HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-05 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: ckowalski@ei.readmg.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: November 5, 2007
Location: Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street Time: 7:00 PM
Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Chairman; David Tuttle (DT), Secretary; Nicholas
Safina (NS), John Sasso (JS), and John Weston (JW).
Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK)
Also Present: Town Planner Carol Kowalski, Town Engineer George Zambouras, and Michael
Schloth.
Ms. Mary Avery, 277 South Street
Mr. Walter Begonis, 289 South Street
Ms. Christine Brungardt, 324 South Street
Attorney Steven Cicatelli, Cicatelli & Cicatelli, 266 Main Street, Stoneham, MA
Mr. Alan Cloutier, P.E., Project Engineer, VHB, Inc.; 101 Walnut St., Watertown, MA.
Mr. John Connery, Connery Associates; 19 Parker St, Melrose, MA
Mr. Joe D'Alessio, 58 Curtis Street
Attorney Jim DiGiulio, 599 North Avenue, Wakefield, MA
Mr. Jim Doherty, 76 Curtis Street.
Mr. Dan Doucett, 80 Curtis Street
Ms. Lori Doughty, 348 South Street
Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Assoc., 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA
Mr. Bill Grace, 389 Haverhill Street
Mr. Tom Hurley, Project Manager of Kylie Drive Development
Mr. Angus Jennings, Concord Square Development;294 Washington St., Boston, MA
Ms. Roberta Kilduff, 305 South Street
Mr. Joseph Keyes, Larkin & Keyes, P.C., 2500 Main Street, Suite 203 Tewksbury, MA
Mr. Tom Laughlin, 24 Oak Street
Mr. Jamie Lynch, CEO Lynch Development, 348 Park Street, North Reading, MA
Ms. Angela Murphy, 343 & 357 South Street
Ms. Joan Neary, 355 South Street
Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue
Ms. Theresa Petrillo, 329 South Street
Mr. Cromwell Schubarth, 17 Sturges Road
Mr. Rich Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue
Mr. David Snow, 31 Longview Road
Page 1 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Selectman Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak St.
Mr. Theodore Tye, Managing Partner, National Development; 2310 Wash. St., Newton, MA
Mr. Scott Weiss, VP Development, National Development; 2310 Washington St., Newton, MA
Yuqing Xue, 332 South Street
There being a quonnn the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
Public Comments
There were no comments from the public.
Lot Release: Kylie Drive
Attorney Jim DiGiulio represented the developer. Also present was the Project Manager, Mr.
Tom Hurley.
The Town Planner said the applicant was requesting the release of lots #2 and #6.The bond had
been deposited and all that is left to do is to have the Board sign the Performance Bond
Agreement, vote on whether or not to approve the release, and, if voted approved, sign the Lot
Release. Tomorrow she would present the document to the Town Clerk and state she had
witnessed the Board Members' signatures. The Town Clerk would then notarize the document.
JS moved to release lots #2 and #6 of the Kylie Drive Development as referenced in the
Performance Bond Agreement secured by deposit for the definitive plan of the Kylie Drive
Development dated March 4, 2005 and signed on 10/24/2007 by the developer.
DT seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The Board signed both the Performance Bond Agreement and the Lot Release.
Site Plan Review (Continued) for 1349 Main Street
As the applicant's attorney, Mr. Michael Larkin, could not attend tonight's meeting, Mr.
Larkin's law partner, Attorney Joseph Keyes, represented the applicant.
Mr. Keyes said they had received their ZBA relief on 10/30/2007 and the applicant's attorney,
Mr. Michael Larkin, had met with the Town Planner today to review three points of the
decision:
1. The required relief from the ZBA for construction within the Aquifer Protection District
was received 10/30/2007. BB noted the ZBA decision should be listed among the
materials of this site plan review decision.
2. Conditions referring to the final site plans shall be changed to reflect the fact the ZBA
approved the plans dated 9/13/2007 and the Board would not be receiving updated plans.
Mr. Keyes presented the Board with the plans as stamped by the ZBA.
3. Under "Prior to the Issuance of a Permanent Certificate of Occupancy", reference in
Condition 3 to the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions should be deleted
since it is not required for this project.
