HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-23 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes1 . ~u ~ \
Town of Reading, 'V L, D
16 Lowell Street fi LEF~K
G, M.
Reading, MA 01867-2683 ` }
Phone: 781-942-9012
Fax: 781-942-9071 L ~ ! c'' 15
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: May 23, 2005
Location: Selectmen's Room, Reading Town Hall
Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard
(RH), and John Sasso (JS).
Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes (JB)
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Joe Delaney, Town Engineer (JD), Michael Schloth
Mr. Fred Alexander, 172 Wakefield Street.
Mr. Gary Baker, 28 Evergreen Road.
Mr. Paul Basset, 150 Wakefield Street
Ms. Noreen Delai, 18 Baker Road.
Mr. Wayne Heatherington, 169 Wakefield Street.
Mr. John Johnston, owner of "K-9 Performance Plus Training Center, Inc.", 304 Main
Street, North Reading, MA 01864.
Ms. Betty Jones, 31 Baker Road
Mr. Max Mejiborsky of 19 Pierce Street
Ms. Diane Meyers, 159 Wakefield Street.
Mr. John Ogren of Hayes Engineering, Wakefield, MA.
Mr. Mike Phillips of Deer Run Developers, Inc.
Ms. Margaret Pratt, 136 Salem Street
Mr. Anthony Ricciardone, 17 Pierce Street
Mr. Tom Wheaton, nephew of Mr. Paul Basset.
There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
Administrative Review
Infiltration Design Standards
Review of site plan and subdivision requirements for drainage infiltration systems
This item was informational and required no action on the part of the CPDC.
Town Engineer Joe Delaney provided some background. From time to time the building
inspector would have to deny building permits to projects in the aquifer protection district
_ because the projects exceeded the permitted impervious cover percentage. When the
applicant asked what they could do about the situation, the inspector had nothing to tell
Page 1 of 11
them because the regulations made no provision for mitigation. A few applicants went to
the ZBA and the ZBA allowed them their permits if they did not increase the impervious
cover. Taking a cue from these ZBA's decisions, the building inspector (Glen Redmond),
the conservation administrator (Frances Fink), and Joe Delaney met and together wrote
the "Policy Establishing Aquifer Protection District Infiltration System Design
Guidelines".
The policy addresses three cases:
1. New Construction: Applicants are allowed 15% impervious cover and may increase
that to 20% if compensating infiltration is provided. Example: If cover is 18%, then
applicant must build an infiltration system that will provide at least 3% infiltration.
2. Pre-existing, Non-Conforming lots having more than 15% and less than 20%
impervious cover: Like New Construction and the infiltration system must
compensate all cover above 15% not just what is beyond the starting percentage.
Example: If cover starts at 18% and applicant increases cover to 20%, then applicant
must provide at least 5% infiltration not just 2%.
3. Pre-existing, Non-Conforming lots in excess of 20% impervious cover: A permit
will be issued if the applicant does not increase the current cover and builds an
infiltration system to improve the situation. The goal is still 15% cover but the town
recognizes that this may not be feasible given the constraints of the site.
In the first two cases, impervious cover over 20% will require a ZBA variance.
In the third case, any increase in the percentage of impervious cover will require a ZBA
variance.
Joe Delaney noted that the policy also provides guidelines for the design of infiltration
systems.
Joe Delaney concluded by saying that this is policy is now in effect. He added that the
Town Manager, Peter Hechenbleikner, asked that this policy be issued as a design
guideline in the Board of Selectmen's policy book.
The Board members all thought that this was a very good policy and they thanked Joe
Delaney for bringing it to their attention.
Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision
Richard Merrill Trustees, 175 Franklin Street
(Action Date: June 30, 2005)
Attorney Brad Latham appeared for the applicant.
NS opened the Public Hearing.
CR said that this item is continued from the meeting of February 28 when the applicant
asked for more time to present his case to the appropriate boards.
Page 2 of 11
CR said that the applicant had sent another letter requesting another continuation. JS read
the letter. In the letter, the applicant requested that tonight's hearing be postponed until
the CPDC's last meeting in July (that would be July 25, 2005.) Enclosed with the letter
was a formal extension request that also extended the CPDC's action date to August 30.
