HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-19 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the Meeting of September 19, 1984
airman Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the first floor meeting
am of the old Library building, 6 Lowell Street, with Board members D. Devsiae, J.
-Wood and B. Mitchel present. Mr. Ben Nichols and Ms. Miriam Barclay appeared later
in the meeting to hear discussion on Gallo petition. Ms. Virginia Adams from the
Historical Commission also was present later in the meeting.
Correspondence
The Board of Appeals decision on the petition by John and Barbara Gallo was reviewed
by the Board. Mr. Gallo will be present later in the meeting to discuss this matter
with the Board.
On September 24, 1984, the Board of Public Works will be presenting a final layout
for the garage facilities at John Street.
Ms. Rich reported that she had been talking with MAPC regarding the technical
assistance they will be providing for studying impacts from development in the John
Street area. Ms. Jean Christensen will be meeting with the Board next week during
the Board's regular business meeting. IDC Chairman Dan Ensminger will also be
present for any input that his commission can provide.
Mr. Ensminger has sent a letter of support to the Board regarding the°technical
assistance needed for this area. He has also included in this letter a request for
this Board's support in estabishing a data-base program for all business/industrial
land within the Town, as well as other developable parcels of land. Mr. Ensminger
as spoken with the Town Treasurer and has received her support in this matter.
airman Rich will speak with the Assessor's office to solicit their support in this
-egard.
Mr. Overon has appeared before the Board of Public Works and promised to pave the
road and upgrade the existing roadway on Criterion Road. This action was to have
commenced by September 17, 1984.
The Board reviewed a letter from 0. Bradley Latham, Esq. regarding the development of
land off Salem/Pleasant Street into townhouse condominiums. As stated, Wingate
Corporation has decided not to proceed with this zoning change at this Fall Town
Meeting. Mr. Wood mentioned that he had visited the development Wingate was doing in
Winchester. He felt it was very congested (80 units on 10 acres). The covenant
agreement with the Town of Winchester required that all changes before and during
development must be approved by the Town. Wingate has stated that this process is
very cumbersome for the developer. Mr. Wood stated that he thinks it provides a
great deal of protection for the Town, especially during development. Mr. Wood also
commented on the proximity of the development to the Aberjona River. Under the
covenant agreement, Wingate will be bound to landscape to the boundary of the river.
Site Plan Review
The Board reviewed a prepared matrix of controls and processes used by other
surrounding towns for site plan review. The Board discussed the degree and kinds of
controls that would be necessary and practical for this Town's protection. After
Bch discussion, the Board unanimously voted to include the following wording for
e Plan Review as an article for Fall 1984 Town Meeting:
"Site Plan review will be required for any Special Permit, any new subdivision, any
velopment or rehabilitation in a Business or Industrial district that has more than
i parking spaces, and the following uses in a Residential District: school, day camp
or private organized camp; tourist home, boarding or lodging house; or salesroom or
stand for the display/sale of agricultural or horticultural products."
The Board discontinued further discussion on this matter until later in the evening
because of a scheduled appointment with Mr. John Gallo.
Board of Appeals decision-John & Barbara Gallo
Mr. Gallo appeared before the Board at 8:40 P.M. to discuss his petition to allow a 2
-family home to be constructed on a-newly-formed lotwithin an 5-10-District.--As Mr.
Gallo presented the facts, he feels it is unwise of the Board of Appeals to render a
decision when they have just heard a case and have not had the proper time to
consider all the evidence. As he understands it, the Board does not get the
information before the public hearing, but hears and decides on the evidence as it is
presented to them that evening. Mr. Gallo felt that a better process would be to
present supporting evidence and data to the Board before the pubilc hearing so that a
more informed exchange can take place. The Board reminded Mr. Gallo that this was
not within their purview, but did note his concerns.
Mr. Gallo then discussed his reason for meeting with the Board. As he presented his
case, Mr. Gallo felt that the evidence given to the Board of Appeals did not receive
proper consideration before the ZBA rendered their vote. He felt that he was not
operly informed of all his rights, especially to withdraw without prejudice, even
ough he was represented by counselor 0. Bradley Latham. Mr. Gallo emphatically
made the point that the zoning laws were created to protect each individual from any
detrimental action by another individual. That in accepting these laws, each
individual gives up certain rights in order to protect themselves from any
deterimental action that could occur without these controls. He felt that the law
should also work in reverse ...that no detrimental effect will occur to an individual
because of the imposition of those controls. In his case, he felt that he was being
penalized because the area in which he was living was in fact a multi-family
neighborhood. There are older homes that under the current zoning laws have either
been allowed to convert or had converted before the laws went into effect. He felt
that the neighborhood was having a detrimental effect on his property values and his
proposal to build a two-family house would not have a detrimental effect on the
surrounding properties and their value. Because of these reasons, it was just not
economically feasible to build a single family dwelling in this neighborhood. He
felt that he should have the right to build a 2 family house in what was in fact a
multi-family neighborhood.
