No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-12 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the Planning Board Meeting of December 12,, 1984. Chairman Rich called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. with Board members D. Devine, B. Mitchel and J. Wood present. Also present were approrixmately 10 residents of the Pleasant Street area and Mark Pillsbury from the Reading Chronicle. MAPC Study - Industrial Land Chairman Rich reported on'the tour that took place in the John Street industrial land/Dump site area. Present were: from MAPC - Jean Christensen, Tom Jones and Glen Garber; Chairman Rich and IDC Chairman Dan Ensminger. A reporter and photographer from the Reading Chronicle was also present. A tentative agreement to have the MAPC study in brief the work presented under their option 2 proposal was made. The Planning Board hoped that after presenting this broad-brush approach to Town Meeting, they could convince the Finance Committee and Town Meeting to study in-depth the comprehensive development of the 'entire industrial land in this area. A letter will have to be sent to MAPC in this regard. Townhouse Special Permit in S-10 Districts Mr. Devine felt that the Planning Board should not consider a Special Permit/Variance process for large, high density developments before it updates its plans for the growth of the town; assesses population growth, recreational needs, environmental impacts, adequacy of necessary services, etc. The magnitude of impact on the neighborhood and the Town's population from this high density growth must be considered carefully. Zoning changes should only be made after you have established a baseline from which your growth can spring. Can the Board adequately assess the impacts of these types of developments without an updated master plan? Accessory Apartment - Repetitive Petition Board reviewed the legal notice and the notice sent to abutting residents on the petition from Larry Rice, 46 South Street, Attorney William Wagner, counsel for the petitioner. Finances - FY '86 Board reviewed a draft of the FY '86 budget. The request before the Finance Committee for the past 3 years to budget the administrative assistant for 25 hours per week was discussed. Further discussion on this matter was deferred until a later meeting. The Planning Board is scheduled to meet with FinC,om on January 8, 1985 at 8 PM. Budget must be ready by December 31, 1984. Townhouses in S-10 Districts by Special Permit (By-law proposal Attorney 0. Bradley Latham, counsel for Wingate Corporation, and Mr. Robert Connor from Wingate were present to discuss the by-law proposal with the Board. Mr. Latham presented the following for the Board's consideration: - The Special Permit process as proposed by this draft by-law is not a cluster zoning proposal. This does not require that the parcel be divided up with each separate area owned by individual owners. This townhouse proposal has the land area owned by common ownership. - roadway leading into the development will be to Board of Survey standards, which will end in a cul-de-sac. Off this cul-de-sac, private roadways will lead to the development. - The Adams-Gentile parcel is unique in that it is a high, dry island surrounded by wetlands.- It has -a natural buffer from adjoining properties. - Proposed buffer area can be elaborated on or expanded. - Zoning Board of Appeals has traditionally been the Special Permit Granting Authority. Under the Special Permit process, the Board would then have the right to make additional conditions or requirements as needed. This gives the Town the needed control to assure that the neighborhood would not be adversely affected. - Design Review Committee is set up to review the development. It would then make a recommendation to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals would then take into consideration those recommendations and incorporate, if necessary, any additional requirements suggested by this committee. - A townhouse development in an S-10 district is more compatible with the type of development already allowed, than it would be in the more restricted residential areas. - Wingate is now looking for input from all Boards to enhance its success at Town Meeting for passage of this by-law. Mr. Connors then spoke on the development's design, stating: - Previously had filed with MHFA for a development of mixed-income family housing. A preliminary design was prepared at that time. Since then, they have decided to develop the land privately. - Current proposal is for public roadway into development with private roadways leading to houses and private driveways. Under the new development up to 8 houses may be attached. The owners would own from the inside walls and contents. The outside of the buildings, common land areas, etc. would be maintained by the homeowners' organization. - Covenant agreement would be written into each deed to maintain common areas. - Private roadways would be 24 feet wide with a sidewalk on 1 side of the street. - Private development which would not require Town services for rubbish removal, snow removal, road repair. - Traditionally, people who purchase these types of housing units have no children. In turn, this would not increase the highest cost to the taxpayers, - school age children and their schooling plus additional student services. Board members concerns included: - What if private roadways would like to be made public after a time? How could this be accommodated if not built to standards? - Issue of public safety was raised. During snowstorms with large snowbanks on the side of the roads would these roadways be able to accommodate the fire equipment, especially if there was on-street parking by visitors? - As language is currently written, only rowhouses would be allowed. Have you considered a large, Colonial style house, with one common outside door, opening into separate entries? This would make the development more compatible with the single-family character of the neighborhood. - By allowing an increase in density, usually the developers provides some benefit to the Town? What benefit, besides the tax revenue, would this proposal bring to the Town? - Town seems to have a schizophrenic approach to meeting its housing needs. Why did you not consider staying with mixed-income, federally-funded housing? - As a private development, snow removal, rubbish collection and road repairs would be done by the homeowners' group? - Notorious problems with sewage and drainage in this area. What do you propose to compensate for this? (Mr. Connor - BPW requires that a 2:1 infiltration guideline be adhered to for any development that uses over 2,000 gallons of water per day. This means that for every 1 gallon of water put into the' system, they would have to find 2 gallons that are illegally [or because of old pipes] are being pumped into the system, and resolve the problem.) - Mr. Devine had great concern with the Town placing the solution to their water/drainage problems on developers. This only increases the cost of development and is counterproductive. In order to recover these additional costs, the developer has to build more houses on the same parcel of land to make the project profitable. - Mr. Wood felt that this policy made a lot of sense because of the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2. The town cannot raise the additional money needed for solutions to these problems. The developer passes the additional costs onto the homeowners. - Mr. Mitchel noted a discrepancy in the language, - 20% set aside for common land; 20% covered by buildings. Some parcels, not this one in particular, but others perhaps, could develop to the highest density under this provision, which would be 50%. Want to restrict overall building area/density. - Impact of this project on Town's available water supply? - Ms. Rich questioned the power or importance of the Design Review Committee? Who would be available or willing to serve on such a committee? The Board then opened the meeting to questions from the public. Mr. LeBlanc - Normal peak capacity without this development backs up the road? What would you do to alleviate the problems caused by the traffic from this development onto neighboring roads? Pleasant Street, especially during baseball season, has too many cars parked, too many children and pedestrians to be considered safe. How will this impact from the development affect the present conditions within the neighborhood? (Mr. Connors stated that a traffic study would be performed and the results made public.) Mr. LeBlanc - Wants the entire area studied, not just the Salem Street area. The Board then thanked the public and Mr. Latham and Mr. Connors for their information/questions and attention. The Board members asked that the pertinent data from the FY '86 budget be copied and sent out in the mailing. There being no further business before the Board, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, John D. Wood, Clerk