Brad Latham said that they need the additional time for hearings with the ZBA, the
conservation commission etc... Mr. Latham said that he tried to put this extension out far
enough to get past the upcoming hearings and to avoid having to ask for another
extension later. Mr. Latham added that he appreciated Jonathan Barnes objection (made
at the time of the last extension request) to extensions that don't make allowance for the
shortened action dates they create and that is why their formal request pushes the CPDC's
action date out to August 30.
RH made a motion to continue the Public Hearing of the Definitive Subdivision of 175
Franklin Street to July 25, 2005.
JS asked if the Board should be voting on an extension rather than a continuance?
RH said that when the Chair receives a letter, an extension form, stating the time
requested we usually vote it as a continuance.
SD seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision
Deer Run Developers, Inc., 160-166 Wakefield Street
Proposed definitive subdivision for S lots in the S-20 zoning district.
(Action Date: August 8, 2005)
Attorney Brad Latham and John Ogren of Hayes Engineering appeared for the applicant.
NS opened the Public Hearing.
JS read the legal notice.
Brad Latham set the scene: negotiations have been ongoing for the past 9 to 10 months
and they finally have a definitive plan. Two houses occupy the property now. The project
calls for a cul-de-sac and will support five houses. He then introduced the John Ogren of
Hayes Engineering who went into more detail.
Mr. Ogren said that the proposed subdivision covers 7 acres. The existing 2 houses will
be removed and a 325 foot road - Kylie Road - will be added. Kylie Road will intersect
with Wakefield Street and end in a cul-de-sac near the Baker Road cul-de-sac. The Kylie
Road subdivision's_ sewer system will tie in with _Baker _Road's. Drainage: two drains will__
be added which will connect with the existing Wakefield Street drainage.
r
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Ogren noted that the topography of the site is generally flat with a slope towards the
wetlands south of the subdivision.
Regarding traffic, Mr. Ogren said that there is no posted speed limit but assuming a 30-
MPH limit a 200-foot stopping-sight distance is required in each direction along
Wakefield Street from the point that Kylie Drive intersects it. They have 200 feet now
and if a tree is removed along the right side of Wakefield Street heading east, they'll have
300 feet of stopping-sight in each direction.
CR and Town Engineer Joe Delaney then presented documents noting deficiencies of the
subdivision as planned: the Kylie Drive DRT minutes of May 16, 2005 and the Town
Engineer's Kylie Drive memo of May 23, 2005.
The Chair opened the meeting to questions from the public.
Diane Meyers, 159 Wakefield Street.
I live across the street from where Kylie Drive will start. Will the negative pitch you want
the developers to put in put more water in my driveway? Joe Delaney assured her that it
would not.
Tom Wheaton, nephew of Mr. Paul Basset, the owner of 150 Wakefield Street.
His family is currently in negotiations with Deer Run to sell them an additional two acres.
Brad Latham said that nothing has yet come of the negotiations so they aren't relevant to
the discussion.
Mr. Wheaton said that his family only wanted to let the CPDC know of the negotiations
and that his family is not opposed to Deer Run's proposal.
Mike Phillips of Deer Run Developers, Inc.
Mr. Phillips confirmed that they are negotiating for Mr. Basset's two acres. He said that
the extra land would allow Deer Run to add more houses. He said that there is a 90%
chance that Deer Run will change their subdivision plans to allow for seven houses. He
let the submitted plans stand to "get the ball rolling" on the project.
CR reminded the Board, applicant, and the public that the plan they had before them
tonight is the plan of record. If the developer expects to change the submitted plan then
he should withdraw and re-file.
Brad Latham said that re-notifying the abutters may be more appropriate than re-filing.
Fred Alexander, 172 Wakefield Street.
Referring to the DRT minutes, Mr. Alexander asked where the second catch basin would
be located? CR said that that the Conservation Commission could probably best answer
- that. He added thatany such changes would have to receive ConsComm's approval first. - -
Mr. Alexander then asked if a survey would be done after the proposed grading of the site
is completed? Joe Delaney said, no, the subdivision review is concerned primarily with
placement of the utilities and the roadway.
Page 4 of 11
Gary Baker, 28 Evergreen Road.
Mr. Baker asked if there was an east-west gradient in addition to the north-south gradient.
