Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-13 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the Meeting of May 13,_1.082. With board members K. Messina, A. Burne, M. Rich and J. Shaw present, Chairman Mitchel called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. in Room 19, 52 Sanborn Street (the Community Center). There were 6 citizens present and Ed Coletta from the Reading Chronicle. Correspondence The Board members reviewed the Board of Appeals final report on Horizon Homes. A request from A. Barsanti, Attorney for P & S Variety Store,is. having a hearing before the Board of Appeals for a Variance to enclose the breezway for storage of cold containers; permit use of the front entrance as the main entryway; and construct an apartment above the store for purposes of protection against theft and break -ins, who wishes to appear before the Board to explain and seek their support and recommendation for granting such requests. The Board after some discussion agreed to meet with Attorney Barsanti at 8 PM before their scheduled 8:15 PM meeting with IDC. This will be limited to a 15- minute meeting_ only. The Secretary will so inform Attorney Barsanti. A letter from EOCD re: economic development or urban renewal planning funding, was received and reviewed by the Board. This should be of some interest to IDC. Copies of this should be sent with the week's mailing to all Board members. Copy of a letter from Ms. Dana Pedersen re: Article 27 and the adequacy of water to Main Street area, was deferred for discussion until this topic on the agenda was discussed. A letter from MA.PC re: Annual Meeting was sent to K. Messina. The Secretary will forward this to Mr. Frank P. Orlando, the MAPC rep. Minutes The minutes of May 5, 1932 were reviewed by the Board. Ms. Rich voiced her objection to the wording on pag e 2, paragraph 2 in which it states, "the Board had received comments from the opposing side" and requested that the word "comments" be stri'en and in place thereof insert the words "new information She also requested that the 2 letters from Attorney Latham be inserted into the minutes .as part of the record. In the 3rd paragraph, the request was to strike the words "might be" for the word "was so that the phrase would now read "the Board was criticized for this." Because of the number of people in attendance to hear the dis- cussion of Article 27, the Board decided to defer action on this matter until a later time. The Board adjourned at 8:02 to the Auditorium where there were approximately.60 people in attendance to hear the discussion on Article 27: rezoning of land at 259 -267 Main Street. With Attorney Latham, Town Counsel Cohen, Richard Svirsky from Reading Concerned Citizens for Controlled Development as well as approximately 60 other persons and Ed Coletta from the Reading Chronicle, Chairman Mitchel spoke and told the gathered citizenry that this was not a public hearing,a continuation of a public hearing, but rather only a continuation °of the regular business that was called to order in the Planning Board office. Page 2 5/13/82 Article 27 The Chairman then discussed the receipt of the new information that the Board had received: the traffic study addendum; agreement to impose a conservation restriction.and the conservation restric- tion, as drafted by Town Counsel; and Dana Pedersen's letter regarding the adequacy of water for the area. The expressed intent of the Board's meeting tonight was to take a vote on their recommendatin of Article 27. With the-receipt of so much new information ' the Board reserved the right to defer any action on their recommendation. Chairman Mitchel then questioned Ms. Pedersen regarding the infor- mation contained in her letter. Questions raised included: - does this account for all 3 alternatives that the Board has been reviewing? - does this information differentiate between condominiums and single family dwellings? - does this information take into account the difference in lawn area requiring watering? Ms. Pedersen said that this information is not yet available but has used the figures of the building design proposed by the proponents. Mr. Messina read a portion of the April 28, 1982 letter from BPW wherein they state that any of the prglaosed projects;,would not have an adverse impact on the water demand and supply. A brief discussion as to the BPW letter ensued and the citizen group asked that they be given a copy of this letter also. The Chairman then stated that he had spoken with Town Counsel, Conservation Administrator, Attorney Latham to discuss the placement of a conservation restriction on the back 2.44 Acres of land at 259 -267 Main Street. Also to be included in this agreement is language that would retain the natural buffer area of trees and also provision to have the drainage runoff not be directed to the back parcel of land in question, Town Counsel then spoke and said that he had discussed this and has drafted language, some of which is in question by the proponents,' but that the language could be worked out if the concept is one the Board would like to see go forward. In working out the placement of the conservatin restriction, he has -tried t.p keep the language and proposal as close to the Sylvaniacase as possible. He has done this so that this would be a voluntary agreement given by the Dooleys to the Town for a conservation restriction on the back 2.44 Acres of land. This would then preserve Town Meetings rights and they would not be obliged to grant the rezoning but would consider the merits of the proposal and vote on that, with the Planning Board re- commendation being considered. Page 2 5/13/82 Article 27 The Chairman then discussed the receipt of the new information that the Board had received: the traffic study addendum; agreement to impose a conservation restriction and the conservation restric- tion, as drafted by Town Counsel; and Dana Pedersen's