After a prolonged discussion, the Board informed Mr. Gallo of the options available
to him:
- Appeal the Board of Appeals decision to either the District Court (within 20
days) or the Middlesex Superior Court (within 21 days);
- Place an article on the warrant to have an overlay district included within the
Zoning By-laws. The closing date for this Fall Town Meeting warrant will be on
Monday, September 24, 1984); or
Request a hearing for a repetitive petition. This petition will be a public
hearing, that must be duly advertised and posted. The cost for the hearing
will be $40 plus advertising fees. The Planning Board will publish this
hearing in the Chronicle and send a notice to all abuttors. At the public
hearing, the Planning Board will have to be presented with "material and
substantive changes" to any evidence already submitted or presented to the
Board of Appeals. Then 4 out of 5 members of the Planning Board would have to
vote to allow the petitioner to appear before the Board of Appeals in this
matter before the required 2 year waiting period had elapsed.
Mr. Gallo was informed of the proper procedures for filing a request for a repetitive
petition. Mr. Gallo thanked the Board for their time and understanding in this
matter and promised to get back to the Board.
Citizen Participation
Mr. Ben Nichols presented facts on the 3 previous cases when the Planning Board of
Reading had appealed a decision by the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals (2 were on
3/30/54 and 1 was on 11/5/53). Neighbors in the John Street area also appealed a ZBA
decision in 1964.
In the matter of the Gallo decision, Mr. Nichols noted that the Board of Appeals has
the right to consider their decision for up to 10 days. It is the ZBA's judgment
that allows them to either call for an immediate vote, as they did in the Gallo case,
or wait and make their decision any time within that 10 day period.
Ms. Adams asked that as a courtesy the Planning Board send a copy of the notice for
the publlc hearing on the Gallo case to the Historical Commission, if and when he
les for a repetitive petition.
Site Plan Review (continued)
The Board continued discussion on the preparation of a warrant article for Fall Town
Meeting for Site Plan Review.
The Board considered the list of controls applicable to this Town's needs. Upon a
motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to include the following
controls in the wording for the warrant article.
- Arrangement, design and appearance of proposed buildings, structures, exterior
lighting, signs, screening and landscaping features (including fences, walls,
walks and plantings);
- convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and
in relation to adjacent ways and land;
- adequacy of number of parking spaces and loading spaces in relation to proposed
uses of premises;
adequacy of waste disposal, surface and sub-surface drainage;
proper spacing of structures for the entrance of light and air;
- effect of the plan on continuing use or advantageous development of adjoining
properties.
The Board then considered the process for filing the site plan. After much
",,scussion and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to
i the following language into the wording of the warrant article:
"Six copies of the site plan, approved by a registered professional engineer or
registered land surveyor and prepared in accordance with Board of Survey standards,
must be filed with the Board of Survey, who will then distribute 1 copy to each of
the following: Building Inspector, Conservation Commision, Planning Board, Board of
Health and Fire Department. Each department will review and make recommendations
relative to the detailed controls.
The Board of Survey will have the power to approve, disapprove or suggest
recommendations or modifications to the plan or any subsequent revisions to the
plan.
After approval by Town Meeting, the Board of Survey will have the power to
establish reasonable regulations in relation thereto, or take any other action with
respect thereto."
The Board then considered the placement of the process within the Zoning By-laws.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted to add this as a
new Section 4.3.3. in the current Zoning By-laws.
After some discussion, the Board unanimously voted to have the final document
prepared and reviewed by all members of the Board. Mr. Mitchel will then submit the
final wording to Town Counsel for his review. The Chairman will then have the right
to include any and all revisions suggested by Town Counsel before submitting this
Miele by Monday, September 24, 1984, the close of the Fall Town Meeting Warrant.
Meeting Schedule
The Board will next meet on Wednesday, September 26, 1984 at 7:00 P.M. The first
item of business will be the meeting with the MAPC and IDC representatives.
Executive Session
The Board will be discussing the personnel matters before them. Upon a motion duly
made and seconded, it was unanimously voted to adjourn to executive session and will
not to return to public session before adjournment.
`19/84 Minutes of Executive Session
The Board adjourned to Executive Session at 11:10 P.M. A copy of the grievance filed
by the Administrative Assistant was reviewed by the Board members. Listed in the
grievance was the change in duties and responsibilities, unsafe and unhealthy working
conditions. Ms. Plansky enumerated the problems that she faced with the move: the
building was not cleaned or prepared for the move; all packing and unpacking of boxes
was handled by employees of each department; cleaning of the allotted library space
was done by the department employees; the building had been closed and dirt, mold and
mildew had accumulated on the flooring and surfaces; the air circulating system was
just recirculating the dust and spores around. Personally, Ms. Plansky has had a
great deal of difficulty with this move because of her allergies. Although she was
not on medication for the control of asthma, she has had to commence using this
medication because of the existing conditions in the building, and during packing and
unpacking. Due to these problems, Ms. Plansky enlisted the help of her children in
cleaning, packing and unpacking. In addition to her own time, the children have
volunteered over 30 hours in this regard. The Board discussed submitting a bill to
the Building Maintenance department for 30 hours work at minimum wage. Ms. Plansky
asked them to hold up submitting a bill in this matter and would reconsider this
action at a future date.
The Board then unanimously voted to adjourn at 11:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
hn D. Wood, Clerk