JS moved to close the Public Hearing on the Site Plan Review for 1349 Main Street.
Page 2 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
DT seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:1. JW abstained.
JS moved to approve the Site Plan Review Decision for 1349 Main Street as submitted and
amended tonight.
DT seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:1. JW abstained.
Minutes
DT moved to approve the minutes of January 29, 2007.
JS seconded.
Voted approved: 5:0:0.
Public Hearing (Continued) for Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
A Bylaw definitions: Accessory Building, Detached Garage, and Lot Coverage
BB opened the Public Hearing continuance for the zoning bylaw amendments to Accessory
Buildings and Garages. He noted the Board. had reviewed the language at the previous meeting
and. the only outstanding issue was the Use Table.
The Town Planner said a question had been raised whether the bylaw currently prevents
construction of Detached Garages and Accessory Structures in both the Business and Apartment
zones. She said the bylaw does so and therefore the proposed amendments are not any further
restrictive than the existing bylaw in those zones. The proposed amendments affect residential
zones only.
There was no comment from the public.
DT moved to close the Public Hearing on the zoning amendments for Accessory Buildings,
Garages, and Lot Coverage.
JS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
DT moved the CPDC vote to recommend Town Meeting approve the zoning amendments for
Accessory Buildings, Garages, and Lot Coverage.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
DT volunteered to present the amendment at Town Meeting.
The consensus of the Board was Town Meeting should be reminded they originally had
requested the Board to review and improve the bylaw language of these and other items (e.g.
impervious cover) on November 17, 2005. Given the inconsistencies the Board found in the
bylaws concerning these items, Town Meeting should view the proposed changes as a good first
step towards improving the bylaw language.
Page 3 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Public Hearing (Continued) for Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
Gateway Smart Growth District (40R)
BB opened the Public Hearing continuance for the zoning bylaw amendments to create the 40R
Gateway Smart Growth District (GSGD).
Mr. Jennina's Presentation
Mr. Jennings spoke on: the State's suggested changes, Concord Square's suggested changes,
and Buffering and Screening issues.
DHCD's Suggested Changes
Mr. Jennings said the DHCD, after review of the bylaw, had suggested minor edits intended to
minimize ambiguities or alternative interpretations. Example: Change the phrase "cohesive
transport network" to "transport network" to avoid arguments over what "cohesive" means.
There were two edits suggested by the DHCD which were more substantial:
1. Concord Square had taken all prohibited uses from current zoning and added them to the
40R bylaw, but the DHCD did not see the need for additional details since there is
already a clause that states all uses not expressly allowed are prohibited.
2. The section on screening referred to both visual and noise impacts but the DHCD said,
since the bylaw does not specify what the noise impacts are, it would be best to remove
altogether the reference to noise impacts from the language. Mr. Jennings noted if the
town's general bylaws address noise and nuisances, those would still apply.
Also, since the expected build-out is so close to the threshold between the $200,000.00 vs.
$350,000.00 incentive payment, the DHCD recommended changing the language referring to
the number of units permitted from "snore than 200 units may be permitted" to "more than 200
units shall be permitted".
Mr. Jennings said he did not see any hazards to the Town from any of the DHCD's edits and.
Concord Square recommends all of the edits be incorporated into the bylaw.
Concord. Square's Suggested Changes
• Restricted Area "A" (4.11.9.6.3): Add broader prohibitions to the language referring to
this area: no cutting of vegetation, no construction of any stricture or impervious
surface.
• Village Green: Add a minimum size-threshold to the village green.
• Plantings height: For evergreens: a six foot minimum height requirement when planted.
For deciduous trees: a minimum caliper diameter of 3 inches when planted.
• Abutter Mailings: Clarify that permit applications will be accompanied by mailings to
abutters.
• Infrastructure Letters: Add language to allow infrastructure improvements (e.g. traffic
mitigation) as may be necessary.
Buffering & Screening
Mr. Jennings said at a meeting with the abutters held by the Board of Selectmen this past
Saturday it was discovered the abutters along the North border were generally comfortable that
the screening shown on the developer's concept plan would be adequate, but the abutters to the
Page 4 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
West (Curtis Street) still had concerns. Since the West side is within the scope of the 40R
district that is what Mr. Jennings focused on.
