scalloping. He pointed out that the tenants pay for their own signs and he did not want to overburden them. CR said the building front already has lots of architectural relief so, although raised letters would look nice, they are not necessary. RH was inclined to approve the signs over the front doors, but not those over the rear parking bays until the Board could see what the parking bays would look like. The Board agreed. CR questioned if signs could be placed in the rear of the building. He directed the Board to 6.2.3.22 in the Zoning Bylaws, the passage after subsection "c". The bylaw refers to the front and side of the building - not the rear. CR said signs could be placed on the Chute Street side of the building. Mr. McManus said his tenants most likely would rather have their signs on Haven or Chute. RH moved to approve the signage Certificate of Appropriateness application with the following conditions: I . The signs over the doors and windows only on Haven and Chute Streets are being approved. 2. The signs over the vehicle entrances on Chute Street and Brande Court are not included in this approval. 3. Each sign will be black, 3/4" MDO with scalloped borders. The letters will be vinyl gold leaf. 4. All signs will be of a consistent font in uppercase letters as shown in the sample provided (The Board asked the Town Planner to learn the specific name of the font and insert it into the language of the decision). 5. Logos are prohibited. 6. Individual tenants wishing to deviate from this Master Signage Plan may file an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for their sign. 7. Signs on either side of the "2 Haven Street" main entrance will have four of the smaller signs rather than one large sign and two smaller signs as shown in the drawing. 8. All signs shall be consistent with current bylaws. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Administrative Review Back Bay Court PRD lot release CR said the Board had released one of the two lots at the last meeting (Lot #4) and put the other on hold pending an inspection by the Engineering Division of the leeching field. CR properly. Page 5 of 8 The Board asked the Town Planner if he would ask the Town Engineer for a memo stating both that the necessary work has been done and that the Engineering Division has approved it. CR said he would and added that he would attach the memo to the lot release. RH moved to recommend the release the final lot (Lot #5) based on a recommendation of the Engineering Division. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Construction Hours of Operation for Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations CR said he had provided copy of the Board's interpretation of the code to the Johnson Woods developers and to Mr. Arsenault of Enos Circle. He said he hasn't heard any complaints from either party. JS asked CR if the Police Chief had any issues with the decision. CR said he hadn't heard of any. He added that he also gave the Police Chief the Heavy Equipment classification handout the Town Engineer provided. The Board agreed that the handout was very helpful. JS asked if this interpretation extends to other CPDC decisions. CR said he thought it would be the Board's functioning interpretation going forward until such time as changes are made to the General Bylaws. RE asked for the definition of "Legal Holiday". CR said it was not defined in the bylaws. The consensus of the Board was to define a "Legal Holiday" as a holiday observed by the Town of Reading. The Board asked the Town Planner if the Board of Selectmen intends to add constriction hours of operation to the General Bylaws. CR said that was his understanding. JS suggested adding this issue to their Zoning Workshop. He added that the Board should draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen with our recommendations for their consideration as they develop a General Bylaw. He said a copy of our interpretation should be included with a note explaining that this is how we have addressed the matter in the short tenn. The Board agreed this was a good idea. The Board addressed the Hours of Operation section (8.9, page 44) in the draft Subdivision Regulations. RS asked which would take precedence: the Subdivision Regulation's "Hours of Operation"; or an "Hours of Operation" condition they might write into a Site Plan Review decision; or a change to the General Bylaws that added "Hours of Operation"? CR and RH both said the more restrictive instruction would have precedence and that would most likely be the General Bylaw. RH reminded the Board of his suggestion to create a General Bylaw that focussed solely on Hours of Operation and eliminated any consideration of "Heavy Equipment" or "Delivery Times". Page 6 of 8 JS said: Today, we don't have a General Bylaw to address this issue. Instead, we have conditions in our decisions that define hours of operation. Which takes precedence between those conditions and the "Hours of Operation" section in the draft Subdivision Regulations? CR said the Subdivision Regulations only apply to subdivisions. So the CPDC's decisions would always specify the hours of operation by default. They are two separate permitting processes. JS said if that is the case then we should try to make the "Hours of Operation" section in the draft Subdivision Regulations consistent with the General Bylaw. CR said consistency was good, but he reminded the Board that sometimes the Public wants a more restrictive condition placed on a construction site and the CPDC has the right to specify such restrictions. CR emphasized that they need the Selectmen's input on this issue. They don't want to be put in the position where the General Bylaw is more restrictive than the Subdivision Regulation. Since the General Bylaws can be changed only at Town Meeting, he said the Board might want to hold off on making the change to the Subdivision Regulations until after Town Meeting. He added that "Hours of Operation" issues generate more complaints from the public than any other issues. JS asked what it would take to make changes to the Subdivision Regulations? CR said all that is required is a Public Hearing. RH suggested they schedule a Public Hearing for sometime before the Spring 2006 Town Meeting at which time they'll vote on all of the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations. That would give them something on which to base their decisions until April 2006. Then, if Town Meeting passes a General Bylaw with a different wording for the "Hours of Operation the Board could hold another Public Hearing and change that one section of the Subdivision Regulations. That met with the general approval of the Board. No action was taken. This was an informational discussion only. Subdivision Rules and Regulations amendments The Board was generally pleased with the draft Subdivision Regulations. CR said that he would schedule time in January 2006 for the Board to review it further. JS suggested adding it to a Zoning Workshop or Administrative Review in January 2006. It was the consensus of the Board that a Public Hearing should be scheduled on the proposed amendments as soon thereafter as possible. CR said he might be able to schedule one for February 2006. JS noted that although the Selectmen like landscaped islands in cul-de-sacs the DPW does not because they make snowplowing more difficult. He asked if the Board should recommend ways of making the islands more visible to plows? Also, he suggested the Page 7 of 8 Board ask DPW Director Ted McIntire and Town Engineer Joe Delaney for their opinions regarding the possibility and practicality of having Homeowners Associations maintain the islands. JB said, considering that the DPW is not in favor of islands in cul-de-sacs, the Board should inform Mr. McIntire and Mr. Delaney of the proposed change to the subdivision regulations. The Board agreed. No action was taken. This was an informational discussion only. Susan DeMatteo left the meeting at 9:35 PM. Minutes RH moved to approve the minutes of September 26, 2005 as amended tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. 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, D. Howard, Secretary Page 8 of 8