letter regarding the adequacy of water for the area. The expressed intent of the Board's meeting tonight was to take a vote on their recommendatin of Article 27. With the receipt of so much new information, the Board reserved the right to defer any action on their recommendation. Chairman Mitchel then questioned Ms. Pedersen regarding the infor- mation contained in her letter. Questions raised_ included: - does this account for all 3 alternatives that the Board has been reviewing? - does this information differentiate - between condominiums and single family dwellings? - does this information take into account the difference in lawn area requiring watering? Ms. Pedersen said that this information is not yet available but has used the figures of the building design proposed by the proponents. Mr. Messina read a portion of the April 28, 1982 letter from BPW wherein they state that any of the proposed and /or alternative:- projects under existing zin ng would not_have an; adverse impact on the water supply and demand A brief discussion as to the BPW letter ensued and the citizen group asked that they be given a copy of this letter also. The Chairman then stated that he had spoken with Town Counsel, Conservation Administrator, Attorney Latham to discuss the placement of a conservation restriction on the back 2.44 Acres of land at 259 -267 Main Street. Also to be included in this agreement is language that would retain the natural buffer area of trees and also provision to have the drainage runoff not be directed to the back parcel of land in question. Town Counsel then spoke and said that he had discussed this and has drafted language, some of which is in question by the proponents,' but that the language could be worked out if the concept is one the Board would like to see go forward. In working out the placement of the conservatin restriction, he has tried to keep the language and proposal as close to the Sylvania case as possible. He has done this so that this would be a voluntary agreement given by the Dooleys to the Town for a conservation restriction on the back 2.44 Acres of land. This would then preserve Town Meetings rights and they would not be obliged to grant the rezoning but would consider the merits of the proposal and vote on that, with the Planning Board recommendation being considered. Page 3 5/13/82 The major points of the contract are as follows: - the Dooleys will have an agreement with the Town to convey to the Town a conservation restriction on the portion of land which is situated easterly and a distance greater than 250 feet from the center line of Main Street; - In case of a court appeal the conservation restrictio be conveyed no more than 30 days after the termination of all appeals; if the rezoning is upheld by the Attorney General's office; the agreement will be null and void if not instituted within 12 months, or within six months from the date of execution or the termination of all appeals; that no portion of the land in question can be conveyed without the conservation restriction in substantially the same form; - the contract will restrict against building any roadways, driveways, buildings, signs, outdoor advertising displayp., parking lots,swimming pools, tennis courts, mobile homes, temporary or permanent structures (materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or shelter, such as a building, framework, wall,'tent, reviewing stand, plat- form or the like) will be constructed or permitted to remain on the restricted premises; that all trees presently located on the restricted premises will be protected and that no other trees, grasses or other vegetation shall be cut or otherwise destroyed except for the mowing of grass, the planting of trees, brush or other vegetation to improve forest growth and implement disease prevention measures in accordance with recognized forestry conservation practices and for cutting to obtain Orders of Condition for use and development of the remainder of the land to construct a 48 unit structure for dwelling (condominiums) that no surface water from abutting portions of property shall be permitted to flow or drain onto the restricted premises unless said water shall not increase the 100 year flood elevation in the drainage basin; - that the conservation restriction shall retain the restricted premises in its natural, scenic and open condition to pro- tect the natural and water resources of the Town that a permanent 5 foot easement in width running along the southerly boundary for the purpose of inspection and enforcement is granted to the Town. Town Counsel stated that these are 2 complex documents and if the Planning Board wishes to go along with them, then all necessary papers should be signed before Town Meeting grants approval of the rezoning. This document will be filed with the Registry of Deeds and will require that the conservation restric- tion be mandated as written.. If approval by Town Meeting and Attorney General is given, then the agreement would be enforce- able. If not signed, then the agreement would be null and void. Page '4 5/13/82 When the documents are signed and approved, the conservation restriction will then be binding upon the petitioners. It would then be presented to Conservation Commission for their acceptance and the Board of Selectmen's approval. It would then be forwarded to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs for his approval. After all approvals were granted, the conservation restriction would then be in effect. If not upheld by Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Conservation Commission or Selectmen, then rezoning would be granted without any conser- vation restriction. The Chairman then requested that the Selectmen send their input to this Board post haste regarding their acceptance of such a conservation restriction. Chairman Hulse of the Conservation Commission stated that his Board is in