HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-27 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
MARCH 27, 2012
Goldv, Tafova, Sehuber Arena, Bonazoli Hechenbleikner
la) Move to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to
collective bargaining - Police Superior Officers I.B.P.O, and Health
Insurance - and that the Chair declare that an open meeting may have
a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the body, and to
reconvene in Open Session at approximately 7:30 PM.
2c) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Town of Reading and the Police Superior
Officer's Association I.B.P.O. for a term expiring 6-30-14 in
substantially the form submitted, and authorize the Town Manager to
sign the contract on the Town's behalf.
5) Move that the Board of Selectmen accept the report of the Volunteer
Appointment Subcommittee and confirm the following appointments to
the following Boards, Committees and Commissions:
• Donna Dudley for one position on the Community Planning and
Development Commission with a term expiring June 30,2012;
• Tony Capobianco for one Associate position on the Advisory
Committee for the Cities for Climate Protection Program with a
term expiring June 30, 2012;
• Ron Taupier for one position on the Advisory Committee for the
Cities for Climate Protection Program with a term expiring June
30, 2013;
• Lisa Egan, Leslie McGonagle, Valerie Sachetta and Jeff Jadul
(FoRR representative) for positions on the ad hoc Sturges Park
Planning Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2012;
• Terence Selle for one position on the Town Forest Committee with
a term expiring June 30, 2014;
• Kendal Stackhouse to one position on the Town Forest Committee
with a term expiring June 30, 2012;
• Terence Selle for one position on the Trails Committee with a
term expiring June 30,2013;
0
• Will Finch for one position on the Trails Committee with a term
expiring June 30, 2014;
• Jacalyn Wallace for one position on the Cultural Council with a
term expiring June 30, 2014
6a) Move that the Board of Selectmen close the hearing to amend Section
5.1 of the Board of Selectmen's Policies.
Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the amendments to Section
5.1 of the Board of Selectmen's Policies - Community Service Revolving
Fund as presented.
6c) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the proposed Affordable
Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan as presented in the Town
Manager's memo dated March 22, 2012 (as amended)
7a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of February 28,
2012 as amended.
Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn the meeting at p.m.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Administrative matters
♦ Recreation Program Coordinator Jim Sullivan is leaving to head up the Recreation
program in Marblehead.
♦ Appraiser Bill Boatwright is leaving to join a private sector firm in New Hampshire.
♦ The deadline for licensing dogs without penalty is March 31. The rabies clinic is 3-
31 at the DPW garage from 2 PM to 4 PM -see the web site for more details.
♦ RCTV Studios invited you to Annual Meeting 2012 Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Communitv Services
♦ The Reading Economic Development Committee (EDC) has established the
Building Fagade and Signage Improvement Program (BFSI) which will offer
technical and financial assistance for property owners and tenants seeking to
improve their building fagade, signage and exterior lighting. To be eligible for the
program, commercial buildings must be located within the downtown area or
surrounding target location. The open application process will begin that evening
and continue to April 30, 2012. The program will be presented to the public on
March 21, 2012 at 7:00 PM at the Community Room located at the Reading
Police Station.
♦ Affordable housing available - 30 Haven Street. Attached is a clarification on the
parking for affordable units.
♦ Keurig
♦ CTG Wellness Grant
♦ The Board of Selectmen has received a letter from the Northeast Dance Studio,
and a detailed report from Community Services Director Jean Delios with
attachments is included in your packet.
♦ Reading Elder/Human Services is having their Volunteer Appreciation event on
April 19 at Parker Middle School
Finance
Final FY 2013 budget hearing with the Finance Committee will be on March 28
♦ Meals Tax - Dec. 2011 to Feb 2012 $80,014.30 to be received on 03/30/12
Library
♦ April 8 is National Library Week. There will be programs about Financial Literacy
- called "Money Smart"
♦ You have received tonight a summary annual report for the Library. The more
detailed Town-wide report is being compiled and will be available by the end of
April.
3/27/2012 1 0
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Public Works
Safe Routes to School project. Excavation for the sidewalk areas was completed
last week along with the installation of a manhole and catch basin on Sunnyside.
Curb installation began yesterday. By the end of yesterday, most of the curb along
Sunnyside was installed. At the pace they are going, all of the curb is expected to
be installed by the end of this week. Also by the end of the week, all of the
sidewalks/driveways are expected to be ready for concrete/asphalt.
♦ Micro-Seal in the spring - portions of: Washington Street, Hopkins Street,
Charles Street. Need constant temperatures mid 50's and up. Most likely will be
installing in mid May. We informed them that we wanted all prep work remaining
completed be end of April.
♦ Haverhill St. Water Main: Completing in the spring, Road overlay summer 2013.
♦ The Trails Committee is looking for adult and teen volunteers to assist in building
the Kurchian Woods trail. They got a grant for materials and now need
volunteers to actually assist in building.
♦ Contractor is planning to start in April (exact date not known as of today) first
roadways to be done are the reclamation roadways Pearl Street and Belmont
Street. Once those are bindered they will move on to Wilson Street, Track Road
and California Road.
♦ Reading is completely up to date on expenditure of available sewer grant/loan
opportunities for inflow/infiltration.
3/27/2012
2
9
Po6kic
Stephen Goldy
Chairman, Board of Selectman 2012 HAR 22 AI 1E: 414
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, Ma. 01867
Dear Mr. Goldy:
am writing to you to express how disappointing and frustrating our
experience has been in attempting to open a ballet school in the Town of Reading.
The Northeast Youth Ballet, with the official training school the Northeast
School of Ballet, is a non-profit entity which has been in continuous operation in Melrose
for over 40 years, training children in the discipline of classical ballet. Due to a series of
unfortunate events, it became necessary to relocate the school. It has been renting a
temporary a space in Melrose, waiting to relocate to Reading.
To that end, we purchased the property at 32 Lowell Street (Christian
Science Church), September, 2011. This premises is registered as a historic building
with the Massachusetts Historical Society, and possesses numerous use restrictions
The Massachusetts Historical Society has approved the use of this
premises for a classical ballet school.
Our goal to open this non-profit, educational business to benefit the
residents of the Town of Reading has been unreasonably thwarted, and we are left with
no choice but to sell the property and close this business.
The unjustifiable actions of the building inspector, Glenn Redmond and
certain members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), in particular Kristin Cataldo and
John Jarema, have served to defeat our attempt to open this business
The actions of these town representatives are both unreasonable and
irresponsible, and we believe without legal justification.
At the outset, we agreed to all of the wishes of the Town Planner and
building inspector, who mandated that we obtain a traffic engineering study regarding
traffic flow, and parking.
We complied despite knowing that we were protected by the Dover
Amendment as a non-profit educational use, and therefore exempt from zoning
requirements governing this property. It was later brought to our attention by the
Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) and certain members of
the ZBA that the presence of the parking lot adjacent to Town Hall should satisfy the
parking requirements of the Town, as it constitutes a "public off-street parking facility".
8
a bb
Althouqh we had never reauested. nor intended. for the clients of
Northeast Youth Ballet to utilize this adiacent municipal lot, the recognition by the CPDC
and ZBA of its presence should have allayed the concerns of the building inspector.
Unfortunately, it did not, and the Town Manager sent a memorandum to the ZBA to
influence them with regard to their interpretation of the "public off-street parking facility",
suggesting from his perspective the lot is not to be deemed municipal.
Yet, there is nothing contained in the by-laws or regulations of the Town of
Reading which characterizes this parking lot as belonging to Town Hall employees and
visitors only, and such interpretation we believe is legally improper and inaccurate.
To avoid any reliance on this parking area and to appease the Town
Manager and others, we expended thousands of dollars for a site plan and traffic
engineering study. The traffic study compared the parking needs at the current location
and the traffic flow/parking needs in Reading. This study, costing $7000, determined
that the operation of this non-profit business is 90% drop-off/pick-up, necessitating at
most, on its busiest day, 7 parking spaces for less than a half hour. The 32 Lowell
Street property is surrounded by on street parking located on Sanborn, a one way street
conducive to the drop-off/pick-up operations. There are over 25 spaces on Sanborn.
There is also parking on Lowell Street in front of the building.
The traffic study also determined that the safest use of the narrow
driveway on the site, with several potential blind spots for travelers and children, would
be to limit access to the lot to employees only, thus channeling the children away from
this driveway as part of its drop-off/pick-up protocol.
The opinions of this traffic expert and the presentations of our counsel and
the traffic consultant have been ignored completely, or from our perspective given no
consideration.
It must be pointed out that on March 12, 2012, the CPDC voted and
determined that the determination of the building inspector was erroneous, and our
Appeal should be granted. This position was conveyed to the ZBA prior to the March 15,
2012 hearing.
Instead of adopting the recommendations of the CPDC, the ZBA upheld
the building inspector's unsubstantiated position, and ordered that a parking lot as
characterized by Mr. Redmond should be installed.
We are faced now with the unreasonable and daunting task of
constructing a parking area on this property which we will not use because of safety
reasons.
This requirement has been imposed by John Jarema and Kristin Cataldo
of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the building inspector, Glenn Redmond.
s
~bZ
It has become apparent from our attendance at a DRT team meeting, and
two ZBA hearings, that the town representatives, including Mr. Redmond, did not review
or give meaningful consideration to multiple reports and a presentation by our traffic
engineer, Jason Plourde.