Mr. Jennings recommended adding language granting the CPDC the authority to require the
preservation of existing vegetation as well as some combination of planted buffer, berms, and/or
fencing as appropriate. Mr. Jennings read this language from a memo written to the CPDC from
Concord Square, Inc., dated 11/2/2007. Mr. Jennings also suggested the Board resolve the issue
of the size of the buffer along the western border. He noted it is now 25 feet and could be
increased but increasing it may impact the size of the village green.
Public Comment
BB noted the Board had received memos and emails from abutters.
• A petition to amend the Business C District. BB summarized the language: Vegetative
buffer of 75 feet minimum. All strictures set back from residents' properties 125 feet or
twice the height of any structure, whichever is greater. No parking between the
strictures and residents' properties. This would be addressed when the Board turned its
attention to the Business C amendments.
• Mr. Tien O'Connor, 96 Curtis Street asked the Board to consider changing the width of
the landscape buffer from 25 feet to 30 feet. He expressed concern over this
development becoming another Archstone, how the tennis courts would be used, and if
the site's dumpsters would be located near his property.
• 84 Curtis Street feels a berm and an additional 10 feet added to the vegetative buffer
would be beneficial and asks for assurance drainage from the site would not impact his
property.
Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue.
• Ms. O'Neill expressed her concern over the size of the two apartment buildings and
asked where building size is addressed in the bylaw. DT said the height maximum is
four stories or 55 feet. BB said the maximum Lot Coverage is 60%. Mr. Jennings said
there are design standards for fagade restrictions (4.11.9.1.1) and noted the developer's
concept plan for the buildings would be allowed under the zoning.
• Ms. O'Neill said she does not want the town to be locked into accepting two very large
buildings of 101 units each. BB said the town would be locked into the construction of
202 units within the 40R not two buildings necessarily. DT pointed out the density must
be 20 units or more per acre to qualify as a 40R. The Board pointed out the existing
zoning allowed for larger buildings.
• Ms. O'Neill noted 40B projects place a limit on the developer's profit and asked if the
same applies with 40R projects. Mr. Jennings said it did not.
JS did not want to leave the public with the impression there was much of a chance the
apartments would be spread out over more than two buildings. At a previous meeting, the Board
had discussed breaking up the apartment complex into more than two buildings but the
developer said at the time they needed the two-building design to make it work. He pointed out
this is why the design standards are so important: to assure we would not be looking at long,
featureless fagades.
Page 5 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Mr. Jim Doherty, 76 Curtis Street.
• Mr. Doherty said his chief concern was that his property be adequately screened and
buffered from the development and he agreed with his fellow abutters who asked that the
width of the buffer zone be increased.
• Mr. Doherty asked why the town must be locked into 202 units since with fewer units
more space would be available from eliminated parking spaces. BB said the number of
units is based on both the size of the 40R district and the payments received from the
State as an incentive bonus over 200 brings in much more money. Also, more units
will count towards the town's affordable housing threshold.
• Mr. Doherty asked. why the prohibited uses are being deleted. The Board noted Mr.
Jennings had explained earlier the DHCD had asked the town to take those prohibitions
out because Section 4.11.6 [All uses not expressly allowed are prohibited] has the same
effect with tighter language.
• Mr. Doherty asked how abutters would be protected from lights. Mr. Jennings said the
design standards address those concerns: shielding of lights, no light-spill into abutting
properties...
• Mr. Doherty asked why the parking lot light poles were so tall. He would prefer a greater
number of shorter poles than fewer taller poles. Mr. Jennings said a balance must be
struck between pole height and number of poles. Too many light poles may break-up the
lots too much. Mr. Tye said the 25 foot high poles most efficiently balance the number
of poles and light coverage. Mr. Jennings again noted the bylaw has language stating
illumination cannot spill into adjacent properties. The consensus of the Board was this is
an issue best addressed during site plan review.
Mr. Cromwell Schubarth, 17 Sturges Road.
