Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown,O'f Reading 16 Lowell Street I V E D CLERK r '>I G. MASS. Reading, MA 01867-2683 2005 MAR 01' 0 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: December 27, 2004 Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH), and John Sasso (JS). Also Present: From the Reading Historical Commission: Virginia Adams (VA), Roberta Sullivan (RS), and Sharlene Reynolds Santo (SRS); Attorney Brad Latham (BL); Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR), and Michael Schloth. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. Zoning Workshop Carriage House Bylaw Members of the Reading Historical Commission (VA, RS, and SRS) called their own meeting to order and presented a slideshow of Reading structures that fall under the proposed Carriage House bylaw depending upon the Historical Commission's defining criteria. The Historical Commission chose to give top priority to structures that ➢ are on the Historical Inventory, ➢ are out-buildings of 400 square feet or greater, ➢ were built before 1910, and ➢ are on lots with single family homes. The Board applauded the Commission's presentation and the discussion turned to the reasons behind the Historical Commission's criteria. JS asked the reason for the restriction of 400 sq. ft. or greater. RS replied that the Historical Commission judged "400 sq. ft." the smallest habitable space. JS asked why two-family homes were excluded. RS replied that single-family dwellings were the original consideration and that applying the proposed bylaw to a two-family lot could create the possibility of a three-family lot. The Chair recognized Caroline Boviard of 42 Chute. She said that she was looking to renovate the carriage house on her property to provide a home for her parents. She said that it would be verv extensive to tear the structure down. She said it makes sense to maintain the building using the Historical Commissions criteria and to convert the structure for use as a dwelling. RH thought it worthwhile to review the main points of the proposed bylaw. JB asked the reason behind the proposed minimum lot size. RS answered that it was chosen to protect the property at 42 Chute St and added that the minimum can be increased. Caroline Boviard of 42 Chute St. suggested that such a lot size provides "density protection". JB said that whether you consider "density as the number of families per lot (his view) or as the number of housing units per acre, the issue of historical value trumps the issue of density. JB went on to say that as there is already a limit of two families to a lot the density issue is moot and therefore the preservation of historical value should take precedence. JB also saw no reason for restricting the bylaw to structures in zoning districts S-15 and S-20. Changing the bylaw to include all zones met with general agreement but CR warned that doing so in combination with the proposed minimum lot size requirement could create non-conforming properties. He suggested instead that the lot size requirement equal the lot size requirement of the zone in which the carriage house stands. JB said that if a current property could be converted into a two-family property, then he has no problem with doing so with carriage houses. RH asked if point 3 of the proposed bylaw ["The lot must have at least 23,000 square feet of area."] should be eliminated and both JB and SD said that it should. RH asked why the Historical Commission chose to restrict the bylaw to structures built in 1910 or earlier? RS said that they chose the date to increase the probability that the structures were in fact carriage houses and not garages for motorized vehicles. JB wondered why any structure that housed horses or any non-mechanized vehicle could not be included under the bylaw. CR replied that there must be a rationale for our criteria or those owners whose structures do not fit the criteria will have reason to complain. VA said that we might not be able to determine the build dates anyway as assessor records are sketchy in some cases. RH said that perhaps 1942 should be used as a cut-off date to keep the proposal in synch with 4.1.1.3. The discussion turned to the issue of affordability. RH said that originally there was no historical aspect to the change. Affordability was the key issue. could not afford to renovate her property and make it look like a carriage house if it was to be affordable. 2 NS pointed out that it is not the purpose of the change to hamstring owners. Attorney Brad Latham said the board may pass a bylaw that is never used as no one may find it worthwhile to convert their carriage house. He went on to say that the reason a law was passed to allow the conversion of single-family homes into two-family homes was to help those strapped by the expense of a large house. RS pointed out that it is easier and less expensive to make a two family out of an existing eight room house than it is to build a house from the ground up which is pretty much what you would have to do with a carriage house. CR said that he would make amendments to the proposal and have it ready by the next meeting. JB asked for a placeholder for the Historical Commission's minimum requirement that the carriage house be at least 400 square feet. CR suggested that the next meeting (January 10, 2005) start at 7:00 PM and that the Zoning Workshop run until 8:00 PM. ALL AGREED. Next, CR requested that the Administrative Review be postponed until later in the meeting to accommodate Attorney Brad Latham. The Chair agreed. - Pre-application Site Plan Review Presentation: Gregory's/Doyon 's Appliance Center, 162 & 172 Main St. Attorney Brad Latham (BL) spoke for [both Gregory's Sub Shop and] Doyon's Appliance Center. Neither owner of the businesses in question was present. Referring to the Assessor's map of the properties in question projected on the wall, BL said that Ray Doyon had met with the owner of Greg's Sub Shop to discuss the expansion of Doyon's Appliances and the possibility of putting a parking lot behind the building. BL noted that the zoning line worked against such plans but added that perhaps by working with the PUD-B overlay the building could be moved closer to the street to allow parking in the rear. CR provided some background to the issue by explaining that this all started when John Gregorio, during a separate site plan review, noticed that the parking lot behind Gregory's Sub Shop was created without CPDC approval. Seeing a chance to meet the spirit of what we are trying to achieve with South Main, Peter Hechenbleikner, Brad Latham and [Ray] Doyon discussed redevelopment using the PUD-B overlay with an eye towards improving -the Doyon/Gregory property. 