The ZBA has offered no comparable study to substantiate the requirement
for parking it has now imposed. There has been no traffic study prepared or authorized
to support the ZBA concerns about congestion. There has been no safety consultant
engaged to raises issues about the operations of the ballet school relative to its drop-
off/pick-up procedures. Both Mr. Jarema and Ms Cataldo made reference to safetv
concerns without anv hard data, nor suoportina documentation.
Moreover, Mr. Redmund has determined that the Dover Amendment is
inapplicable to this non-profit, educational use, yet there has not been any legal opinion
or memorandum presented at the CPDC hearing, or the two Zoning Board hearings,
consistent with his untenable interpretation. It has been repeatedly mentioned and even
acknowledged by other members of the Zoning Board that there are no town ordinances
or by-laws applicable to a non-profit educational use; yet, arbitrarily, the building
inspector has imposed his own whimsical interpretation of the existing bylaws to
mandate a parking requirement again without legal support.
Clearly, the errors of his analysis and interpretation of the town
ordinances and bylaws were recognized by the CPCD, prompting their
recommendation to the Zoning Board. Despite this opinion, Kristin Cataldo and John
Jarema insisted on the parking requirements without any factual support or
documentation to back it up.
From the perspective of the benefits to the Town of Reading, the operation
of this business would provide tax revenues not previously collected; an increase in
business activity in and around the downtown area as 150 families, mostly from outside
of Reading, will be taking advantage of the restaurants, cafes, grocery stores and other
retail establishments while their children are in class; and lastly, an artistic endeavor
adding culture and diversity to your community.
The reputation of this cultural organization is well known, and highly
regarded, not only for its curriculum but for the innumerable outreach programs,
collaborations with other arts organizations, and charitable endeavors bringing its ballet
education to those less fortunate.
The imposition of this unreasonable requirement to install parking is too
costly to undertake for a small, non-profit ballet school. It is fiscally impossible to
accomplish this, after we have expended in excess of $25,000 just to get to the Zoning
Board stage.
10
Zb3
D-7
We will have no choice but to sell this property if required to install a
parking lot, as described by Mr. Redmond, most probably to a church organization,
exempt for property taxes and parking.
Our counsel, Brad Latham, has afforded the ZBA three options to permit
us to use this property : one, the ZBA could overturn the ruling of the building inspector
and approving the petitioner's appeal, as proposed by the CPDC, and authorized by the
provisions of the Dover amendment; two, the ZBA could exempt the use from parking
due to the presence of a municipal parking lot adjacent thereto and in compliance with
the prevailing zoning by-laws; or three, it could grant a variance which exempts the use
from any parking requirements, or, in the alternative, stay the imposition of parking
requirements until the business is in operation later evaluating its impact on traffic flow
and congestion, at some future date, preferably in 12 months.
It is our hope in reaching out to the Board of Selectmen that it convince
the ZBA to adopt one of the options listed above benefitting the residents of Reading,
the local businesses, and the community as a whole.
We would welcome and appreciate anything that you could do on behalf of
this project.
Very Truly Yours,
Ralph N. Cecere
11
Z b`~
OFRFgOI~
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
MEMORANDUM
To:
From
Date:
Re:
Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
JEAN DELIOS
Community Services Director/
Town Planner
Phone: (781) 942-6612
Fax: (781) 942-9071
j delios@ci. reading. ma. us
Jean Delios, Community Services Director/Town Planner
March 26, 2012
32 Lowell Street - Northeast Ballet Studio
Per your request, the following summarizes the process and addresses issues
raised in the March 22, 2012 letter from Ralph Cecere, of the Northeast Ballet
Studio, a proposed dance school at 32 Lowell Street.
Staff Interaction - 2 phone calls. 2 office visits. and 2 meetings
Last September I received 2 phone calls and, 2 office visits from Attorney Brian
McGrail who was representing the applicant at that time. At the applicant's
request a meeting was held on September 20, 2011 with the applicant, Attorney
McGrail, the applicant's architect, Glen Redmond, and me to assist them with
zoning and other permitting requirements. The Mass. Gen. Laws c. 40A, §3
"Dover Amendment" was discussed and the building inspector expressed
concerns about parking at these initial inquiries. The attached legal opinions
dated October 22, 2007 and April 11, 2008 were given to Attorney McGrail at the
first office visit in September to assist with the "Dover Amendment".
Throughout these phone calls, office visits, and meetings a range of issues were
discussed, however, the 2 major issues we identified that they would have to
resolve were:
Use - given that the property is located in a residential district the only
way they could be permitted for a dance studio was if they could meet the
criteria under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 40A, §3 (the "Dover Amendment").
Parking - the building inspector questioned how the applicant planned to
meet the parking requirements under ZBL Section 6.2. An analysis of
drop off/pick up, traffic flow, and parking needs was suggested as a way to
measure anticipated impacts of the school at this site.
Town Counsel was consulted to verify that Northeast Ballet Studio would qualify
under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 40A, §3, the "Dover Amendment," which allows cities
and towns to impose reasonable dimensional regulations (including parking) on
D
otherwise exempt religious and educational uses. Town Counsel verified that
(Limited) Site plan review is in the nature of a dimensional requirement and that
parking is one of the areas of "reasonable regulation" under Mass. Gen. Laws c.
40A, §3. The attached e-mail from Town Counsel states that "As a new use in a
building, with no on-site parking that a dimensional variance from the parking
requirement" was advisable.
Chanaed Attornevs
Then on November 9, 2011 at his request, I met with Attorney Brad Latham to
discuss the Northeast Ballet Studio's plans to open a school at 32 Lowell Street.
Attorney Latham advised at that time that the applicant switched attorneys and
now he was representing them.
DRT (Development Review Team) - see attached DRT Notes
The applicant submitted plans in early January which we redistributed to DRT
members and a DRT was held on January 25, 2012. Again at the DRT the
Dover Amendment and Parking requirements were part of the discussion.
CPDC - see attached SPR Decision
A Limited Site Plan Review (SPR) application was heard by CPDC on February
27, 2012. The application was reviewed and a draft decision provided with some
minor changes so that the review was completed in one meeting. A final
decision was filed and provided to the applicant a few days later.
ZBA
The applicant filed with the ZBA for zoning relief. The application was for:
• A Variance from Section 6.1 (parking) - see attached plan and variance
criteria;
• An Appeal from the Decision/Order of the Building Inspector (see attached
letter of denial from the Building Inspector),
• An exemption from parking under 6.1.1.1 if located within 300 feet of a
public off street parking lot provided the use is retail, office, or consumer
services (see attached letter from the Town Manager excluding the Town
Hall parking lot from this definition).
The ZBA heard the application on March 1, 2012. The ZBA continued the
hearing until March 15, 2012 at which time they upheld the Building Inspector's
decision and approved the applicant's request for a parking variance for 4
parking spaces consistent with the plan the applicant developed.
Prior to the ZBA's meeting on March 15, 2012 the CPDC voted on March 12,
2012 to recommend to the ZBA that they overturn the Building Inspector's
decision regarding parking and expressed caution over granting a variance. An
email dated March 15, 2012 from the CPDC chair (attached) was provided to the
ZBA before the meeting expressing the CPDC's position.
2 `O
6
GARY S. BRACKETT
JUDITH A. PICKETT
JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS
STEVEN C. FLETCHER*
ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE
DONNA GORSHEL COHEN
HEATHER W. KINGS13URY
JASON D. GROSSFIELD
*Also Admitted in ME and CO
VIA ELECTRONIC AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
BRACKETT & LucAs
COUNSELORS AT LAW
19 CEDAR STREET
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609
508-799-9739
Far 508-799-9799
October 22, 2007
Ms. Carol Kowalski
Community Services Director/Town Planner
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
OF COUNSEL
ELAINE M. LUCAS
WINCHESTER. OFFICE
165 WASHINGTON STREET
WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890
781-729-1500 Fax781-729-5444
E-Mail: ECDoucette@BrackettLucas.com
RESPOND TO WINCHESTER OFFICE
Re: Application of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, §3 - Educational Use
Church Property located at 25 Woburn Street/32 Lowell Street, Reading, MA
Dear Carol:
.t. I am in receipt of your email inquiry regarding Creative Arts for Kids ("Creative
Arts"), the Congregational Church and the Christian Science Church and the possibility
that those entities may be collaborating on a land/building swap or some other land use
proposal which may result in the demolition and reconstruction or rehabilitation of all or
a portion of one of the church structures located at 25 Woburn Street and 32 Lowell
Street in Reading (the "site").
Because issues concerning application of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, §3 arise
periodically and in a variety of situations, I thought it appropriate to respond to this
particular request by providing a formal legal opinion regarding those issues that most
commonly arise in regard to non-profit educational-uses and c.40A, §3.
1., M.G.L. Chapter 40A, &3
In pertinent part, c.40A, §3, commonly known as the "Dover Amendment",
provides that zoning bylaws may not "regulate or restrict the use of land or structures
for educational purposes on land owned or leased by a nonprofit educational
corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable
I!
regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot
area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements." A city or town
is authorized to apply such regulations as long as the application does not have the effect
of impeding the reasonable use of the land for educational purposes. See The Bible
Speaks v. Board of Appeals of Lenox, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 19, 33-34 (1979).