He lives at the bottom of Evergreen Road and is worried about runoff.
John Ogren said that that should not be a problem. He said that most of the runoff would
flow back into the wetlands. He added that some water is actually redirected into their
proposed drainage system.
Betty Jones, 31 Baker Road
Ms. Jones asked if the Kylie Drive drainage would be a problem for Baker Road?
Joe Delaney said no nothing from Kylie Drive should drain onto Baker Road.
Noreen Delai, 18 Baker Road.
Ms. Delai asked if there will be a Conservation Commission public hearing regarding this
plan and if she would be notified about it?
Joe Delaney answered yes to both questions. He said that after the developer files with
the conservation commission the commission has to hold a public hearing within 21 days
and all the abutters within 300 feet of the proposed subdivision would be notified.
Mr. Wayne Heatherington, 169 Wakefield Street.
He is concerned with the impact this subdivision would have on traffic. He noted that
Wakefield Street is narrow and has no sidewalks and children walk it to reach Killam
School.
Brad Latham pointed out that we are talking of an increase of only three houses two of
the five proposed houses will replace homes that already add to the traffic.
Mr. Heatherington pointed out that those two homes are homes of retired men and
suggested that they really don't add much to the traffic but new families might.
CR said that traffic was discussed during the DRT and it was decided that the street
narrow and twisty with many trees could not accommodate sidewalks. He added that
this subdivision meets the requirements of the bylaws.
RE continued CR's point saying that the CPDC's intent tonight is to mitigate aspects of
the proposed subdivision design (drainage etc.). The individual lots meet the bylaws and
the developer has a right to build.
Mr. Gary Baker of 28 Evergreen Street said that Wakefield Street is "treacherous". There
are lots of potholes.
Joe Delaney said that the town is hamstrung as to what can be done to add sidewalks to
Wakefield Street. Its width varies which means we'd have to ask homeowners for
permission to build on their land and that is hard to get.
RH pointedout that sometimes the developer is required to add sidewalks along the - -
frontage of their subdivision but that would not help much here since most of the frontage
would be along Kylie Drive. Only roughly 120 feet of the subdivision runs along
Wakefield Street.
Page 5 of 11
Some members of the public disagreed with this. Their view was that 120 feet of
sidewalk was better than no sidewalk at all.
- Joe Delaney said that he thought that that was possible.
CR offered to add the problem of Wakefield Street's traffic to the agenda of the monthly
Parking, Traffic, and Transportation Task Force.
RH, noting that the plans as submitted may be changed both by the addition of two
additional lots and by the possible actions of the Conservation Commission, made a
motion to continue the public hearing of the Kylie Drive subdivision to June 27, 2005.
SD seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
Mr. Phillips apologized to the Board for the confusion regarding the different plans with
the different number of lots. He hoped to be able to present one or the other plan - the
five-lot or the seven-lot plan - to the Board soon.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review
Samuel Pierce Condominium Association, 15+ Pierce Street.
Request for a major modification to approved site plan to allow for removal of tree
buffer.
(Action Date: June 13, 2005)
JS read the legal notice.
Mr. Anthony Ricciardone, a trustee of the Samuel Pierce Condominium Association,
explained the situation. He said that the builder, Gerald Walsh, had planted white pines
behind Building 3. The pines outgrew their plot of ground and began to encroach upon
the decks of Building 3. They became a nuisance and a potential hazard. Some trees did
not survive the winter of 2003-2004. The trustees decided to remove the white pines from
the property unaware that by doing so they were violating the required conditions of a
previously approved site plan review. He apologized for the removal of the trees. He
suggested that perhaps a lattice fence would do the job?
NS said that the point was to provide privacy and a six-foot fence would not suffice. The
building is taller than that.
The Board accepted that the trees were not removed in defiance of their decision but as
JS pointed out a required condition of the Board's site plan review is no longer fulfilled.
SD said that the decision the CPDC arrived at was made not for the benefit of the abutters
- alone. The Board tries to balance all interests and concerns and we do so in a process that
is open to the public.
Page 6 of 11
Mr. Ricciardone said that once the builder had transferred ownership we thought that then
we controlled the situation. He asked if they were allowed to trim the trees? CR said yes,
maintenance is allowed.
