Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-02 Planning Board MinutesAPRIL,..7, 1981 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 2 1981 @7:30 PM. ARTICLE 14 - APARTMENT REDEFINITION Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal .was held on Thursday, April 2, 1981--at 7:35 rP- in the Co.:4munity Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with Board members K. Messina, E. Childress and Chairman J. Zorabedian, Jr. present. There were approximately 30 citizens present as well as the attorney,-..for the petitioners, 0. Bradley Latham and the attorney for the developer-, Carl A. Amon. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Lakes, the Public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thursday, March 19, and March. 25, 1981 and was read into the meeting record The petition was paced on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant by Mr., and Mrs. Eugene T. Gentile, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Adams, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Adams and Mr. and Mrs. Salvatore J. Gentile, Jr. and proposed by Tarmbone Corporation. Mr. Amon was recognized and read two letters into meeting record. The March 27, 1981 letter requested the Board cancel the Public Hearing because the petitioners and developers were unable to complete the engineering studies in time and would therefore be seeking that this Article be „indefinitely.postponed" at Town Meeting. The March 31,1981 letter, requests that the Planning Board discontinue the public hearing without rendering a final report. Mr. Zorabedian noted the receipt of. both letters and gave the legal, statute from Chapter 40A which required. the hearing to go forward. Discussion under this proposal included: - the ability to convert apartments to condominiums condonimihms is a right of ownership not a zoning right, if presently zoned for apartments then the right to conversion` is included. Unless the B -laws specifically define something, then they cannot regulate the same. That presently "apartment" zoned is interchangeable with the "condominium" conversion sought within that zoning At the end of the meeting the Chairman polled those present to determine a sense of the meeting. Approve a By-law change - unanimously disapproved - Oppose a By-law change - unanimous At 7:50 P.M. the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman. APRIL 7, 19 81 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 2. 19£31 08:15 P.M. ARTICLE 16 REZOTIE PROPERTY 06Ti3ED BY ADAMS , GENTILE, ET ALS. Pursuant to Section 5, Chapter 40A, General Laws, a public hearing on this proposal was held on. Thursday, April 2, 198lat 8:15 PM in the Community Center Auditorium, 52 Sanborn Street, with Board --rernbers K. Messina, E. Childress, B. Mitchel and Chairman J. Zorabedian, Jr. present. There were approximately 30 citizens present as well as the attorney for the petitioners, 0. Bradley Latham and the attorney for the developer, Carl A. Amon. In accordance with Section 11, Chapter 40A, General Laws, the public notice was published in the Reading Chronicle on Thurs- day, March 19 and -R-1-arch 26, 1981 and was read into the meeting record. The petition was placed on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant by Mr. and Mrs. Eugene T. Gentile, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Adams, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Adams and Mr. and Mrs. Salvator J. Gentile, Jr. and was proposed by Tambone Corporation. Mr. Amon was recognized and read two letter into the meeting record. The March 27, 1981 letter requested the Board to cancel the Public hearing because the petitioners and developer were unable to com- plete the engineering studies in time and would therefore be seeking that this Article by indefinitely postponed at Town Meeting. The March 31, 1981 letter requests the Planning Board to discontinue the public hearing ,,;ithout rendering a final report. Mr. Zorabedian noted the receipt of both letters and proceeded with the hearing as per his interpretation of Chapter 40A, G.L. Discussion under this proposal included: Attorney for the developer stated that the best interest of the Town and the petitioners and developer was not to go for- ward with this hearing because the engineering data was not available to answer the specific concerns and questions of the residents, - The chairman d;sagreed noting that this was not a hearing on the. developmer-1- of a tract of land for condominiums, but was a zoning change hearing from S-10 to A-80.. The Planning Board can answer what intensity A-80-change will bring although they cannot specifically address the development. The Building Inspec- tor, Board of. Survey and Conservation Commission would address that impact but the Planning Board was to hear the request for the change in zoning. K. Messina expressed the view that with zoning changes and comprehensive permit requests, the Town's Zoning By-laws were being disregarded on the petition of any developer. With. the increased development in the area, i.e., Horizon Homes proposal, 300 condominium units, is the Town able.-to handle the sewerage and water problems this will cause? Will the Town be able to supply water for the entire Town with this increased demand? The present problems of sewerage overflow-at this site would make the 300 unit development an adverse health and safety factor to the neighborhood. one citizen spoke in favor of the development of condominiums and their development as they demand little in service from the Town such as trash collection, road upkeep and repair, impact on school population, and sewer and water. Costs for such services are borne by the owners of the condominiums. That the Tovn is quickly increasing its density and becoming more city-like. With current disregard for zoning, the citizens feel such density impact devalued their property. - Increased traffic slow on Salem Street would make this pro- posed project dangerous to the school children that have to walk this area to get to and from school. - Increase traffic,. parking and safety factors from this project would also endanger the residents along Pleasant Street and abutting roadways near the Little League park. At present there is a safety problem with cars illegally parking across roadways, driveways, etc. during Spring, Summer and Fall season -because_of the Little League park and its related. activities. - Environmental impact of such a development,'i.e., rubbish disposal - burn own trash?, overflow of inadequate abilty of present sewerage lines to handle such a development. - That this town would soon beco=~y like Stoneham if it was not careful. That Town has allowed developers to come in at whim and develop apartments, businesses, condominiums, etc. and it is a"disgrace". What was once a pretty town is beocming a conglomeration of anything any developer can convince. the Zoning Board would be appropriate. Do not want the Town to do the same - The present open spaces are being developed by variance, zoning. change,_ etc. The Town is quickly losing its rural atmosphere Board .:ember R. Messina expressed his concerns at such vari- ances and zoning changes. B. Mitchel addressed the citizenry present and.said that some of the concerns expressed at this meeting were-addressed by the developers and they were seeking satisfactory solutions to.both the Town and th.e neighboring res3den LwS . Mr. Amon addressed the Eoard and the citizenry and sa.3- that thia is the reason that he felt this hearing should not go forward. Without adequate engineering data, the SpeCLlI t? OnS and concerns cannot by addressed. Mr.. Amon st<,Lted that he would take note of all concerns expressed and bring their back to the developers for '--heir study. At the end of the meeting the Chairman asked for a shoe: of hands to determine a sense of the -meeting. 1 in. favor; 26 opposed. The meet Ong was ad" ourned at- 10:20 r , isi .