Section 3 also provides that no zoning bylaw "shall prohibit, or require a special
permit for, the use of land or structures, or the expansion of existing structures, for the
primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility." As in the
case of educational or religious uses, the town may subject such use to the
aforementioned "reasonable regulations".
Therefore, with respect to the use or re-use of the site however that may be
accomplished, Creative Arts is not entirely exempt from the provisions of the zoning
bylaw, but will be subject to "reasonable" regulations as stated above, which may be and
often are administered via site plan review.
2. Creative Arts' Status as a Nonprofit Educational Corporation
As to nonprofit educational corporations, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that
"nothing in G.L. c.40A, §3 requires that education be the dominant purpose or
primary activity of a nonprofit corporation in order that it may qualify as a nonprofit
educational corporation under §3... The proper test in deciding whether a nonprofit
corporation is an educational one is whether its articles of organization permit it to
engage in educational activities." Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Association, Inc. v.
Zoning Board of Appeals of Gardner, 401 Mass. 12, 13 (1987).
Several decisions from both the Supreme Judicial and Appeals Court on this
discrete issue indicate that the term "educational use" is to be interpreted broadly when
inquiring as to whether or not the facility "is operated primarily for an educational
purpose." Whitinsville Retirement Societv v. Town of Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757, 760
(1985). The breadth of this interpretation has been applied to hold that even
nontraditional educational facilities are entitled to the §3 exemption. E.g., Lasell College
v. Citv of Newton, Misc. Case No. 158253 (Land Ct. 1993) ("residential community for
the elderly with a curriculum designed to develop and train the powers and capabilities of
its residents for further activities and usefulness in life"); Conuelaation of the Sisters of
St. Joseph of Boston & Bethanv School. Inc. v. Town of FraminR-ham, Misc. Case No.
194216 (Land Ct. 1994) (a residential facility with educational programs for homeless
families, single mothers, persons with AIDS, and other physical disabilities, and persons
recovering from addictive habits).
Considering the breadth applicable to the definition of "educational use" and in
accordance with the above referenced Gardner-Athol decision, it is likely that Creative
Arts is indeed a nonprofit educational corporation within the meaning of c.40A, §3.
However, it is strongly advised that Creative Arts produce its Articles of Organization;
corporate By-Laws; IRS 501(c)(3) determination; Form PC filed with the Attorney
General's Office of Public Charities; or its most recent Federal Return of Organization
Exempt from Income Tax so that you can verify such status.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellen Callahan Doucette
ECD/sjs
cc: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager (via email only)
0,
BRACKETT & LUCAS
COUNSELORS AT LAW
19 CEDAR STREET
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609
508-799-9739
GARY S. BRACKETT
Fax 508-799-9799
OF COUNSEL
JUDITH A. PICKETT
ELAINE M. LUCAS
STEVEN C. FLETCHER*
ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE
WINCHESTER OFFICF.
HEATHER WHITE KINGSBURY
165 WASHINGTON STREET
JASON D. GROSSFIELD
WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890
M. YVONNE GONZALEZ
781-729-1500 Fax 781-729-5444
*Also Admitted in ME and CO
E-Mail: ECDoucetteoo BrackettLucas.com
August 11, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Carol Kowalski
Community Services Director/Town Planner
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Please respond to the Winchester office.
Re: Site Plan Review - Child Care Facility - Lots G & H Torre Street
Dear Carol:
You have forwarded to my attention correspondence received from Attorney
Steven Cicatelli on behalf of Robert L. Zeraschi, regarding the proposed construction of a
day care facility on the property identified as Lots G & H Torre Street. According to
Attorney Cicatelli's correspondence, he was informed by the Building Inspector that an
application for site plan review must be submitted to the CPDC. Although Attorney
Cicatelli submitted a proposed site plan for the property, he suggested that the proposed
day care facility is exempt from site plan review in accordance with the provisions of
M.G.L. Chapter 40A, §3. In support of his argument, Attorney Cicatelli submitted a copy
of Calhoun v. ZomnR Board of Anneals of Welleslev. 64 Mass.App.Ct. 1107 (2005)
(unpublished opinion). As a result of Attorney Cicatelli's correspondence, you asked me
to render a legal opinion regarding the applicability of site plan review to the proposed
child care facility.
Section 4.3.3.1 of the Reading Zoning Bylaw ("Bylaw") provides that "[t]he
following types of activities and uses require site plan review by the CPDC: a.
[c]onstruction, exterior alteration or exterior expansion of, or change of use within an
institutional, commercial, industrial, or multi-family structure with four or more dwelling
iy
units;...". ' This provision has been interpreted to require site plan review for all new
institutional, commercial and industrial construction and the construction of residential
structures with four or more dwelling units.
Under the Reading Zoning Bylaw, site plan review serves two functions: the first,
to review an as of right use to ensure compliance with the local zoning bylaw prior to the
issuance of a building permit and the second, as the functional equivalent of a special
permit where the CPDC also acts as the special pen-nit granting authority. In accordance
with decisional law pertaining to site plan review, when reviewing a use allowed as of
right, the CPDC may impose reasonable terms and conditions, but may not deny site plan
approval. In fact, uses allowed as of right cannot be made subject to the issuance of a
special permit. SCIT. Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 101, 107-108
(1984). Once a use is authorized as of right in a particular district, requiring such use to
submit to discretionary review by a local zoning authority would create a logical
inconsistency in violation of the Zoning Act. Id. When reviewing a use that is available
as of right, a planning board may impose reasonable terms and conditions but does not
have discretion to deny approval of a site plan. Ouincv v. Planmm4 Board of Tewksburv,
39 Mass.App.Ct. 17, 21 (1995).
M.G.L. Chapter 40A, §3, commonly referred to as the "Dover Amendment" adds an
additional layer of protection to certain as of right uses providing that:
No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit,
or require a special permit for, the use of land or structures, or
the expansion of existing structures, for the primary, accessory
or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility; provided,
however, that such land or structures may be subject to
reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height
of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks,
open space, parking and building coverage requirements."
(emphasis supplied)
In the Calhoun decision, neighbors of a proposed child care center appealed the
zoning board's refusal to require site plan review before the issuance of the building
permit. The lower court determined that the zoning board acted properly because the site
plan review provisions of the Wellesley zoning bylaw ran afoul of c.40A, §3.
Specifically, the Bylaw stated that site plan approval "shall constitute the issuance of a
special permit", and included conditions for the construction of child care facilities in the
residential zoning district that went well beyond the "reasonable regulations" permitted
by §3. In affirming the lower court's rejection of the neighbors' argument that site plan
review could be used to reasonably regulate a use protected by §3, the Appeals Court
noted that Wellesley's site plan review Bylaw established extensive design criteria and "a
' As written, this provision could be argued to apply only to construction or alteration "within" such
structures thereby inferring, that the structure(s) is in existence. As we discussed, the town's
interpretation of this provision essentially replaces the term "within" with "to" or "of", thus rendering
site plan review applicable to new construction.
z
I
wide-ranging review" that went well beyond the scope of the reasonable regulations
permitted by §3.
Calhoun is but one of many cases that have evolved from the seminal case of The
Bible Sneaks v. Board of Appeals of Lenox, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 19 (1979) wherein the bulk
of the site plan review provisions in the Lenox zoning bylaw were declared invalid as
applied to a proposed educational use, while other sections (addressing bulk and height
requirements) were deemed applicable. Of those provisions declared invalid, was the
requirement for the filing of a site plan depicting the buildings, parking, sewer and water
lines, trees, etc. In fact, a common link between The Bible Speaks and cases decided
subsequently thereto wherein site plan review bylaws were invalidated is that, in
conducting site plan review, the local board applied substantive standards that were
beyond the scope allowed by G.L. c. 40A, §3. Therefore, it has consistently been the
opinion of this office that it was the application of improper standards, rather than the
conduct of site plan review in and of itself, which led to invalidation of the zoning bylaws
in those cases.
However, a municipality is also not required to fashion a separate site plan review
procedure applicable specifically to c.40A, §3 uses. "Under the Dover Amendment,
which places restrictions on municipal zoning of [certain protected uses], it is not
necessary that local zoning requirements be drafted specifically for application to
[protected] uses in order to be considered reasonable." Trustees of Boston Collea-e v. Bd.
of Aldermen of Newton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 794, 802 (2003). Rather, local zoning boards
must tailor the application of substantive requirements when conducting site plan review
of protected uses.
Based upon the foregoing, my opinion is that it is appropriate to conduct site plan
review of a protected use as long as the review is limited to the factors authorized by
c.40A, §3, i.e., "bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area,
setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements." In light of the
limitations established by §3, the bulk of Section 4.3.3 goes well beyond those provisions
that would be allowed for site plan review of a child care facility or any other use
protected by c.40A, §3. Thus, the CPDC must adapt its review so that it imposes only
.those reasonable regulations authorized by §3. The standards for conducting such
review need not be explicitly set forth in the Bylaw. Trustees of Boston College v. Bd. of
Aldermen of Newton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 794, 802 (2003). ("[I]t is not necessary that local
zoning requirements be drafted specifically for application to [c.40A, §3] uses in order to
be considered reasonable.") Rather, the CPDC can simply follow the usual procedures
for site plan review but only consider the factors set forth in G.L. c. 40A, §3 as applicable
to protected uses.
