HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-29 Planning Board MinutesV; nutes of the Meeting of November 29, 1984.
Chairman Rich called the meeting to order at 7 P.M. in the first
floor meeting room & Lowell Street (old Library building) with
yard members D. Devine, J. Wood and B. Mitchel,present. Also
dresent were members of the Industrial Development Commission,
Dan Ensminger, Chairman, Don Stroeble and Curt Nitzsche; and
Ms. Virginia Adams of the Historical Commission.
Criterion Road
Chairman Rich spoke with Carl Goodman, the attorney for the Planning
.Board in its case appealing the Board of Appeals' decision on
C&C Associates, Criterion Road development. Attorney Goodman hail
.received a letter from C&C's attorney, Stephen Veigas, which arrived
about 3 weeks-after the joint meeting where a conditional agreement
among all p4rties'had been worked out. The letter stated that
there were concerns-pertaining to the agreement relative to the
obligations and rights of C&C Associates. The Board members felt
that they had acted,in good faith in this matter and the agreement
in principle should be honored. Further discussion on this matter
was postponed.
MAPC Technical Assistance/IND land-John Street
At 7:15 P.M.,.the Board welcomed Jean Christensen, Principal
Planner, Comprehensive Planning and Tom Jones, Principal Planner
Economic Development from MAPC regarding the project the Board
-has asked MAPC's'technical assistance in studying. The Board had
eceaved-a letter from MAPC wherein 3 options for studying the
fanning of new development for industrial-zoned land.in the John
Street area. The options, briefly outlined are:
1).review,of existing zoning and possible amendments for
gradually tapering height restriction and development
of buffer techniques,
2) would be, a mini-development plan that would cover
access, utilities, land use, environment, financing
and zoning, at a minimum; and
3) would be,a full-scale development plan that would
encompass a•.geotechnical.survey, a narket.analysis, cost
benefit, ana.jysis as well as all points covered in
option.' two.
in considering this site for development many questions arise:
a) the presence of methane gas (because of this site being
a former landfill, this could be a major problem.);
b) the stability of the soil;
c) the weight capacity of the soil to support development
(buildings would have to be constructed on pilings;
parking areas, iflarge could be a problem. Depending
on type of development allowed in this area, kind and
number.of vehicles and the ability of the soil to
support them would have to be assessed.);
11/29/84
Page 2
d) adequacy of the necessary services and utilities,
especially for a large-scale development;
e) the access to all the Industrial-zoned land because
of the RR tracks which bisect this development (the
question of gaining right of way over the tracks or
through current Industrial development off Ash Street
would'have to researched); and
t
f) the political concerns about the Town°s commitment and
support to carry out a comprehensive plan for this
area.
Option 2 would cover items a-e above. It would be the job of the
Town officials to insure that any of the directions that the Town
takes would be given the necessary and needed support of the
townspeople and Town Meeting.
Discussion then focused on whether or not the intended move of the
DPW to the former Dump Site would be most beneficial to the growth
and development plans for this area and the Town in general. The
question of whether or not to place the DPW at this site was final
and if the Town had assessed the impacts,
In considering the site for development the following were listed
as the benefits and constraints by MAPC:
Benefits Constraints
- easy access to Route 128/1-95 - significant increase in traffic
land is already zoned Industrial (for every 1000 sq. ft. of
current proposed development building space, estimate 7 average
is a positive business asset daily trips-ADT)
for future development - instability of soil because.it
- landfill is publically owned was a former landfill site
- economic development is'now weight capacity of landfill to
a "high priority" in Massa- to support development
chusetts question of ability to meet
the demand on utilities, especially
water
difficulty in finding alternate
site for DPW
= alternatives are limited because
IND land is bisected by RR tracks
Under Option-2'a mini development plan would be drawn up to answer the
questions of access, soil stability, soil capacity, adequacy of
services, zoning, land use and possible financing options. The cost-
for this would be $6000 as an approximate figure and would not
include the 2 weeks of technical assistance provided at no cost by
MAPC to the Town. Dan Ensminger hoped that Option 2 would be the
least that the Town would study in this program. Ms. Christensen
said that she would go back to MAPC and speak with Glen Garber
about the scoping of the project. She hoped that an on-site meeting
could be arranged with all interested parties.
11/29/84
Page 3
,Both Planning Board members and IDC members gathered independently
to review and discuss the options presented. After 15 minutes, the
meeting was called back to order and IDC Chairman Ensminger presented
the following as their list of optiow they hoped to see covered in
the study:
x
* analyze the zoning for this area: current zoning was
written for smoke-stack industrial complexes and not for
think-tank industrial (research/office parks). With the
proposed new construction would like to see an analysis
of zoning that would be compatible with that development.