3 Responding to a question from JB on how such a redevelopment would affect Hopkins Street residents, BL said that that Doyon's is well below the local residents' properties - hence buffered. JS asked if this wasn't just what we wanted for South Main Street: a friendlier, community-based-business, entrance to Reading? CR spoke of reducing the 50-foot setback. JB agreed with the overall plan but wondered how the residents would react. CR replied that any proposal for redevelopment would have to be well considered and presented to local residents carefully. BL said that it would be a shame if Doyon's must leave town because the business cannot expand. RH asked if there was any way to get rid of the parking in front of the building, as it was not attractive. BL said that maybe parking could be reduced to one row in the front. CR said that the PUD-B will allow for more options and that the option of using the PUD-B overlay in this situation deserves more review. The board requested of BL that he ask Mr. Doyon to be present the next time the CPDC meets to discuss this issue. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review (Continued) Imran Alvi, Kim Cater, and Paul Fontes - 505, 519 Main Street (Action Date: Dec. 28, 2004) CR announced that he had received a properly sired request for an extension. RH moved to continue the hearing to January l0' . JB seconded the motion. Voted 5:0:0, all in favor. JS asked why a right of entry form is holding up the site plan review? CR said that the town has monies to help improve the transportation corridor but we must get the approval of each resident affected by the improvements and Mr. Fontes is using the signing of the right of entry form as leverage to get what he wants. JB said that JS's point is that the "right of entry" issue has no bearing on the site plan review and questioned therefore if it should be included. -CR responded thatwe commonly require private- approval to provide public improvements. JB asked what Mr. Fontes has said? CR said that he has been difficult across the board. 4 RH suggested that the town counsel look at the situation. CR said that he stands by his characterization of Mr. Fontes. JS said that he did not see a dumpster enclosure in the plans and that it needs to be added. JB asked if the CPDC had been shown the master signage plan? CR said that he'd put it in the next package, Administrative Review: CPDC 2005 Schedule: JB observed, and all CPDC members agreed, that the Halloween, St. Valentine's Day, and December 26 meeting dates create problems for the board members and need to be changed. It was decided to: ➢ change the February 14, 2005 meeting date to February 15, 2005, ➢ change the October 31, 2005 meeting date to November 1, 2005, and ➢ drop the December 26, 2005 meeting from the schedule CPDC Public Hearing Procedures: JS made the point that the CPDC should provide something for the website that will explain to the public the purpose and goals of the CPDC. CR said that we want "transparency" and that the public complains that they have no input into the process or that their input is not considered. JB agreed that, of course, the public should be kept informed of and involved in the CPDC's decision-making process but emphasized that at some point public discussion must close and the CPDC members be allowed to deliberate among themselves. RH made a distinction between input from the general public and input from the applicant. JS asked if perhaps the issue was one of closure of input from all parties versus closure of public input? RH said if someone speaks up while we are deliberating, then the Chair should politely state that public input is over. CR asked how do you address the public's concerns? Do we make drafts available on the web? If we give it to the applicant, we should release it to the general public. Then, before the hearing is closed, the public has a chance to speak up. The Danis case is brought up. CR pointed out that Danis was different because the CPDC knew that it was going to be - - appealed. He asked if we should handle such applications differently to cover ourselves legally? 5 RH noted and all members agreed that the 505 Main application is a similar case. JS said that whatever our procedure we must be sure to be consistent. RH observed that there is an element of informality to the meetings and wondered how the public may perceive this? CR said that particular individuals cause problems and then asked if we should approach such cases differently? RH said he'd like to see hardcopies of decisions available to the public and CR suggested leaving them on tables in the back of the meeting room. JS said that he was still working on his General Guidelines for Site Plan Review document and added that it will contain information on the CPDC Public Hearing process. The members praised the document and thanked JS for his efforts. JS said that we need a way to communicate. internally and a way to communicate to the public as well. Public Comments/ Minutes RE moved to accept the minutes of December 13. SD seconded. Voted 5:0:0, all in favor. JS asked if the CPDC is required to present a report to the selectmen? RH answered that from time to time one is presented at the town meeting. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00pm These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on January 24, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on January 24, 2005. Signed as approved, JoWSasso, Secretary - Date 6