Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-28 Planning Board Minutesr ,.4 " PUBLIC HEARINGS - OCTOBER 28, 1981r� r The Planning Board convened in the Community Center Auditorium at 7:30 P.M. to hear Articles 30, 31, 25 and 26 listed on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant 1981. The C airman called the public hearing on Article 30 to order at 7;35 P.M. with Board members, J. Shaw, K. Messina, F. Orlando and M. Rich present. There were 5 other people present in the auditorium in addition to the Conservation Commission Chairman and Administrator.' The Clerk read the public notice into the meeting record. The Chairman then explained that the present wording as proposed in this article is presently included in the Zoning By -law text except for..the addition of the wording "and Town of Reading General By -laws, Article 32 at the end of the article. Selectman O'Brien then questioned if this new change would contravene the enforcement of the $100 /per day fine for zoning offenses as the Town's By -laws violations carry a $50 /per day fine. Ms. O "Brien felt that this matter was a point of clarification for Town Counsel to decide Conservation Administrator/reysponded that the wording is just a point of reference and the stricter provisions in theVby- -laws would be, the one enforced. Selectmen O'Brien then responsed that Chapter 131 and Chapter 40 from which the Town derives its powers carry equal weight and how would a conflict within these two be resolved. Due to the fact that there should be further clarification from Town Counsel, the Chairman deferred taking a vote until such -time as this point has been cleared up. A sense of the meeting was then obtained with the following results: 1 -- in favor 0 - opposed 4 - abstentions As a final comment the Conservation Administrator stated that the only clear benefit of this By -law change is to,serve to notify anyone wishing to build, etc. within these districts that they may be required to obtain an additional permit under,Sect on 4.5.2. 2 and GBL, Article 32.° The Chairman then requested that the Conservation Commission inform Town Meeting at their presentation there that the entire By --law is nq,. being replaced but rather just the addition of the few words. No further business before the Board, the public hearing on this matter was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth G. Messina Page 2 - PH- 10/28/21 Article 31 At 7:55 P.M., The Chairman called the public hearing on Article 31 to order with Board members,K. Messina, J. Shaw, F. Orlando and M. Rich present. Conservation Commission Chairman and Administra- tor were also present as well as -5 other concerned citizens. The Clerk read the public notice into the meeting record. The Chair-,'- man then explained that the.restrictions for Wetlands has been asked to be included for the Flood Plain District as well. Conservatia�rk Chairman Hulse then - reac�- a letter tdistributed to the Bards into the meeting record. The Conservatonmini strat o or o then cited the primary advantage to the Town would be .forw� new sub-- , .... - y division as the deve- lo- per -- -would "then-- be--- requ.i- to actually) lay out lots that arebuildable and usable under the reasonable criteria established in this by -law. With such inclusion of the Flood Plain, the Town would they he--f-reed . ..... fx- ain. processing through donservation and ppiealz these guest' o. b Yrv4W y „ ���n,� l.at� : Although this would cut down on the red tape, due process through the Board of Appeals is still available to all. At this point a discussion and blackboard presentation ensued Conservation Administrator Carl Gardner then stated that he has researched how many lots would be affected by this new change and as far as he can determine ther e. would be only 2 lots so affected. He then promised the Board more detailed material for clarification. ZY Selectmen O'Brien then questioned if ZBL 4.4.4.2,/ would provide a loophole for Flood Plain landowners. Chairman Mitchel suggested that rt ma/f}y have to bQPe, /referenced ~g ,,,Chairman Hulse then stated that determination of flooding and suit- ability still remain in effect and if a landowner can show that the individual lot's contours are incorrectly drawn then they will still have relief, as it should be. A discussion on the philosophy of Flood Plains aizd Wetlands then ensued. The Conservation Commission felt that the floodplain areas were a great protection to the Town and those. areas down- stream as they gave more immediate relief from :flooding and storm runoffs. Wetlands have a slower impact on the water course itself. Wetland areas would be more underground water storage whereas the floodplain areas would be more surface in their connections. The Chairman then asked for a sense of the meeting. There were 2 in favor, - 0, opposed, - 4 abstentions. The Planning Board will discuss and review this article and render their report as soon as'possible. closed- ...dzscuss �, on orr,ti7 s pu7�lr' c Tie ing �rrc uvzz matter-'a' -8-. 