Notwithstanding that it is my opinion that the CPDC may entertain the submittal
of a site plan pursuant to its established procedures but with a modification of the
substantive criteria, the limited review permitted by c.40A, §3 appears to be duplicative
of that which must be undertaken by the Building Inspector upon the submittal of a
building permit application for the child care facility. Under these circumstances, I
3 l6
strongly suggest that the CPDC consider submitting to Town Meeting an amendment of
the zoning bylaw specifically excluding the uses protected by c.40A, §3, e.g. child care
facilities, educational and religious uses, from the site plan review process. Thereafter, it
will be clear that in reviewing the building permit application, the Building Inspector will
be charged with ensuring that such protected uses comply with the applicable provisions
of the. zoning bylaw.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require further assistance or advice
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Ellen Callahan Doucette
ECD/sjs
cc: Peter I_ Hechenbleikner, Town Manager (via email only)
4 l
Page 1 of 2
Delios, Jean
From: Gary S. Brackett [gsbrackett@brackettlucas.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:21 PM
To: Delios, Jean
Subject: RE: Dover Amendment
Jean,
As a new use in a building, with no on-site parking, I would agree that they would need to seek a dimensional
variance from the parking requirement. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Regards,
Gary
Gary S. Brackett, Esquire
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(tel) 508-799-9739
(fax) 508-799-9799
This message is intended only for designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information
and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated
recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the
sender by reply email and delete this matter. Thank you. .
From: Delios, Jean [mailto:jdelios@ci.reading.ma.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Wilson, Jessie; gsbrackett@brackettlucas.com
Cc: Redmond, Glen
Subject: RE: Dover Amendment
Hi Gary Can you also please clarify for us the issue related to regulation of parking for this application? The
property is a former church building and has no on-site parking. We don't have an exact number for square
footage, but, under our ZBL we require 1/300 sf for parking requirements. They clearly don't meet parking, do we
direct them to apply for a variance?
Best,
Jean
Jean J. Dehos
Community SenAces Director/To,-Nm Planner
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
(P) 781-942-6612
(F) 781-942-9071
Town Hall Hours as of June 7, 2010 M, W, Th: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
FRIDAY: CLOSED
jdelia5:~? ci.reacting.ina.us
www.readingma.izov j
2/9/2012
Page 2 of 2
Please let us know how we are doing by filling out a brief customer sendce survey at http://readingma-
survey.\, rtualto~NZlhall.net/sLirvey,/sid/de8bdaal6db9e6b /
From: Wilson, Jessie
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:29 AM
To: gsbrackett@brackettlucas.com
Cc: Delios, Jean
Subject: Dover Amendment
Hi Gary,
We are in the process of reviewing and application for 32 Lowell Street, which the applicant is proposing to
complete some interior renovations to accommodate the Northeast Youth Ballet Inc. for a ballet studio/school.
The applicant has provided documentation (attached) including the Articles of Organization as indication that this
use is protected under the Dover Amendment and therefore site plan review is limited. We would appreciate your
opinion as to whether this documentation is sufficient to determine this project qualifies for limited site plan
review pursuant to the Dover Amendment.
If you need any other information, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jessie
Jessie Wilson
Staff Planner
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
p: 781.942.6648
f: 781.942.9071
iwilson(&ci.readina.ma.us
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday, & Thursday : 7:30am - 5:30pm
Tuesday 7:30am - 7:00pm & CLOSED on Fridays
00
2/9/2012
Town of Reading January 25, 2012
32 Lowell Street DRT Meeting
Development Review Team Meeting
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
32 Lowell Street
Staff Present: (see Sign-in Sheet for contact information) Community Services
Director/Town Planner Jean Delios, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Fire Lieutenant Paul Jackson,
Police Lieutenant Richard Robbins, Building Commissioner Glen Redmond, Town
Engineer George Zambouras, Staff Planner Jessie Wilson.
Applicant Representatives Present: Attorney Bradley Latham, Applicant Denise
Cecere and Ralph Cecere
Plans Reviewed: Architectural Drawings, dated September 18, 2011
Sheet 1: Basement Plan (Needs to be labeled)
Sheet 2: Proposed 1St Floor Plan
Sheet 3: Proposed 1St Floor Framing Plan
Sheet 4: Existing Conditions and Proposed Study Section
Submittals Reviewed: Application for Site Plan Review, dated January 3, 2012
Addendum to Application, dated January, 2012
Supporting Documents
Ms. Delios opened the meeting summarizing the overall project noting that this
application will be reviewed with the assumption that it is protected under the Dover
Amendment. She indicated that the legal documents have been forwarded to Town
Counsel to verify that this project does qualify for limited site plan review under the
Dover Amendment. Ms. Delios also described the goals of the DRT process stating that
DRT meetings occur regularly as standard practice prior to submitting formal
applications for Site Plan Review in order to address as many comments prior to the
pubic hearing.
Comments
Planning:
Signage - Ms. Delios indicated review of the proposed signage will be limited
given the project will have limited review under the Dover Amendment.
However, she requested the applicant provide additional details (dimensions)
of the sign to better inform the Board of what is proposed.
Driveway - The applicant should provide additional information as to how
many cars will be parking in the driveway and in what fashion (tandem?).
Also verify and indentify how the driveway will be accessed and how those
cars will circulate. An explanation should be provided from the Traffic
Engineer as to how the traffic circulation will operate as proposed (enter from
Sanborn, exit to Lowell). It was suggested that "Do Not Enter" signs be
considered to prevent incorrect traffic movements.
0
Town of Reading
32 Lowell Street DRT Meeting
January 25, 2012
• Special Events - The applicant verified that the site will not be suitable for
performances. They do intend to hold demonstrations to small groups.
• Plans - Sheet I needs to be labeled. The applicant should also clearly show
which areas of the building will not be impacted by the proposed renovations
and better identify on the plans the proposed renovations. Also include
dimensions on the plan.
• The applicant should provide more information including a schedule of
classes, total number of anticipated students and hours of operation.
• Ms. Delios indicated that the Town Hall parking lot should not be used or
considered available for parking and/or drop off.
• The applicant should coordinate with the plumbing inspector with respect to
the proposed lavatory configuration.
• Deliveries - It was confirmed by the applicant that no deliveries will occur at
the site.
• Parking - Ms. Delios will obtain an opinion from Town Counsel as to whether
the applicant will be required to obtain a variance for parking. It is believed
that parking issues can be considered under limited site plan review under the
Dover Amendment, however the Town will defer to Town Counsel as to
whether the parking requirements must be fully satisfied (in this case a
variance required).
• Exterior Lighting - The applicant indicated that the exterior lighting will be
repaired.
• Pews - It noted that the existing pews will be preserved. The Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC) required that the pews be stored on-site. The
applicant will coordinate with MHC to determine the most suitable storage
location.
• Changes - The Planning Department must be made aware of any changes to
the plan during or after construction and/or Site Plan Review approval.
• The applicant should coordinate with the Plumbing Inspector as the proposed
restroom renovations are subject to all handicap and plumbing codes and
regulations.
Engineering:
• Driveway Circulation - Circulation for parking on the driveway should enter
from Sanborn Street and exit onto Lowell Street.
Mr. Zambouras requested more detail and information as to the schedule of
classes, total number of anticipated students and hours of operation.
Employee Parking - It was stated by the applicant that there will be
approximately 3 staff on-site at any given time.
Fire:
Code - The applicant must submit additional information regarding code
classification.
2 0
Town of Reading
32 Lowell Street DRT Meeting
Building:
January 25, 2012
Fire code requirements will be based on the use code of the building. Will the
use remain the same or will it change to educational? If educational, code
requirements will be depended on the number of students.
Flooring - It was confirmed by the architect that a structural analysis of the
flooring confirms that it can withstand the weight of the new flooring
structures.
Handrails - No handrails were identified at any of the building exits. This will
need to be addressed.
Parking - Mr. Redmond indicated that the parking requirements are not met
and that a variance will be required. An opinion regarding this issue will be
sought from Town Counsel.
A code review will be required.
Other Notes:
• The applicant indicated that classes are primarily held from 4:OOPM to
8:30PM.
• Tuesday evenings at Town Hall generate a lot of activity. Town Hall is open
late and the Board of Selectmen meets on those evenings. This should be kept
in mind when developing class schedules and demonstration schedules.
• No work will occur to the space identified as "Educational Space 2".
• Trash generated on-site will be removed by the owner. They will not put it out
for collection.
• Post-DRT Follow up with Town Counsel on January 25th determined that the
applicant should seek a variance for the parking requirement.
ja/
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street"
Reading, MA 01867-26$3 `""'`REC-E~VE=p
Phone: 781-942-6612 TOWN CLERK
tax: 781-942-9071 READING, MASS.
websiter iv~vvv.ci.reading.mn.irs/plnrining
e-mail; jdelios@cLi-eading.n:a.its
C01MMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOIARV CWVS' 9 ~ )N
Site, Plan Review Decision
February 27, 2012
Project. 32 Lowell Street, Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc.