Analysis should be for the highest and best use of the
entire zone, including that across the RR tracks, and be
independent of current use and condition.
* Should have a market analysis for this area included.
The suggestion was made to look at the Dolben Appraisal
of land for properties in this area which would provide
this data;
* Major problem will be Chapter 21E, Superfund money. This
provides that the lender is responsible for any detrimental
effects of developments constructed on former landfill sites.
Is it better for Town to lease the land on long-term basis
as Town is not held responsible under this law?
* Ability.to gain access over the RR tracks. Wilmington
(Sweetheart Plastics) has just gained a grade crossing
access. In Andover, R.J. Kelley has a 12-15 feet grade
crossing. A wider access would be necessary in this
area. There has been problems getting B&M to discuss
the granting of these accesses. Would like to have some
help from MAPC in this regard.
The Planning Board then presented their list of options that they
hoped could be covered in the study:
* Land use survey - Asked that MAPC look at what the current
problems are with the land, the proposed DPW move and its
intended location and investigate what other options might
be available to the Town;
* Zoning analysis of the area; one which would meet the highest
and best use of the land and yet protect neighboring properties.
This would include all IND zoned land. Could some technique
for access be gained over current IND land off Ash Street?
* Obtain a grade crossing access: help find ways to approach
B&M and gain their permission for such access;
* Market analysis: who would be the likely purchasers? Should
we sell or long-term lease?
* Public financial assistance: what is available for studying
and developing industrial land? What would the Town be
eligible for?
11/29/84
Page 4
The Planning Board would hope to have a brief outline of these
options ready to present to the Special Town Meeting so that a.
warrant article requesting additional funds for the major follow-on
study could be done. The proposed date is in mid-January. The
exact date for this Town Meeting would have to be determined to
see if MAPC could respond within the time frame.
Y
At 9:45 P.M., the Board thanked the MAPC representatives for
coming and arranged to meet for an on-site inspection of the
land area on John Street.
Meeting Schedule
The Board will meet on next Wednesday, December 5, at 7:00 P.M.
Items on the agenda will include: Site Plan Review; Townhouse
zoning allowed in S-10 Districts by Special Permit; Cluster
Developments.
Affirmative Action
The Conservation Commission has been notified that monies that are
set aside for them under a Self-Help program will be returned to
the State by December 31, 1984 if the Town has not had an affirmative
action plan accepted by that date. Board asked that a letter be
obtained concerning this matter. Board has question of what monies
,would be impacted under a non-concurrence designation under affirmative
i action.
League of Women Voters-Know Your Town
The Board unanimously approved the distribution of the fact sheet
update for "Know Your Town" as prepared to the League of Women Voters
for their information.
Citizen Participation
The Historical Commission would like to see better signing within
the town. They would like to work with the Planning Board to
help change the current sign by-law. The Historical Commission
has seen some work done on a Design Review Committee to accept
the proposed signs and would like to further investigate this.
The Planning Board,mentioned that they had presented a sign by-law
to Town Meeting in the recent past and was overwhelmingly shot down.
The Board also expressed its concerns with the proliferation of
signs, especially in the South Main Street area. The Board would
hope to review and get a by-law that would prove to-be beneficial
to both the business community and the aesthetic appearance of the
Town.
North Reading-Board of Appeals Decision
1 The Planning Board will send a letter to the Ipswich River Watershed
Association about the recent decision by the North Reading Board
of Appeals on the petition of D.P. Realty Trust, for construction
of 3 two-story wood frame structures for business and service
establishments. This land directly impacts the Ipswich River
11/29/84
`Page 5
and, because of the work load encountered by the Reading Conservation
Commission with the Drinkwater development, they feel they cannot
make any more response than the letter they have already sent in
opposition; the Board felt that the Ipswich River Watershed Associ-
ation should be informed,
Town Accountant
r
Mr. Raphael W. McDonald is resigning his position with the Town to
accept a job as City Accountant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The
Board requested that a letter be sent to Mr. McDonald wishing him
well and thanking him for his efforts on behalf of this Board.
Townhouse Development By-law Proposal
The Board had received a copy of the proposed by-law revision which
would include that a townhouse development could be constructed in
an S-10'development by Special Permit. Mr. Mitchel listed his
concerns and a copy of this will be sent to each Board member in
their weekly mailing. The Board will not be able to meet with
Mr. Latham until December 12th.
The other items on the agenda were postponed for further discussion
until a subsequent meeting.
There being no further business before the Board, it was unanimously
- voted to adjourn at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
John D. Wood, Clerk