Mr. Schubarth expressed concern with possible health issues related to the close proximity of
the highway: traffic noise and exhaust fumes. He suggested the construction of sound barriers.
Mr. Dan Doucett, 80 Curtis Street.
Mr. Doucett was concerned the 25 foot buffer might be reduced. BB said it was not the intention
of the Board to reduce the exiting buffer.
The Board's Review
Restricted Area A (section 4.11.9.6.3).
The consensus of the Board was they approved of Concord Square's addition of broader
prohibitions to the language.
Buffering (Section 4.11.9.12.1).
No-build setback. The Board decided to keep the no-build setback at 100 feet.
Buffering (Section 4.11.9.12.3
This language gives the Board discretion as to adding berms, fencing, and plantings. JS said the
language seems to contradict the language of 4.11.9.12.2: The language of "...12.2" says what
the buffering shall be, but "...12.3" gives the Board discretion as to what the buffering shall be.
To remove the contradiction, the Board decided to create two subsections under 4.11.9.12.2:
Page 6of14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
1. All of the original 4.11.9.12.2 after the word "District" is to be moved into new
subsection: 4.11.9.12.2.1; and
2. 4.11.9.12.3 is to be re-named 4.11.9.12.2.2. Also, the language "In lieu of the
requirements of 4.11.9.12.2.1, the approving authority may require " is to be added to
the beginning of the new 4.11.9.12.2.2, and the body of its text edited for consistency
with the new numbering of the sections.
Buffering (new Section (see above) 4.11.9.12.2.1)
Tree Plantings: the Board approved of the change to require evergreens be at least six feet high
at time of planting and the trunks of deciduous trees be 3 inches in diameter at time of planting.
Mr. Jennings noted the bylaw does require an Operations and Maintenance Plan be submitted.
Public Noticing (Section 4.11.11.3).
The Board approved of the changes but directed the language "at the applicant's expense" be
added after "and shall provide".
Infrastructure Letters (Section 4.11.11.7)
The Board approved of the changes.
Landscaped Buffer Strip. (Section 4.11.9.12.2)
Mr. Tye said they could live with a five foot increase in the buffer - from 25 feet to 30 feet - but
that would mean a reduction of the square. footage of the village green from apprx. 20,000 sq. ft.
to apprx. 15,000 sq. ft.
The consensus of the Board. was to increase the minimum width of the buffer to 30 feet. The
Board emphasized they were considering the buffer width and square footage of the village
green in parallel: if the buffer is 30 feet the square footage of the village green would be a
minimum of 15,000 sq. ft; and if the buffer is 25 feet, the square footage of the village green
would be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft.
JS moved to close the Public Hearing for the 40R Smart Growth District Bylaw.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
JS moved the CPDC recommend the Board of Selectmen place the 40R Smart Growth District
zoning bylaw language, originally presented on 10/5/2007, subsequently reviewed by the
DHCD and. presented on 10/26/2007, with Concord Square edits dated 10/30/2007, with the
additional revisions recommended by Concord Square presented tonight, and as amended
tonight by the Board.
DT seconded..
Voted Approved 5:0:0
The Board asked Mr. Jennings if he understood what changes the Board wanted to see made to
the language. Mr. Jennings said he did.
JS made the following motion.
The CPDC hereby recommends Town Meeting approve the 40R Smart Growth District zoning
bylaw language as recommended to the Board of Selectmen by the CPDC on 11/5/2007.
Page 7 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
NS seconded.
Voted Approved 5:0:0
Public Hearing (Continued) for Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
Business C Zoning District Changes
BB opened the Public Hearing continuance for the modification to Business-C Zoning bylaws.
BB noted the Board had received a memos and emails from abutters. [These were the same as
presented earlier during the public hearing for the 40R amendments]
Public Comment
Ms. Molly Thornton, 291 South Street.
Ms. Thornton directed the Board's attention to the petition submitted to have the Business C
zoning amended.
JS asked if the intent of petition was to have the listed amendments apply to Business C only,
the 40R district only, or both. Ms. Thorton said they wanted the changes to apply to both but
noted that although it was presented in a legal form, the intent of the petition was primarily to
make clear to the Board and the developer the concerns of the abutters.