To the Town Clerk:
This is to certify, at a public hearing of the Reading Community Development and Planning
Commission (CPDC) zvhich zvas opened and closed on February 27, 2012 by a motion duly made
and seconded, it zvas voted:
"We, the CPDC, as requested by Denise Cecere, under the provisions of Section 4.3.3 of
the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Reading, and MGL Chapter 40A Section 3, to
consider the contemplated site plan for property addressed at 32 Lowell Street
(Assessors Map 21, Lot 228), as shown on Site Plan prepared by P.J.F and Associates,
dated November 16, 2011 and revised on January 30, 2012 and architectural drawings
prepared by Phoenix Collaborative Architects lastly revised February 9, 2012 do hereby
vote 4-0-0 to approve the said plans, subject to the Findings and Conditions below.
MATERIALS:
The following materials in addition to the plans as recorded were submitted into the
public record:
January 10, 2012 Site Plan Review Application
January 10, 2012 Addendum to Application
January 10, 2012 Photos of Building Exterior
January 10, 2012 Plans of existing and proposed interior conditions (not dated)
January 10, 2012 Site Plan, dated November 16, 2011
January 10, 2012 Northeast Youth Ballet Mission Statement and Goals of
Organization
January 10, 2012 Letter from the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the
Treasury regarding tax status (Non-profit 561(a) dated February
1, 2002
January 10, 2012 Certificate of Exemption from the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue, issued on October 21, 2007 (expires October 31, 2017)
January 10, 2012 Certificate of Registration from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, dated November
17,1999
Town of Reading CPDC
January 10, 2012
Articles of Organization for Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc., filed
December 13,1996
January 10, 2012
Certified abutters list
January 10, 2012
Lease between Denise and Ralph Cecere and Northeast Youth
Ballet, Inc.
January 10, 2012
Preservation Restriction Agreement between the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Historical
Commission) and the First Church of Christ, Book 3987 Page
416 dated June 16, 1999
January 10, 2012
Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical
Commission
January 10, 2012
Letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission dated
December 7, 2011
January 10, 2012
Parking Demand Evaluation prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,
Inc. (GPI) dated December 19, 2011
January 10, 2012
Proposed signage detail
January 10, 2012
Letter from Brackett & Lucas dated October 22, 2007
January 10, 2012
Letter from Brackett & Lucas dated August 11, 2008
January 12, 2012
Plans in full-size format (Sheets 1-4) dated September 18, 2011
January 25, 2012
Development Review Team Meeting notes prepared by Staff
Planner Jessie Wilson
January 25, 2012
Email correspondence from Town Counsel, Gary Brackett dated
January 25, 2012 regarding applicability of Dover Amendment
February 9, 2012
Cover letter for revised materials dated February 9, 2012
February 9, 2012
Revised Plans (Sheets 1 and 2) dated February 9, 2012
February 9, 2012
Revise Site Plan, dated November 16, 2011, lastly revised
January 30, 2012
February 9, 2012
Supplemental Parking Demand Evaluation prepared by
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) dated February 8, 2012
February 9, 2012
Building Code Review prepared by J. F. Cooney & Associates,
dated February 9, 2012
February 27; 2012
Memorandum from Town Engineer dated February 27, 2012
FINDINGS:
1. The property located at 32 Lowell Street contains a neo-gothic revival-style church
constructed in 1913 and is included in the Massachusetts Inventory of Historic
Assets of the Commonwealth and on the National. Register of Historic Places. The
property holds a preservation restriction with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
2. The applicant is proposing to complete interior renovations which include the
removal of church pews to accommodate a floor appropriate for classical ballet
dance. Other improvements include the construction of a handicap accessible
lavatory next to the existing lavatory, expansion of the alter space, and minor
Page 2 of 7
2/27/2012 .
L/
Town of Reacting CPDC
changes to the rear lavatory spaces to accommodate dressing rooms and additional
storage.
3. The proposed use as a ballet school is a protected use under Massachusetts General
Law Chapter 40a Section 3 (the Dover Amendment). The Dover Amendment
exempts the use from special permit requirements (not applicable here) or zoning
requirements except for stated "reasonable regulations" including parking.
4. The Building Inspector has determined the project is subject to parking requirements
of one space for every 300 square feet of gross building area. The Applicant has
submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting an appeal from
said determination and/or variance from the requirement. The hearing is scheduled
for March 1, 2012.
5. The site does not have any formal parking areas. Historically, the site has been used
as a church and parking for the use of the site has been through the use of on-street
parking spaces along Sanborn and the adjacent streets.
6. The proposal is for a ballet school that currently has operations in Melrose, MA.
Class sizes and scheduling will be based upon the existing class sizes and schedule
at the Melrose facility. The Applicant has indicated that the exact number of
students and exact class times will vary based on demand. The class schedule will
accommodate gapping between classes so that drop-off and pick-ups will be
staggered.
CONDITIONS:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
1. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Department in regards to the
sprinkler requirement based on the proposed use of the building.
2. Parking requirements are contingent upon the ZBA decision. The Applicant will
be required to provide revised plans to the Building Inspector, through the Town
Planner if the request for relief from parking requirements is denied by the ZBA.
After Occupancy:
3. No signage is approved by this Decision. The Applicant has submitted drawings
for a proposed sign to be located in the same location as the previous church
signage. The applicant must prepare and submit a Sign Permit Application
through the Building Inspector prior to the installation of any signs.
4. No additional lighting is approved by this Decision.
5. Approximately sixty (60) days after opening, the Town Engineering Department
shall conduct a review of the traffic and parking operations. If the Town
Engineer's review identifies any traffic problems, corrective action will be
required. If problems arise from gapping timing, the Town may require
increasing the class separation time.
Page 3 of 7
2/27/2012
Town of Reading CPDC
6. The Applicant shall provide written notice to the parents of students pertaining
to the drop-off and pick-up procedures'including the location of drop off areas.
7. Contemplated future changes to the plan approved hereby shall be presented to
the Community Planning & Development Commission (through the Town
Planner), the Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector, or other relevant
Town Boards or staff prior to implementing proposed changes.
a) Minor Modification - Changes that do not substantially alter the concept
of the approved Plan in terms of the qualities of the specific location, the
proposed land use, the design of building form and approved building details
and materials, site grading or egress points. Including but not limited to small
changes in site layout, topography, architectural plans, landscaping plans, traffic
circulation, parking, lighting plan, signage, open space or other criteria set forth
in section 4.3.3.6. The Town Planner will review the proposed changes and
through administrative approval, may grant approval for a Minor Modification if
it is determined that the proposed changes will have no impact to the approved
Plan. At the determination of the Town Planner, the Applicant may be required
to present the changes to the CPDC for approval for approval as Minor
Modification.
b) Major Modification - Substantial additions, deletions or deviations from
the approved Plan. Include but not limited to large changes in site layout,
topography, architectural plans, landscaping plans, traffic circulation, parking,
lighting plan, signage, open space or other criteria set forth in section 4.3.3.6.
(Note: Approval of the major modification shall be grounds for
reconsideration of the Site Plan application. Denial of proposed major
modification shall not invalidate the Site Plan in conformance with previously
approved Plan.)
Signed as to the accuracy of the vote as reflected in the minutes:
JeaIelios, Community Services Director/ Town Planner
Date
Page 4 of 7
z/z7/2oiz 02_~
a
T'-Y
I
PN06NQ COILIBJRA'IiYE ...w~....:
1118II0<fD MA991CH036[19
NOTE: fTBI) Y/e-OYBB
THIS AREA (EDUCATIONAL SPACE 1) I Peltm L BIN00&~ ILA rimnBU.l
TO BE RENOVATED BY INSTALLING
BALET FLOOR - SEE SPECS
NOTE:
~u auensw m ff mn
THIS AREA TO HAVE
COSMETIC RENOVATION ONLY oui- m
~wamYm.
ADDITIONAL HANDICAPPED
ORAN SPACF LAV. TO BE INSTALLED
F
THIS AREA TO REMAIN UNCHANGED
3
L
8 n
NOTE:
n'4
NO WORK TO BE PERFORMED
ON THIS FLOOR
UTILITY ORGAN MECH.
b II H ALL
b k
- \ - - N H At I - rr°` ' I I
/ I
c~ do r ~"J / » I n.w4 n« . I oa.
M. RFSTROOMa STORAGF BOILER ROOM
W. F STROOM(~. STORAGE v-'
PLAN
J L
J PROPOSED RENOVATIONS
PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
1/4- = 1"~ 32 LONfll STREET
READING MA
f!-B' I iP-0' I ffi-11' A'-Y 21'-0'
79.12 I 1
A PHOENIX COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTS I I1/4'=Y-G'
n'-r
I I~I C
of L tv, NOTE.
S-0I2 DRESSING 40 ORFSSING
PCIER 4 R1RpDR9L ♦L~ PPpWO
THIS AREA (EDUCATIONAL SPACE 1)
- ~J TO BE RENOVATED BY INSTALLING
BALET FLOOR - SEE SPECS NOTE.
r
®
THIS AREA TO HAVE s wEa nEtn
h. I
camncmR ro REVORr
_ ALTER COSMETIC RENOVATION ONLY W - AND aas9a15 ro
- ~ / vn.ws _ MCHITECT.