3-5 1''M. r -r< r t ,rs e. f Respectfully submitted, PI-3 10/28/81 Article 26 - Recreational definitions Chairman called the meeting to order at 8 :35 P.M. in the Community Center Auditorium with Board members K. .Messina, F. Orlando, J. Shaw and M. Rich present. Also present were 5 concerned citizens. The Clerk read the legal notice into the meeting record. The Chairman then explained that the article and Article 25 had been placed on the Town Meeting Warrant because of a request by the Board of Appeals for some guidelines for recreational uses within the Town's zoning. Town Counsel's legal opinion is that this definition of Pools, swimming, may be interpreted to include bathtubs, hot tubs and the like usually found inside the house. This is a technicality that will have to be addressed, Ms. Adams t - presented th -e�fact that theAsequential numbering was incorrect. The Board then ma- d-e-ma -mote to correct the same. There were no further comments. The Chlairman then asked for a sense of the meeting. The result was 0 in favor, 2 opposed, and 3 absten- tions. There being no further business before the Board on this article, the public hearing was then adjourned at 8:50: P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth G. Messina, Clerk T ¢ Pr- 10/28/81 ' Recreational Uses - Controls - Article 25 ' Chairman called the public hearing to order at 8:55 P.M. in The Community Center Auditorium with Board members K. Messina, F. Orlando, J. Shaw and M. Rich present. Also present were 5 con cerned citizens. The Clerk read the legal notice into the meeting record. The Chairman then read the corrected and ammended version of this article for presentation at this meeting. The corrected and amended version is as follows: Article To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By -laws by adding the following requirements under Section 4.3.2. - Accessory Uses, as 4.3.2.8.: 4.3.2.8. All swimming pools, wading pools,. racquet courts and similar home.recreational uses shall be located in the rear or side yard and shall be subject to the following restrictions and pro- hibitions: a) No such structure shall be closer than six, (6) feet to- a side or rear lot line; No appurtenance (outbuildings, pumping houses, cabanas and the like) thereto shall be closer than ten (10) feet to any street line; No such.structure shall occupy more than twenty - five (250) per cent of the rear or side yard area in which it is located; No such structure shall extend nearer any street line closer than twenty (.20). feet; and Any - illumination shall be installed _in such a way as not to shine into any near- by housing. READING PLANNING BOARD Barry J. Mitchel, Chairman Kenneth G. Messina, Clerk John W. Shaw Frank P. Orlando Maureen Rich Article Page,, Public Hearing 25 10/28/81 Ms. Virginia Adams then addressed the Board and those present stating the following: that the legal notice as published was far too restrictive and that with the 6 foot requirement rather than the 20 ft. for side and rear lot lines some of her research may not be pertinent; - she has a basic philosophical difference saying that she believes that the American dream to own your own home and your own land to live as you see fit,Js constantly being . encroached on and regulated; - she believes that an unfair burden would be placed on the small lots owner by this by -law; - Small lot owners because of the economic hardtimes� would probably be the ones most likely to try to seek some ,form of recreational use for their land and this by -law would prohibit them; presented cases where small lot owners would be affected. ME. Ed Fuller present at this meeting stated that he felt that if there is a major safety problem due to the erection of fences and other structures on corner 10 Cs, that it would be unfair to single out the pool owner and tennis court owner as the only culprits. The Chairman then stated that Town Counsel advised the Board not to include fencing as part of the appurtenances to the recreational uses but rather to deal with.this problem in a separate article. Fencing of a pool and /or tennis court is the only one controlled under this by -law and that fencing should be separately addressed. There being no further comments from those present and the Board members, a sense of the.meeting was obtained. There were 0 in favor; 2 opposed, and 3 abstentions. The Board then unanimously -moved anc ecofde"d . to adjourn the ,me...: at 9:35 P.M.