The consensus of the Board was the petition should be presented to Town Counsel for review.
BB said the items on the petition would have to be addressed at a separate public hearing. The
Board. could discuss the petition but no decision could be reached on it tonight.
Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Street.
Mr. Katsoufis emphasized how important he feels it is both to maintain a mix of uses on the site
and to discourage the swapping of commercial uses with another cluster of residential units.
Other possibilities of future uses for the site should not be eliminated or ignored.
He noted that retail is necessary to a mixed-use area to reduce the car-trips of the residents; there
will be some 250 units on the site and he would. not like to see these new residents cut off from
commercial uses.
Mr.Katsoufis asked the Board to encourage green islands in the parking spaces and not to cut-
off pedestrian connections to South Street. Pedestrian networks and a human scale should be
encouraged.
The Board's Review
Section 5.3.14 (d): Maximum Allowable Development - Senior Housing and Townhouses
Senior Housing is in "A" and "B"; the 40R district's 200-plus unit apartment complex is in "C";
the discussion focused on the possible uses of Sub-district D.
JS said he feels the section answers the question of density in principle, but he was not sure it
addresses the issue of mixed-use. He agreed with Mr. Katsoufis on the importance of mixed-use
and he did not want to see mixed-use here mean various kinds of residential use only.
Page 8of14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
DT said early Design Team meetings had not decided on a 40R approach. They looked at
various configurations of senior housing, residential, and office and decided they needed to
prevent the constriction of senior housing across the entire site. That's why they went with the
40R zoning: it retains the underlying zoning - office and hotel so someone at some later date
could come in and use that zoning instead of the 40R.
Mr. Tye said mixed-use comes in many flavors and here he thought there could be some kind of
office use but the location is really a "destination site" and not large enough to support true
mixed-use with busy retail.
Selectman Ben Tafoya.
Selectman Tafoya said the site cannot be considered alone. On a broader scope, there is mixed-
use: the Board has recently approved the plans for a new retail center at 100 Main Street. He
said the DHCD was impressed by the fact this new retail enter would be only a short walk away
from this site. Selectman Tafoya said he hoped an office use was made of the fourth Sub-
district ["D"], but an office building could take a long time to occupy.
BB reminded the Board they had received a letter from the Town Manager which expressed
dissatisfaction with the proposed definition in the bylaw of "Senior Independent Living" and
they had asked the Town Planner to ask the Town Manager for direction in this matter. The
Town Planner said she had. spoken with the Town Manager and was told to disregard the letter;
the definition is sufficient.
JS moved to close the Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Business-C District as
presented to the Board tonight.
DT seconded_
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
JS moved to present to the Board of Selectmen for placement on the [Special] Town Meeting
warrant the wording as presented tonight of the proposed amendments to the Business-C
District.
DT seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
JS moved the CPDC provide a favorable recommendation to Town Meeting for the wording
presented tonight of the proposed amendments to the Business-C District.
DT seconded.
Voted Approved 5:0:0.
Selectman Ben Tafoya thanked the Commissioners for their work on these amendments. He
added he would expect their active input in the discussions on these amendments would be
required at Town Meeting.
Mr. Jim Doherty, 76 Curtis Street.
Mr. Doherty asked: if the office units become assisted living instead, would they all count as
affordable units against the total number of affordable units the town must construct? His
concern was the town may end up not netting more affordable units. Neither the Board nor Mr
Page 9 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Jennings was sure of an answer. The general consensus was the 55-or-older and the senior-
independent-living units would count, but not the assisted-living units- but the Board could not
say for sure if that was so. When the same question was asked of the 40R apartment units, BB
said the 202 units would place the town well ahead in reaching their affordable housing goal.
Mr. Jennings asked if the 40R and Business-C amendments would be voted on at Town Meeting
as a single warrant article.
DT moved the CPDC recommend to the Board of Selectmen both the 40R Smart Growth
District and the Business-C zoning amendments be presented to Town Meeting as one article.
JS seconded for discussion.
JS said it all should be approved or not at all. Mr. Jennings said legally it could be done either
way. Selectman Tafoya said he could not see one being approved with out the other. Someone
pointed out the legal notice had advertised them as one article.