ADDITIONAL HANDICAPPED
- LAV. TO BE INSTALLED
III II. ~"h r II ,
s h
EDACI PONAI SPAGF 2 LI. - I, Y ("I til T a d'a - j i
PI Y - I 4 t0' Ian
1.1 I ,
rr I Iti
STOR. ~ H HP LAV. ) ~ r a
® I HALL
HPI
_ _ ~ " I J~~-~~ ~ J/\. pI 11^^'r~r ~ ~ Na I RMYen/lsw Dab
. -B' IV 4 I ~ J / W/ ~Ji. _ _ LJ _ w_ rt wrw+w_ - -
COAT ROOM ENTRY y ^p HALL.
.yENARY HRIVFWAY
.w.-r. I PLAN 14, -%i PROPOSED RENOVATIONS
J
~oa "»wa " d - - - - - 32 N M STREET
READI DING G MA
READING
PROPOSED FIRST FI OOR PLAN G 79.12 2
FJIE 1/a = 1~
I --H-6-Efd-i i; CO_LABORATIVE ARCHITECTS
Q
14
N/F
TOWN OF READING
N/F
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH OF READING
121.50'(DEED) SAg.4y q0'E - _
126.48'(PIAN)
F /
N ✓
LOT 228
r' V (ASSESSORS) l
A=23,186 sq.ft. 032
A=22,460 sq.ft.(-Ii ) 1-STY.
STON
~VERHANG
I
J -9.8-
216 Fu F
N4059'34"W
h
LOELL STREET
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM
AN ACTUAL ON THE GROUND INSTRUMENT SURVEY.
PAUL J. FINOCCHIO P.L.S. No.36115
DATE
BUILDING AREA=5669 S.F.
LOT COVERAGE=
5669/22,460 = 24.6%
PLOT PLAN OF LAND
OF
32 LOWELL STREET
IN
READING, MA
PREPARED BY: P.J.F. AND ASSOCIATES
11 GLEASON STREET
MEDFORD, MA. 02155
(781) 395-7662
0' 10' 20' 30' 40'
SCALE: I"= 20'
DATE: JAN. 30, 2012 FILE No. 6266C
FIELD PLAT DESIGN DRAFT I CALC. CHECK
M
N/F
TOWN OF READING
N/F
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH OF READING
121,50'100) 546'44'40'E
,24.4a'IrLAN)
I
C
~y
LOT 228
v (ASSESSORS)
D A-23,186 eq.ft. 32
A-22,460 eq.lt(c01c)
1-sn.
STON
sl1 0- 1
!G3_-_.
I
1 U Y
i
A
OVERHANG
I ~
2W m~
o ~ I 4
- I i 20•
N40IV34-W I
h
LOWELL STREET
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM
AN ACTUAL ON THE GROUND INSTRUMENT SURVEY.
PAUL J. FINOCCHIO P.L.S. No.36115
574'
D. 13199.48'
.20'
1 J
DATE
G?T
Reading ZBA Case
Date: .l _
Chair:
rb
BUILDING AREA-5669 S.F.
LOT COVERAGE-
5669/22,460 - 24,6%
PLOT PLAN OF LAND
OF
32 LOWELL STREET
IN
READING, MA
PREPARED BY: P.J.F. AND ASSOCIATES
11 GLEASON STREET
MEDFORD, MA. 02155
(761) 395-7662
0' 10' 20' 30' 40'
SCALE: 1"= 20'
DATE: MARCH 5, 20'12 FILE No. 6266C2
FIELD PLOT DESIGN DRk "P CALC- I CHECK
VARIANCE CRITERIA
1. There are circumstances relating- to the soil conditions, share, or twoml)hv of such land
or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting R-enerally
the zoninf4 district in which it is located. The existence of a church structure on a lot is an
unusual feature that does not apply to the zoning district as a whole. The lot has an
unusual shape, with a long, narrow point at the intersection of two streets. The structure is
situated on the lot so as to preclude a useable parking lot. The structure has an unusual
shape with the overhang. The site is subject to a historical preservation restriction that
prohibits cha:.ges to the property. A copy of that restriction is attach,,-d and marked
Exhibit B.
2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. If a variance is not granted, the property
cannot meet the requirement of one on-site parking space for every 300 gross square feet
of building area. Such a consequence would result in the building not be practically
useable. That is certainly a substantial hardship. While it would be an absurd economic
waste to do so, one cannot even tear down a part of the building to create parking because
of the historic preservation restriction.
3. Desirable relief may be eranted without substantial detriment to the public F4ood.
Granting the relief requested will not be substantially detrimental. In fact, allowing the
building to be so used will result in the preservation of the historic structure. As is
demonstrated by the traffic report (Exhibit C) there is ample parking available to
accommodate the small traffic impact from the proposed use as a classic ballet school.
The historic use of the property as a church generated more traffic than the proposed use.
4. Relief may be P-ranted without nullifvinsz or substantially derOp-atinQ from the intent or
purpose of the zoning by-law. Allowing the ballet school to operate in this building will
not result in any change to the appearance of the property. The actual use will be within
the structure. Allowing the proposed use of the facility will be beneficial and will be
consistent with the stated Purpose {Section 1.0] of the zoning bylaw, as such a cultural
use will "...promote the general welfare of the inhabitants... facilitate the adequate
provisions of schools... encourage the most appropriate'use of land... [and] ...preserve
historic sites...". Allowing the use of the property without more off-street parking
will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning by-law,
which does not even mention a parking requirement for a school.
Additional materials and evidence shall be presented at the public hearing.
3
3~
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
Date: 2/1/2012
Community Development
(781) 942-9010
Fax(781)942-9070
Date of Application: 1/31/2012
Property Location: 32 Lowell St, Reading, Ma 01867
To: Latham Law Offices LLC (Denise and Ralph Cecere)
Your Building Permit Application is hereby denied, the reason being information
submitted does not comply with or contain the following:
❑ CMR - Sixth Edition, Section 110.8 Engineering Details, Reports, Calculations,
Plans and Specifications:
❑ Certified Plot Plan
❑ No Fee
❑ Zoning By-laws, Town of Reading
❑ Section(s)
6.1 Off-street Darkina and loadinia areas The proposed plot Dlan dated Jan 30,
2012 prepared by PH and Associates does not indicate anv off-street oarkinf4. It
Is of my opinion that one space for each 300 sf of Gross floor area or fraction
thereof would aDDly to the intended use of this propertv
❑ Other Permits Required (Planning, Conservation)
❑ Other
❑ The following items are hereby returned:
❑ Copy of Permit Application
❑ Permit Fee Submitted
I am available Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 7:30 a.m.-8:30 and 12:30 p.m.-1:30
p.m. to answer any questions you may have.
C. Glen Redmond
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Date: Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Re: Town Hall parking lot
I understand that during a ZBA case involving the former Christian Science Church adjacent to Town Hall that
a representation was made that the Town Hall lot is a "public off-street parking facility" under section 6.1.1.1 of
in the zoning bylaw. This section provides that for certain uses no off street parking is required if the use falls
within 300 feet of a "public off-street parking facility".
While I do not intend in this memo to advise the ZBA on how they should decide the case before them, I would
advise that this parking lot is not a "public off-street parking facility" as envisioned in the zoning bylaw.
This parking lot is a parking facility that is owned by the Town of Reading but is part of the Town Hall property
and is dedicated to the use of employees and visitors to the Town Hall.
♦ The parking lot is not a separate parcel of land - it is part of 2 parcels of land that constitute the Town Hall
property. A portion of the Town Hall building is on the same parcel of land that includes the parking lot.
♦ As such this parking lot is utilized by the Town as a property owner, for the use by the Town Hall, and not
as a public off-street parking facility such as the Upper Parking Lot behind the CVS, the Brande Court
Parking lot, or the Hamden Yard parking lot, all of which are publically owned for the sole purpose of
providing public parking.
♦ The regulation of the Town Hall parking lot is up to the Town Manager pursuant to the Reading Home
Rule Charter Section 5.2 K. The regulation of the public parking lots sited above is up to the Board of
Selectmen.
♦ The Town Manager has put into place regulations that are posted on signs at the entrance to the parking
lot, and which state that the lot is available for Town Hall employees and customers only during certain
hours. The Town Manager may at his discretion change those regulations, and in fact I am considering
changes based on the current hours that Town Hall is open, and also based on the heavy demand for
evening Town Hall parking due to significant evening use of Town Hall for various local government
meetings.
♦ A very small portion of the lot is owned by the Congregational Church and subject to an agreement signed
January 14, 1994, the Congregational Church enjoys certain use of the parking lot during certain times,
and the Town enjoys the right to use the small portion of the parking lot owned by the church during other
times.
♦ The Town of Reading has continuously operated the Town Hall parking lot as a parking lot exclusively for
Town Hall use except as noted relative to the Congregational Church, for at least the past 25 years. The
Town has in fact upon occasion enforced these regulations when employees of downtown businesses
tried to use it for their parking.
♦ The applicant/owner of the former Christian Science Church was made aware that this parking would not
be available for their use, as soon as the Town learned the identity of the owners and their intended use.
I hope that this information will help the ZBA understand the status of this parking. If the Board has any further
questions I would be happy to answer them.
0 Page 1
J-51
Knight, Maureen
From:
Wilson, Jessie
Sent:
Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To:
Knight, Maureen
Subject:
FW: 32 Lowell St.