favor of conservation restrictions but again reiterated the Commission's position that they would not accept the conservation restriction until Town Meeting voted their approval of the rezoning issue. Ms. ?rich stated that Town Meeting must understand the entire process. If the Conservation Commission or the Selectmen or the Secretary for Environmental Affairs does not agree to accept the conservation restriction, then the entire agreement would fall apart. Town Counsel agreed. Mr. Mitchel then stated that this is based upon a lot of trust. Trust that the ConservatiICommission and the Selectmen would agree in general with the conservation restriction as drafted. The only mechanism to have the actual wording enforceable would be to have Town Meeting consider a separate warrant article with the wording included. The Planning Board members then agreed to take a 10 minute recess until the 2 attorneys could work out the exact wording. At 9:35 PM the Board reconvened to continue their discussion on Article 27. During this time, the Board had been criticized by Mr. Pucillo regarding the fact that he has not had adequate time to respond to the proponents data. The Board said that this was not a public hearing, but rather a general meeting of the Board to discuss the facts presented to it in writing. A motion was made to defer any further discussion on Article 27 until next week. There was no second on this motion. Town Counsel and Attorney Latham then presented the agreed language to the Board regarding the agreement and the conservation restriction. A -brief discussion then took place as to the mechanisms involved with enforcability and placement of the. conservation restriction. Town Counsel stated that Town Meeting should not be given a motion with the actual wording of the conservation restriction included as this would then restrict their right to legislate and could be challenged. If the Planning Board wants a conservation restriction then the wording and documentation should be in place and pre- Page ,5 5/13/82 viously recorded at the Registry of Deeds and would then be binding upon the petitioners. Mr. Mitchel then asked Mr. Latham to present someone to document the figures presented to the Board regarding the traffic impact in this area. The Board had recently received an additional study which counted the area between Cross and Ash Streets and evaluated its impact with the proposed 48 unit development. Mr".—:Sob Tierney gave an overview of the traffic impact on Main Street and more specific information was presented to the Board by Mr. Bezkorovainy. The traffic supplement was performed on April 14, 1982 between 3 -6 PM. It was their conclusion that the peak traffic hour remained between 4 :45 -5:45 PM; that the impact of the 48 unit development would be negligible; that the traffic light would not have an adverse impact but could help by apportioning the traffic in the area. Mr. Pacillo, then presented facts on accident statistics he had received on South Main Street, from Charles Street to Route 128. He stated that this is a stretch of land which is 3.93 miles.long, with 425 accidents over the past 4 years, averaging 30 accidents per mile /per year. He then cited this as being twice the number of accidents from Charles Street to the North Reading line per year. There are presently 630 apartments in this area and the addition of another 48 units would definitely affect traffic adversely. Mr. Tierney then refuted this and produced an accident analysis for the area in question and distributed this information to the Board members. Their study included the area from Cross Street to Avon Street and used accident rate system, not actual accident count. Their conclusion stated that in :comparison with all of Main Street, this particular area is safer than the street as a, whole. The Board then briefly discussed their plan of action. It was decided to take a 15 minute break to discuss the new evidence presented and then take a vote on their recommendation of Article 27 to Town Meeting. The Board then reviewed and dis"cu"ssed:the traffic data presented"' resented by Mr. Pucillo and the additional accident statistics from the TAMS representatives. At 11 P .I. the. Board reconvoned'< Chairman Mitchel trim gave a brief overview =`of the-., Board's discussion, "A' motion was made by Mr., _Shaw and seconded by Mr. Messina <that the Board vote to recommend Article, 27 on -the 1.982 Annual Town M -eeting _Warrant and to rezone the land from. 150 ,feet:,to I 250 feet from the center line of Main Street,, located at .259 -267 Main Street, from-­ S10 - to A40, with an agreement by the petitioners to place a conser Page & 5/13/82 vation restriction on the back 2.44A of land. Nis. Rich then stated that this article will be presented to Town Meeting as a zoning change, so written on the Warrant, and that all other information would be forthcoming from the Planning Board in their report. Town Counsel responded that the Planning Board is required by law to make a recommendation on rezoning articles. This would be the recommendation of the majority vote, there is not a provision for a minority report, but one could be issued if the Moderator agreed. It was then moved by K. Messina and seconded by J. Shaw that the Planning Board vote not to recommend Article 27 without the conservation restriction in place. Chairman Mitchel then asked for a vote on this motion. It was unanimously voted by the Board (5 -0) not to recommend Article 27 without the conservation restriction. Chairman Mitchel then asked for, the, vote on ~,the previous ":motion to "'recommend Article 27 with the conservation restriction. It was voted (4 -1,� to recommend_ Article 27 with the conservation restriction. At 11:25 P.M. the Board moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. It was unanimously voted. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth; G. Messina, Clerk;