The motion was voted down: 1:4:0. The Board recommended the 40R and. Business-C
amendments not be combined into one article.
The consensus of the Board was the Board of Selectmen should decide how to present the
articles to Town Meeting. If necessary the Board could vote on a single article at a later date.
Site Plan Review (Continued) for 18-20 Woburn Street
BB opened the Public Hearing continuance.
Attorney Steve Cicatelli represented the applicant Jamie Lynch who was also present.
Mr. Cicatelli reviewed the items the Board had asked the applicant to address at the last meeting
[10/15/2007]
• Overhang: the building has been pulled. back from Woburn St. so its overhang no longer
encroaches on the right-of-way.
• Roof Mechanicals: these and the elevator shaft housing have been screened (the
applicant provided elevation plans).
• Lights: specifications of the lighting to be used have been submitted.
• Dumpsters: the Board had asked that the duinpsters be rolled-out laterally when being
unloaded from there location under the building in the rear. The applicant was not able
to make this work so instead they offered to install a gate.
• Rear plantings: a planter has been added to the rear corner behind the building.
• Additional drainage plans and studies (percolation test) by JM Associates have been
submitted for review by the Town Engineer.
BB noted the applicant's plans and drawings were received by the Planning Dept. the previous
Thursday [11/1/2007] and technically did not meet the deadline for submissions. The deadline
was last Tuesday [10/30/2007]. Any applicant submitting materials for review by the Board
must submit them to the Planning Dept. by the end-of-business on the Tuesday previous to the
date of the CPDC meeting they have been scheduled to appear.
Page 10 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
The Town Engineer's continents
• The location and species of the trees should be approved by the Tree Warden.
• Lighting. He had not been able to review the lighting in any detail
• The water connection needs work: fire supply and service need to be individually gated.
• The submitted Stormwater Management Plan is acceptable.
• The site will support infiltration and he would like a portion of the roof runoff infiltrated
too. The applicant was agreeable to infiltrating a portion of'the roof'runoff.
• Snow would have to be removed; there is no room to store it onsite.
• Sewer connection needs cleaning.
• Proposed walkway [along East elevation leading down into the parking lot]:
➢ It needs a handicap ramp.
Although it is private property, given its location it will be much used by the general
public and therefore the Town should consider asking the applicant to provide an
access easement. Mr. Cicatelli said they prefer not to convey the walkway to the
town because they would then not have any setback on that side of the building. Mr.
Cicatelli said they would speak to their insurance company and perhaps Town
Counsel to see if some kind of easement could be worked out. He noted the town's
liability is limited but the applicant's is not.
Public Comment
There were no comments from the public.
The Board's Review
At the previous meeting, the Board had asked for fiirther clarification on the Town Manager's
comment of restricting what the applicant developed in the rear of the site because of the
possible construction of a parking garage there. The Town Planner said she had discussed the
matter with the Town Manager but nothing specific was decided. She added that the Town
Manager did want the applicant and any future tenants of the site to be made aware of the
possibility of a parking garage so they would not be surprised by its constriction.
It was the consensus of the Board that unless specifics were provided the Board was in no
position to restrict the applicant's construction plans based on the possible future construction of
a parking garage.
BB suggested the Board may want to add a finding to the decision stating there is a potential
impact from a future parking garage and. the applicant acknowledges both this possibility and
that modifications to the site's sub-surface systems may be required to accommodate it. The
Board agreed.
JS suggested the Board add a finding to the decision stating the Board had emphasized to the
applicant the how downtown parking was at a premium and had strongly suggested the
applicant devise some comprehensive plan for addressing the parking needs of site's tenants and
customers. The Board agreed.
Page 11 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
The Board noted they had conditioned other businesses in the area not to allow their delivery
trucks park on Woburn Street when making deliveries and the salve condition should be added
to this decision. The applicant said this should not be a problem since they would be able to take
deliveries from the parking lot behind their building.
The Board expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed plantings in the rear: they were too low.
The Board suggested the applicant provide tall tree pots or removable planters containing small
trees or bushes.