Hi Maureen,
Please see below from John Weston in regards to 32 Lowell st. Can you forward to zba?
Thanks,
Jessie
From: Weston, John [John.Weston@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:22 AM
To: Delios, Jean; Wilson, Jessie
Subject: 32 Lowell St.
Jean/Jessie,
Can you forward this to the ZBA, as I do not have their email addresses.
Thanks,
To: Reading ZBA
Last month CPDC held a public hearing and approved a site plan for the Northeast Youth
Ballet school to be located at 32 Lowell Street (formerly the Christian Science Church).
It was the opinion of the board that the site and building are configured in such a way as
to not be able to accommodate any additional on-site parking; and any on-site parking
would be more detrimental to the historic nature of the property and more harmful to the
safe functioning of the site than the proposed plan. The site plan decision includes
conditions related to on-site parking and on-street drop-off that that board felt would
adequately serve to mitigate for the lack of on-site parking. It was the decision of the
board that the plan as proposed (without additional on-site parking) meets the goals of
the master plan.
On Monday March 12, 2012 the CPDC voted to inform the ZBA of the outcome of the CPDCs
review of the site plan review, and to advocate for approving the appeal of the building
inspector's decision. However, the CPDC also wished to express caution regarding the
granting of a variance to ensure that it can be conditioned in a way so that any future
use of the property does not result in future traffic congestion or traffic safety
concerns resulting from the lack of on-site parking.
John Weston
AICP
Chairman,
Reading Community Planning and Development Commission
john.weston@hdrinc.com<mailto:jchn.weston@hdrinc.com>
1
CY-i)
DRAFT
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DRAFT Minutes of March 1, 2012
Members Present: Robert Redfern, Vice Chairman
Kristin Cataldo
John Jarema
Damase Caouette
John Miles
Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts beginning at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance
was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 12-01
A Public Hearing on the petition of Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc. who seek a Variance/Appeal of
the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to use the structure as a
non-profit school without on-site parking on the property located at 32 Lowell Street in
Reading, MA.
Attorney Brad Latham represented the Applicants who were present. He presented his case for
the Board regarding the requested Variance/ Appeal of the Building Inspector. The CPDC
approved the site plan this past Monday night. If after 60 days the Town Engineer recognizes
traffic problems the CPDC can request additional times between scheduled classes. The school is
a registered non-profit institution with the State. There is a preservation restriction on the
property.
There was a discussion about the parking situation and the school said they would agree to
stagger the classes so there would not be parents dropping off and picking up at the same time.
There is space for three vehicles but these would be for teachers and not students.
Attorney Latham presented his rebuttal of the Building Inspector's decision regarding the
number of spaces required. He said there is no on-site parking requirement and if the Town
wants that, Town Meeting should change the bylaws. Attorney Latham also said the school
would be within 300' of public parking because the school will abut the Town Hall parking lot.
Attorney Latham also presented his arguments for the granting of a Variance by listing the four
required criteria to receive a Variance.
There are no exterior renovations being done, just slight interior work.
ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012 1 S
3
DRAFT
The Building Inspector said Town Counsel said the Applicants must seek a Variance for parking
as other new schools in the town had to. He also thought the Town Hall Parking Lot was not a
public lot but instead for the use of Town Hall employees.
The Chairman said they must reach a decision based on the regulations that they have. There was
also a discussion regarding if the customers going to the school were consumers. This category is
used to cover almost every building in Town other than restaurants.
Other Board members voiced their opinions. Mr. Caouette was inclined not to overturn the
decision of the Building Inspector or to grant the Variance. Mr. Jarema reviewed his
observations of the building and asked whether there were any landscaping demands as part of
the Mass Historic agreement that would prohibit additional parking to be found on the property.
Mr. Jarema also questioned CPDC making the decision as to how parking is working out because
technically this would come back before the ZBA for their decision. He said he would not want
to see the school opened and then have the ZBA have to close the school due to a parking
situation. He would want additional information sought by the Applicants and some attempt
made to find and provide some type of on-site parking. And he thought the first priority was the
safety of the students and their access to the building.
The Building Inspector said it was the jurisdiction of the CPDC to design parking. He also said
the architect said the capacity of the building was 300 people and if that were ever achieved
where would they park.
Ms. Cataldo said she thought the issue was parking and not just drop off and pick up. Especially
for the younger children, even if there was no observation allowed of the classes by the parents.
Attorney Latham said to grant a Variance predicated on the basis of this school as a non-profit
educational institution. The Applicants cannot afford the expense of providing on-site parking.
Ms. Cataldo said there are several ballet schools and karate schools and she had reservations
because she think sit falls under the consumer establishment and using the Town Hall Parking
Lot is not the solution. She would like to see if there is some way for them to provide on-site
parking.
Mr. Redfern did not think the Variance was feasible and he also put it in the consumer services
category like the majority of the town. The Building Inspector said it was not consumer services
but instead an educational institution. Mr. Jarema said it was a change of use as voiced by the
Building Inspector and if it was deemed a consumer services institution it would be required to
provide parking.
Attorney Latham asked if, with the approval of Mass Historic, that the Applicant could put in
two on-site parking spaces, would the Board consider granting a Variance based on that.
ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012
2
0
DRAFT
The Applicant said the three parking spaces were sufficient because there are three teachers and
all others are drop-off and pick-up.
The discussion continued because there were varied opinions among the Board as to how the
Applicants could or could not provide additional parking. Mr. Jarema said he wanted at least an
attempt to provide at least two additional parking sites or widen the driveway for extra spaces so
that down the road this would be a building with on-site parking.
Attorney requested a two-week continuance so that the Applicants can speak with their engineer
and the Town Engineer and see what they might be able to do to show good faith. The Chairman
said they should also review the
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Kristin Cataldo, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to continue the hearing to March 15, 2011.
The vote was 5-0-0 (Cataldo, Jarema, Miles, Redfern, Caouette).
Case# 12-2
A Public Hearing on the petition of Gaetano, Maria & Melissa Fodera who seek a Special Permit
/ Variance under Section(s) 6.3.6/6.3.8/5.1.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish a non-
conforming single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property
located at 20 Eaton Street in Reading, MA.
Attorney Josh Latham represented the Applicants who were in attendance at the meeting. He
presented the history of the property. It was bought for their daughter and was in a state of
disrepair. It will take up a greater area and with a different footprint. The proposed dwelling will
correct one of the current non-conformities and will be built smaller than it could be in order to
achieve this.
The Building Inspector said it a typical demolition and rebuild and the non-conforming
woodshed located on the property would be removed.
The Board members asked questions of Attorney Latham regarding the set backs, garage, lot
coverage, dimensions, and height of the structure.
Kenneth Toomajian of 22 Eaton Street had questions about the driveway.
On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant the Applicants....
The vote was 5-0-0 (Miles, Cataldo, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette).
Adjournment
ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012
9
DRAFT
On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 4-0-0 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette).
ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012
4
0
DRAFT
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DRAFT Minutes of March 15, 2012
Members Present: Jeffrey Perkins, Chairman
Robert Redfern
John Jarema
Damase Caouette
Kristin Cataldo
Glen Redmond
Members Absent: John Miles
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts beginning at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance
was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 12-01
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc. who seek a
Variance/Appeal of the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to
use the structure as a non-profit school without on-site parking on the property located at 32
Lowell Street in Reading, MA.
Attorney Brad Latham reviewed that the case was continued because the Board had asked if
there were any way that parking could be added to the property. He submitted a plot plan that
showed added spaces. The Town Engineer thinks it is workable other than that the two spaces on
the northern side be more angled.
The Mass Historical Commission said they would give consent grudgingly and they submitted a
letter giving their approval to the scope of the project as presented. Attorney Latham also
reviewed the memo submitted by the Town Manager stating the adjacent lot is not public parking
but is for the use of Town Hall employees and visitors to the Town Hall as well as a memo from
the CPDC about their approval and decision.
He proposed that if there was indeed a parking problem then the Town has the right to ask for
this additional parking to be installed.
Jeffrey Perkins was not at the previous meeting but did review a DVD of the meeting and signed
a document to that effect and will be a voting member on this case.
ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012 1
3
DRAFT
The Board members gave their individual opinions and about overturning the decision of the
Building Inspector or the granting of a Special Permit and the review of the situation in a few
months.
Mr. Caouette did not want to see the beauty of the property destroyed by parking spaces and
thought the appeal of the Building Inspector's decision was the best direction.
Mr. Jarema said Sanborn Street is always full of parked cars. He also was concerned about the
safety of the younger children and their being dropped off too far from the building and the
parent's dislike of this arrangement. Also the blocking of the through driveway will prevent any
possibility of drop offs being done that way and he thought this was the best solution. He felt that
CPDC reviewing the parking situation in 60 days is not feasible both in time and conclusion
since the Applicant will be required to resubmit another application to come before the Zoning
Board.
Mr. Redfern said if they did not overturn the decision of the Building Inspector then parking
would be required based on the square footage and that would be a required 10 parking spaces
and this would not be possible. Then a Variance would have to be obtained to overturn the ten-
space requirement.
Ms. Cataldo said she is looking at the safety of the younger students entering and exiting the
building. They are providing an educational service like a karate school and they need to uphold
the decision of the Building Inspector and require a Variance.
