Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-25 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street E C E 1\VE D Reading, MA 01867-2683 h o w C ~ K Phone: 781-942=6612 R t i,, ~ 1 G ' r~ S. Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: jdelios@ci.reading.ma.us jW z P 12. 51 Community Planning and Development Co>iission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: Ji Location: Selectmen's Members Present: N (DT), and Joseph Pa luar_y 25 2010 ✓leeting Room las Safma (NS).,°Chaixman; John Weston, Members Absent: Claire Paradiso (CP) ime: 7:30 PM ; David Tuttle Also Present: Jean Delios (JD), Town Planner; and Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Tony D'Arrezzo, 130 John Street Robert Lee, Mandarin Reading Restaurant, 296 Salem Street, Reading Jim Sopchak, 642 Haverhill Street Ron Weston, 63 Blueberry Lane There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:37 PM. Public Comment None Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review Decision: Outside grease tank 296 Salem Street, Mandarin Reading Mr. Robert Lee, Manager of Mandarin Reading, appeared for the restaurant. In the approved site plans the grease tank was located inside the restaurant. Mr. Lee said the tank must be moved outside the restaurant to provide needed space. Grease would be piped to the tank from inside the restaurant. The pipe would be heated to prevent freezing. The tank would be located in the same area as the dumpster and would be protected from traffic by three bollards. The tank would be emptied every few weeks or more frequently as required. The Town Planner said she discussed the change with the Health Administrator and he said it would be far better from a Health standpoint to locate the tank outside. The Chair recommended that the tank be located on a concrete pad. Mr. Lee agreed to this. DT moved the Board determine the applicant's request to be a Minor Modification to the Site Plan Review decision for 296 Salem Street. JP seconded and the motion was carried 3:0:0. [JW had not yet arrived]. DT moved the Board approve the Minor Modification with the following conditions. Page 1 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 1/25/2010 1. Bollards would be placed to protect the tank from traffic. 2. The tank would be placed upon a concrete pad or on concrete blocks. JP seconded and the motion was carried 3:0:0. JW arrived and took his seat. Zoning Workshop: Review of language changes to Section 6.3 of the Zoning By-laws: Non-Conforming Lots, Structures, and Uses The Board reviewed Town Counsel's draft language for Section 6.3. The draft also contains Town Counsel's comments. Town Counsel was not present. Mr. Ron Weston asked if Town Counsel had addressed the issue of ensuring abutters interests are protected when a property's owner makes use of Section 6.3. Mr. Weston had suggested language of his own to address this point. DT replied that Town Counsel notes in her remarks that Mr. Weston's language on this point is too subjective and should not be used. The Chair took issue with Town Counsel's remark on excluding subjective language. He noted that Town Counsel's draft also requires subjective judgments. For example "such change or extension shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood". How is "more detrimental to the neighborhood" to be determined non- subjectively? The Chair further noted that the question of subjectivity also arises in determining whether a special permit or variance should be required of property owners who want to make use of Section 6.3. The Town Planner said she would put together a comparison of the trade-offs involved in requiring a special permit vs. requiring a variance. Mr. Weston asked the Board to request Town Counsel to provide language that would protect neighborhoods from detrimental change. He referred to a particular case on Franklin Street as a travesty of justice with regards to its effect on neighbors. DT noted the Board does not necessarily accept Mr. Weston's definition of a travesty of justice. JW explained the Board must consider how changes to the by-law would affect all properties not any particular property. Mr. Sopchak said the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) seems to interpret Section 6.3 strictly from a standpoint of setbacks alone and does not take the effect on neighbors into account. Mr. Sopchak added that he was present at the ZBA meeting (1/21/2010) during which Town Counsel's draft language for 6.3 was discussed, and it appeared to him that the ZBA had issues with the language. The Board replied it had not yet had any discussion with the ZBA regarding Town Counsel's draft language. The consensus of the Board was to schedule a joint meeting between the Board, the ZBA, and Town Counsel as soon as possible to discuss Section 6.3. The Town Planner said Town Counsel could attend the 2/8/2010 meeting. Regarding the Franklin Street property Mr. Weston referred to, there was a brief discussion on whether the Board could have done something at the time the property's owner submitted the ANR Page 2 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 1/25/2010 (Approval Not-Required) plans for the property. DT noted that the submitted ANR plans increased the non-conformity of the lot and he asked if the Board needs a way to formally note if an ANR under its review does not meet the intent of Section 6.3. The discussion next turned to the issue of reconstruction of nonconforming structures after catastrophe or voluntary demolition. For the Board's consideration, the Town Planner distributed a document containing language from the by-laws of Dedham, Westwood, and Wilmington, MA addressing this issue. The Chair directed that: • A joint meeting with both Town Counsel and the ZBA be scheduled for 2/8/2010 to further discuss the proposed changes to Section 6.3. • The Board's members review the by-law language of Westwood, Dedham, and Wilmington, MA for discussion on 2/8/2010. • The Town Planner 'inform the Board of the implications of requiring a special permit versus a variance. No action was taken by the Board. Zoning Workshop: Review of the Economic Development Committee's (EDC) language changes to Section 6.2 of the Zoning By-laws: Signs JW suggested there are three issues the Board should address: 1. Organization of Section 6.2 as a whole 2. The EDC's changes 3. The crafting of the language to describe the EDC's changes. Regarding the organization of Section 6.2, JW suggested the following outline. 1. Definitions 2. Signs allowed without a permit (i.e. exempt signs) 3. Prohibited Signs 4. By zoning district, signs allowed and prohibited. JW also suggested that headings be added to paragraphs as appropriate. The Board agreed with all of JW's organizational changes. There was some discussion of requiring the Board to review all signage and not only signage in the Business-B district. Mr. Tony D'Arrezzo noted that if the Board's intent in reviewing a sign is to judge its visual impact then the Board should have a say on all signage and not only those signs in a particular zone. There was also discussion on whether site plan reviews should require complete, signage plans. JW noted that signage has rarely been ready at the time of a site plan review and he was reluctant to hold up a project because the signage was not ready. DT suggested requiring at least the location of all signage be specified at the time of the site plan review. Page 3 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 1/25/2010 Regarding the by-law changes, the consensus of the Board was to reorganize 6.2 as per JW's suggestions first and then proceed with the review of the EDC's changes and the crafting the changes' language. No action was taken by the Board. Zoning Workshop: Proposed Earth Removal By-law The Town Planner noted that the by-law will be renamed to reflect the fact that it is concerned with both earth removal and fill. Also, the by-law would be a zoning by-law (as opposed to a general by- law) and regulated by the Board since larger projects would come before the Board anyway. DT suggested including language protecting against steep grade changes at the edge of properties. The Chair noted that there already exists some protection from this eventuality; the building inspector would require a building permit for retaining walls over four feet (4') high. The Board recommended that the requirement that map contours on submitted plans be located every five feet (5') be changed to every two feet (2'). The Board expressed concern over not having the authority to waive any of the requirements of this by-law if it would be reasonable to do so (i.e. reasonable changes on a small lot may still trigger the by-law's thresholds). No action was taken by the Board. Other Business: Approval of Minutes There were no minutes to approve. ZBA Case Review Peter Sanborn Place: 413 square foot addition. The Town Planner explained that the addition falls under an existing, old comprehensive permit and therefore does not have to go before the CPDC. The consensus of the Board was it had not been given enough information to provide a meaningful comment. The Board requested at least a picture be submitted or something to show the context of the project. DT moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and carried 4:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on March 1, 2010; these minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on March 1, 2010. Signed as approved, 3-15- John Weston, Secretary Date Page 4 of 4