The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-02-08 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street RECEIVED Reading, MA 01867-2683 T G aV ~j CLERK Phone: 781-942-6612 t L? 1 G MASS. Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: jdelios@ci.reading.ma.us 21 P ]2. C 1 Community Planning and Development Comn~i&A C J CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: Fe Location: Selectmen's Members Present: Nic (JP), and David Tuttle uaryr8 010 u , ,ting R.oon ? s -oWett Safin ,f NS)Chairman la Members Absent: Claire Paradiso (CP) 7:30 PM ; Joseph Patterson Also Present: Jean Delios (JD), Town Planner; Abigail McCabe (AM), Staff Planner, and Michael Schloth (MS), Recording Secretary. Attorney Ellen Doucette, Town Counsel, Cy Caouette, 11 Field Pond Drive Tony D'Arrezzo, 130 John Street Charles Gray, 431 Main Street John Jarema, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), 797 Main Street Bryan Patalano, 467 Main Street Mike Patalano, 467 Main Street Jack Russell, Economic Development Committee (EDC), 91 Spruce Street Meghan Young, Economic Development Committee (EDC), 40 Oak Street There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comment None. Most of the audience was hereto hear the discussion on the signage by-law amendments so the Chair suggested and the Board agreed to make that workshop the first order of business. Zoning Workshops: Amendments to Section 6.2: Sign By-Law; Amendments to Section 6.3: Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, & Lots; and Section 4.3.7: Earth Removal/Filling By-Law (New By-Law) The Board decided it would vote on the language for all three of the by-laws discussed tonight plus any FEMA map changes at the meeting of 2/22/2010. Because the warrant closes on 3/2/2010, the Board cancelled the 3/8/2008 meeting and scheduled a new meeting for 3/1/2010 during which public hearings would be noticed for discussion of all three by-laws' language changes. Amendments to Section 6.2: Sign By-Law The working draft dated 2/1/2010 was reviewed and various edits made to it. Under Section 6.2.1.3, the Downtown Smart Growth Overlay district would be referenced. Page 1 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 2/08/2010 • Section 6.2.3.2.2.a would specify if a tenant would like two signs, and both signs were located on the same fagade, and one were a wall or awning sign, the second must be a projecting sign. • Under Section 6.2.3.2.e and o, corporate colors would be allowed but not corporate logos or slogans. • Under Section 6.2.3.2.i, individual businesses would be allowed to place a temporary sign four times each calendar year for a total duration not to exceed 56 days. • Under Section 6.2.3.2.m, the restriction allowing only two flags was struck. Ms. Young emphasized the licensing of portable signs (aka sidewalk signs) would require the applicant to meet certain standards of size, material, and designated locations especially with reference to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The Board also suggested various organizational enhancements e.g. headings. Discussion ensued regarding: how to regulate signs' supporting structure (in particular freestanding signs), whether the alleyways and/or private ways should be considered a valid fagade for purposes of allowing a second sign under 6.2.3.2.2.d, and various definitions. Mr. Bryan Patalano, Mr. Mike Patalano, and Mr. Charles Gray own gas stations in the Business-B district and they asked the Board if the changes would affect the sunset provision for signs: all signs must be in compliance by 7/1/2010. In particular, they were concerned with having to remove their freestanding signs (not allowed in Business-B). The Town Planner informed the Board that a letter dated 1/29/2010 was sent to all commercial enterprises reminding owners that the sunset provision's deadline is approaching. She said there was nothing in the proposed changes discussed tonight concerns free-standing signs. She added that a town-wide meeting is being planned to help commercial property owners bring their properties into compliance with the sign by-laws. The Chair suggested the gentlemen take their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). No action was taken by the Board. Zoning Workshop: Amendments to Section 6.3: Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, & Lots. Joint meeting with members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Mr. Jarema of the ZBA and Town Counsel were present to discuss Town Counsel's draft re-write of Section 6.3. The Board wanted the new language to address two issues: the lack of clarity in the current by-law; and how to address concerns of abutters to construction that falls under 6.3. Town Counsel said she rewrote Section 6.3 because the language is generally confusing some parts so much so. that it has led to litigation. Other parts are restatements of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Law (MGL). Continuing that thought, she pointed out that the town did not really need a by-law addressing nonconformities because the town could reference Chapter 40A, Section 6 of the MGL instead. Her draft is based on a model by-law from the Attorney General and is consistent with similar by-laws used by other communities. The discussion turned to the issue of protecting the interests of abutters. Town Counsel said the . suggested language referring to changes or extensions of a nonconforming use as having to be "in Page 2 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 2/08/2010 keeping with the character of the neighborhood" should be struck as too restrictive. Abutters' interests are addressed by the language which states the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) may grant a Special Permit to change or extend a nonconforming use "...only if it determines that such change or extension shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood." This led to a discussion on the issue of mansionization. Town Counsel said mansionization usually follows voluntary demolitions and reconstructions. She noted that Chapter 40A, Section 6 does not allow voluntary demolitions and that they are a creation of local by-laws. She offered to forward to the Board language from a by-law she discovered which limits voluntary demolitions. Discussion ensued regarding the issuance of Variances and Special Permits under Section 6.3. Mr. Jarema noted that the zoning district changes of the 1980s made many of Reading's properties nonconforming and he expressed concern owners of those nonconforming properties may be unfairly constrained if they should ever chose to change or expand their homes. The consensus of the Board was Town Counsel's draft language was something they could recommend to Town Meeting. The Board agreed with Town Counsel's suggested edits to the working draft: • Strike the reference to special permits in the definition of "nonconforming". • Strike the phrase "and it shall be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood" from 6.3.2. • Change "which is not considered a" to "not" in 6.3.2.b. • Strike "reconstruction" from 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 because it implies voluntary demolition. `J With reference to 355 Franklin Street, the Board asked Town Counsel if the Board could have addressed that property's nonconformities when it reviewed the plans to split the lot under an Approval Not Required (ANR). Town Counsel replied that the Franklin Street case concerned a nonconforming use and not a nonconforming lot. Only vacant lots can be nonconforming lots. No action was taken by the Board. Zoning Workshop: New By-Law: Section 4.3.7: Earth Removal/Filling By-Law (New By-Law) The Board decided to postpone discussion of this item to the meeting of 2/22/2010. No action was taken by the Board. The Chair instructed the Board to forward all comments on all three zoning changes, along with any comments it may have on the FEMA Map changes, to the Town Planner as soon as possible. Other Business: Approval of Minutes The Board decided to review the minutes submitted for 1/11/2010 and 1/25/2010 at a future meeting. Updates: 345 Main Street, Reading Plaza The Town Planner asked the Board to have a look at the site because the owner claims the site now conforms to the plans approved by the Board. The Chair disagreed: the fagade's light source was _ supposed to be set into a channel so as not to be visible from the street but it is still visible and needs to be fixed. DT moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and carried 4:0:0. Page 3 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 2/08/2010 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 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, 2- (D J~hn Weston, Secretary Date