Mr. Max Mejiborsky of 19 Pierce Street said that the builder is long gone and no longer
cares. Our interests are valid too. The pines were not working. We still have to deal with
them.
JS said that he agrees with the tenants that there is not a lot of space there for trees.
A member of the public asked if the trees must be evergreens.
RH pointed out that evergreens provide a buffer - privacy during the winter months.
RH asked the Town Planner if he had shown the draft decision to the trustees? CR said
that he had. RH said that he liked the draft and thought that it gives maximum flexibility
to the tenants. It insists on trees only along the side that borders Mr. Keating's property.
CR said that that's why he worded the decision that way. He said that the town wants to
balance needs and during the site plan review Mr. Keating said that the trees must be
included or he would oppose the plan and appeal it if necessary.
Margaret Pratt, 136 Salem Street, noted that Mr. Keating was not at the meeting.
The Board said that his presence was not necessary. No trees are being placed on his
property.
Ms. Pratt asked if "evergreen" is defined. CR said, yes, the developer did that in the
minutes of the site plan review.
Ms. Pratt said that since the tenants are allowed to trim the trees, could they trim them to
the height of a fence? The consensus of the Board was that this would be mean-spirited.
RE moved to close the public hearing.
JS seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
RH next moved to approve the major modification to the previously approved site plan
review of the Pierce Street condominiums to allow the removal of the tree buffer subject
to modification.
SD seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
Page 7 of 11
Site Plan Review
K-9 Performance Plus Training Center, Inc., 335 Main Street
(Action Date: June 13, 2005)
Mr. John Johnston is looking for a site plan review waiver. Mr. Johnston would like to
move his dog training and indoor dog boarding facility from North Reading to Reading.
Mr. Johnston said, and the building's owner confirmed, that the building at 335 Main
Street has been vacant for four years. Mr. Johnston presented various pictures and plans
of his proposed renovation of the building. He noted that the walls of the building are
made of cement and insulated therefore soundproofed well. On top of that, the kennel
will be buffered from the nearest residential properties by the video store next door.
Mr. Johnston said that the dogs would be trained in an open area inside the building. He
said the dogs would also be boarded inside the building and for no longer than a
weekend.
Regarding parking, Mr. Johnston said that there are about 45 parking spaces now. He
figures that he'll be able to handle 8 dogs an hour and that means roughly only 16 cars an
hour with overlap. CR said that the parking spaces are a bit tight and may need to be re-
striped but the Board could live with it. There may or may not be handicapped spaces.
CR said a lack of handicap spaces would be an issue.
There is a dumpster.
RH asked if there was any reason to ask for a full-blown site plan review?
CR said that he would rather not comment. The applicant needs to go before the ZBA and
any discussion along those lines could hamstring the ZBA. CR suggested that the CPDC
approve the waiver and then, if the applicant comes back with the Zoning Board's
approval, the CPDC can apply conditions.
RH made a motion to grant the request for a site plan review waiver subject to conditions
subsequent to the ZBA's approval.
SD seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
Public Comment/Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
The Board discussed many matters between public hearings and at the conclusion of the
evening's business.
The end of the sign review moratorium on July 1.
RH presented various articles and notes from his files about the history of the sign bylaw.
Page 8 of 11
The bylaw was a "tough sell" to the Leslie McGonagle and the Chamber of Commerce. It
had to be negotiated line by line.
A proposed Town Center Overlay District in Burlington, MA.
RH read an article from the May 23, 2005 edition of the Daily Times Chronicle. By
2008, the "Route 3A Subcommittee" hopes to have built a "Faneuil Hall-type 'Burlington
Marketplace,' walkways for pedestrians, small businesses within walking distance of each
other, more parking, and a narrower road." This was of interest to the Board because the
new district would promote "new types of mixed-use development." The consensus of the
Board was that they wished the subcommittee good luck but that they would believe it
when they see it.
Haven Junction.
SD remarked upon the great job Hall Developers did painting the faux windows on the
blank wall of their new building. They look just like real windows and greatly improve
the appearance of what would have been an ugly, blank wall. Everyone agreed with her.
The Board expressed its appreciation of the developer's willingness to go the extra mile
to improve the building's appearance.
Mixed-Use and Affordable Housing.