The Board noted one set of plans showed the rear patio had plantings near the building and the
other showed plantings on the wall of the patio next to the parking lot. The applicant said it was
an oversight: both sets of plantings should have been placed on each plan.
It was the consensus of the Board to continue the site plan review to the next meeting.
The Town Planner noted the next meeting had originally been scheduled for 12/10/2007 but
could not be held. that night because Town Meeting meets that night.
The Board decided to reschedule the meeting of 12/10/2007 to 12/3/2007.
JS moved to continue the site plan review of 18-20 Woburn Street to the meeting of 12/3/07 in
the Selectmen's Meeting Room,
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Request for Determination of Minor Modification (Continued) to the Site
Plan Review Decision of 239 Woburn Street
Attorney Mark Favoloro represented the applicant.
When last the applicant was before the Board [10/15/2007], the Board had suggested the
dumpster be moved to a location near the Air Conditioning unit. The request of determination of
minor modification had been continued to give the applicant time to consider this suggestion.
This night, Mr. Favaloro proposed the dumpster not be moved to a new location but for four (4)
events each year the applicant be allowed to place a temporary dumpster on the site - by the
outcropping - for up to fourteen (14) days per event provided no food was served during the
events.
Mr. Favoloro said the location near the Air Conditioner would neither provide good access nor
was it aesthetically pleasing.
The Board asked what dumpster was onsite today. Mr. Cary said a second dumpster had been
dropped off last week.
Ms. Barbara Rawding, 1 I Prospect Street.
Ms. Rawding said a temporary dumpster four times a year was fair, but did not know how such
a condition could be enforced.
Page 12 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Mr. David Snow, 31 Longview Road.
Mr. Snow said he thought the original plan was good and now there are two dumpsters in his
backyard. He did not think the applicant had represented the issue clearly or in an upfront
fashion.
Mr. Favoloro presented two alternatives:
1. The permanent placement of the dumpster and enclosure to the right of the outcropping
as proposed at the previous meeting. This is their preference.
2. Don't move the dunrpster but allow the use, four times a year, of a temporary dumpster.
The consensus of the Board was they had no authority to condition the use of temporary
dumpsters. BB decided to have the Board vote first on all items but the dumpster.
JS moved to approve as a Minor Modification the items defined in the memo to the CPDC dated
9/20/2007, specifically items 91, #2, #4, #3, #5, 36, 47, and 98 (everything but the dumpster).
DT seconded.
Voted Approved 4:0:1.
JS moved to approve as a Minor Modification the installation of a permanent dumpster
enclosure at the location defined in the memo to the CPDC dated 9/20/2007 at 239 Woburn
Street, Unitarian Universalist Church.
NS seconded.
After a brief discussion, the Board decided. to add that the location of the permanent dumpster
would be contingent on the enclosure being at least thirty (30) feet from all property lines.
Voted Denied: 2:2:1. As regards the dumpster, the original site plan decision stands.
The Town Planner pointed out this does not prevent the applicant from seeking a temporary
dumpster permit from the Board of Health.
NS moved to approve as a Minor Modification the re-location of the dumpster and enclosure
next to the Air Conditioning units.
JS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:1:1.
JS moved to adjourn.
NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
The meeting ended at 11:00 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on December 3,
2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on December 3, 2007.
Signed as
c //--z,v8'
David Tuttle`, Secretary
Date
Page 13 of 14
CPDC Minutes of 11/5/2007
Text of signed petition submitted to the Board on 11/5/2007:
Proposed Amendments to Business C District
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw as follows:
Concerning the proposed Subdistricts A, B, and C:
That:
1. A buffer zone be established between the residential lot lines and the proposed
development with a minimum width of 75 feet;
2. That the said buffer area be left in its present natural state of mature vegetation and
where vegetation is now sparse or non-existent, a year-round visual screen be provided;
3. That any building or structure be set back from any residential lot lines 125 feet or 2
times the height of any building or structure within the development, whichever is
greater;
4. And that to protect the use of our residences from nuisance caused by noise, fumes and
glare of headlights, no automobile parking, accessory structures, loading area or
roadway be allowed in the area between buildings and residential lot lines.
RespectfiYlly submitted,
Page 14 of 14