CR said that the mixed-use issue was back on the front burner and the CPDC needs to
schedule another joint meeting with the Selectmen to discuss it.
The discussion then expanded upon three points:
1. Bedford's mixed-use bylaw.
2. Cape Cod's Inclusionary Zoning ("impact fee")
3. Reading's PRD.
RH liked Bedford bylaw. It is simple and restricts apartments to 750 square feet not
much smaller than a Cape Cod house. The Board assumed that the size restriction was
there to reduce the impact of the new housing on the school system. CR suggested that
Reading should start with a simple plan like Bedford's just to get something on the books.
He added that parking and traffic will still be big issues which is why the Selectmen need
to be involved. Joe Delaney agreed that parking would be a key issue.
Regarding the second point, RH said that at one time the Board had considered adding a
bylaw that would require developers to ensure that one in eight of their units was
affordable and if not they would have to contribute to a trust fund say $35,000 per
affordable unit shortfall. He noted that if something like this were not done then we'd fall
further and further behind trying to reach our affordable housing goals.
Joe Delaney was not sure if the subdivision regulations would allow charging a fee.
RH said that other towns have done this maybe through zoning? CR said, yes, it's
called "inclusionary zoning and the fee is called an "impact fee."
CR said that if the Board wants to create an Inclusionary Zoning bylaw, they should wait
until after the Master Plan is complete. CR said that these things stand up better to
Page 9 of 11
challenges when they are spelled out in a town's Master Plan. He then added that Cape
Cod has done a lot with Inclusionary Zoning. He said that he would research the topic
and then write the Board a memo about it.
Addison/Wesley.
Regarding the May 9 meeting, CR said that the Board of Selectmen have agreed to hold
another joint meeting to discuss traffic during which the developers will present the
results of their traffic study in more detail.
The Board noted that it was obvious after the May 9 meeting that the Selectmen,
Selectman Anthony in particular, must have their concerns regarding the site's access
addressed before they will even consider rezoning.
SD said that Selectman Anthony has concerns beyond the issue of access. She does not
like what developers have done to other towns like Conway N.H and she does not want
the same to happen to Reading.
RH said that he thought it was the ideal location of a retail center: right on the edge of
town. And, if the developer's traffic study is accurate, most of the traffic will be coming
from the highway and not through Reading.
Joe Delaney pointed out that people usually don't search out different ways to get to a
store. If you want to get to the Burlington Mall, you don't try to second-guess the traffic
by driving back-roads to get there. You take the highway. On the other hand, if
Addison/Wesley were an office park, the people working there would probably have
searched out many different ways to get there and they'd use them depending upon the
time of day, traffic, etc. So, an office park could generate more cut-through traffic than a
retail center.
RH asked the Town Planner if he had a sense of the developer's mood?
CR said that the developers are willing to listen and to accommodate the town where they
can, but the project must contain a large retail component.
The. Board noted that the opposition to the project is intense much more intense than
opposition to the hotel/office park proposal of five years ago.
The consensus of the board was that the local residents are used to having an unoccupied
Addison/Wesley campus and they're not in any hurry to see it occupied. It's like having
their own park or playground in their backyard. Newer residents don't remember that
traffic problems were the norm when the campus was occupied. It was also the consensus
of the Board was that the Election Day traffic had seared into the residents' minds an
unrealistic picture of how bad the traffic would be.
CR asked what everyone thought would end up there?
The consensus was some kind of 40B development.
Page 10 of 11
RH asked CR if any 40B developers have shown an interest in the site and would the site
be more profitable to developers as a retail center or a 40B?
CR said that no 40B developers had been asking about the site. He said the property
would probably be more profitable to developers as a retail center since profits from 40Bs
are capped.
JS asked if we were in a holding pattern until the Selectmen act?
CR said, yes, the Selectmen told the developer that they want to see a mixed-use proposal
and their full-blown traffic study.
CR concluded the discussion by saying that if Reading had Master Plan-like Economic
Growth Plan, then we might have had a developer in here with a good office/retail plan.
As it is, we have to react to those who show up.
The Chair made a motion to adjourn.
RH seconded.
4:0:0 voted approved.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on June 27,
2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on June 27, 2005.
Signed as approved,
Date
Page 11 of 11