John Arena of 26 Francis Drive said the Christian Coop Preschool has the same issues as this
property and they have managed to do so for many years. Also similar is the Creative Arts
School who is an abutter of this building. He did not think the parking situation is a problem and
parents have adjusted to how to drop off and pick up their children.
Mr. Perkins said he thought it is a difficult situation and did not think four additional parking
spaces would give any real benefit. He thinks the appeal of the Building Inspector might be the
way to go.
On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to overturn
The vote was 2-3-0 (Perkins, Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Cataldo).
The deliberations continued for a long time while all avenues were explored about how best to
resolve this situation.
On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant a Variance......
The vote was 4-1-0 (Perkins, Cataldo, Redfern, Caouette, Jarema).
ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012
2
9
DRAFT
Adjournment
On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 5-0-0 (Perkins, Cataldo, Redfern, Caouette, Jarema).
ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012 3 9
TOWN OF RJF ADING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NO)RT`HEAST YOUT11 13.-1LLET, INC.
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
32 L€)WELL S`T"RF.KI', READ11NG, lti1ASSACUSUETTS
March 15, 2012
Case No. 12-01
The Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") held a public; hearing on 'T'hursday,
klarch 1, 2012, which hearing was continued to Thursday March 15, 2012, in the
Selectmen's \1:,Ain2 Room at 'fowvn Hall, 16 l..owvell Street in Reading, Massachusetts,
on the petition of Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc. (the "Petitioner"), who sought (1) -,in
Appeal of the building inspector's determinrttion under Section 6.1 that use of the
Strireture located at 32 l,owvell `-,treet in ReadllnL. `Massachusetts (the: ``Property") as a
ballet school required on-site park-Hig, or alterrratk ly, (2) a variance under Section 6.1 of
the Zoning By-Lawns in order to use the struicture located on the Property as a ballet
school without the requisite on-site parking.
Attorney Bradley Latham appeared on bcl, if of the Petitioner. Following the
presentation, discussion and comment by Board members and the opening of the hearing
to public discussion. a motion was made, and seconded, to overturn the bt i_lding
inspector's determination that the Property regUired ort-site parking. The Board voted k2-
3-0) to deny the Petitioner's requested appeal.
Following the denial of the appeal, the Petitioner requested a variance frorn the on-
site parking requirement. The Board may grant a variance from the By-lawns if it
determines that each of the lollowing cornditions have been met: (l) particrilar
circumstances exist relating, to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or
structures that are the subject of the petitionn, but do not grenerally affect the ron.i.ncy
district in which it is located, (2) literal enliorcement of' the zoning ordinance would
involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; (3) desirable relief can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good; and (4) the requested variance does not
nullify or sul>~tintially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning, ordinance.
Attorney f-itharn addressed the criteria for Ithe granting of a variance on behalf of the
Petitioner. Additionally, the. Board received a March 6, 2012 letter from the
Massachusetts Historical Commission ("Comn-tission") stating; that the Petitioners
proposed parking, plan to add tour parking spades on the Property was agreeable to the
Commission:. The Board also received a March 7, 2012 memo from t 1e Towvn Manager,
as well as a March 15, 2012 email from the CPDC.
March 1-5. 2012
Case No. 12-01
0
Follmving the presentation, discussion amd comment by Board members and the
opening of the hearing to public discussion, the Board concluded that the Petitioner
Mgr rating a variance.
satisfied the criteria for
Accordingly, a motion was made and s ;cornded, anti the Board voted (4-1-0) to grant
the petitioner',, request for a Variance from Section 6.1 the Zonin4o Bv-[.,arcs to permit
the Petitioner to vide four parking spaces om the Property as shown on tlrc submitted
Plot flan of land by P.J.F. and Associates, I I Gleason Street, Medford, MA, dated
(larch 5, 2012. The variance granted relates only to the use of the Property as a ballet.
school. If` there is a subsequent change in the primary use of the Property. the new use
shall be subject to municipal review.
Any person aggrieved by this decision of the Board may, apps 2.'d to the appropriate
court pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 17, within twenty (20) days after the elate of tiling this
Decision «ith the Torn Clerk. Notice of appeal with a copy of the complaint must also
be (fled with the loran Clerk within twenty (20) clays as provided in § 17.
This Variance shall not take, e:ffeet until a copy of this Decision. bearing certification
of'the Town Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed after the Decision was tiled iri the
Office of the Town Clerk and no appeal hl-- be~ri tile;d.. or if an appeal has been ilcd
W101111 such tinie, that it has been dismissed or i&iiied, is recorded iTY the Middlesex ~c}uth
District R.egistry° of Deeds and indexed in the Grantor's Index under the name of tire,
owner ol'reco rd. or is recorded and noted on thie Owner's Certificate ofTitle. "fhe fee for
recording, or registering shall be paid by the 0AN'TIcr or Petitioner. An-v person exercising
rights tinder a. drily appealed Special Permit does so at the risk that a court may reverse
the permit ancf that any construction performed under the permit inay be ordered to be
undone.
ON BEHALF OF THE READING ZONING 190ARD OF APPI ALS
r 'r m3
ff-qty . Perkins, Chairman _
Zoning Board Members voting on Case r It-0)].
Jeffrey D. Perkins. Robert Fl. i ~dl`enz, Darmase Caouetle, John Jarema. and Kristin
Cataldo
March I 2012 2
Case No. 12-01
0
Page 1 of 1
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:39 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Grumpy Doyles
Copy for Tuesday night T. M. report
Sent from my iPhone
Pete
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Delios, Jean" <ideliosgc _readinQ.ma.us>
Date: March 22, 2012 4:10:37 PM EDT
To: "Wilson, Jessie" <jwilson(c~r~ci.reading.ma.us>, "Zambouras, George"
<v-zambouras@ci.reading.ma.us>
Cc: "Hechenbleikner, Peter" <phechenbleiknergci.reading. ma.us>
Subject: Grumpy Doyles
I just went over the entire file for Grumpy Doyles and found the hours for the outdoor patio on the
original application for Site Plan Review. Since the CPDC said they have no interest in regulating
the time of year it opens and Peter indicated that the BOS did not restrict this under the Liquor
License, it appears that this is a minor issue and Grumpy Doyles is not restricted to any particular
time of year for use of the patio. I did mention to the owner that he needs to be mindful of his
seating capacity and not go over what was approved between indoor and outdoor seating.
Jean J. Delios
t.'oininunity Servic€ s Director."Totivn Planner
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
(P) 781-942-6612
(F) 781-942-9071
Town Hall Hours as of June 7, 2010 M, W, Th: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
FRIDAY: CLOSED
jdelios,,&ci.reading.ma.us
www.readingma.gov
Please lct 118 1 nor flow ~~e are (Joiri by Iillin~ oul a leis (cusl nlor ~w_rvi( 0 Survey al
httpj-Lreadinama-survey. virtualtownhall.netysurvey/sid de8bdaa16db9e6b4/
G
3/22/2012
Page 1 of 4
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Delios, Jean
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:46 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: FW: 30 Haven, Reading rents
Clarification on affordable rents - Oaktree
Jean J. Delios
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
(P) 781-942-6612
(F) 781-942-9071
Town Hall Hours as of June 7, 2010 M, W, Th: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
FRIDAY: CLOSED
W w.readingma.gov
From: Wilson, Jessie
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Delios, Jean
Subject: FW: 30 Haven, Reading rents
See below.
Jessie
Jessie Wilson
Staff Planner
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
p: 781.942.6648
f: 781.942.9071
jwils...on_@ci reading._ a us
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday, & Thursday : 7:30am - 5:30pm
Tuesday 7:30am - 7:00pm & CLOSED on Fridays
3/27/2012
ys'
Page 2 of 4
From: Jennifer Van Campen [mailto:jvc@metrowestcd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Wilson, Jessie
Cc: b.engler@s-e-b.com
Subject: FW: 30 Haven, Reading rents
So. PC!- 1.11C b<-{13w tile advertised Tcnt°` o not. include, )aE°'; €lc "€1f 9 the [ T, iI . ,,:.$nt; ts;;a
t e, N-iii be charged extra. The advertised rents are core 1-c kr El Ila-v : €n, ~-,tE=_;MS,
Best. . jonailef,
From: Brian Engler [mailto.;_b.en.g.l.er.@s-e-b._com.].
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:58 AM
To: 'Wilson, Jessie'
Subject: FW: 30 Haven, Reading rents
Hi Jessie,
I found. in my emails and I now realize that everything we put together was correct (phew). It was ultimately
decided that a parking allowance WOULD be required and it was deducted from the rents accordingly. We just
wanted. to be clear in all. the advertising that if a tenant wanted a space, they would have to pay $50 for one (as
even though a deduction was taken, a space was not necessarily included with the unit). So should an applicant
rent a space, it will cost them $50 (and their monthly payment of rent + parking would be the same if a space had
been reserved for them as part of their rent). If an applicant does not take a space, then they are paying
$50/month less.
So all is right, thank goodness.
Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll think before I leap.
Brian Engler
SEB
165 Chestnut Hill Ave.
Unit 2
Brighton, MA 02135
Phone: 617.782.2300 x203
Fax: 617.782.4500
email: b.engler@s-e-b.com
www.s-e-b.com
From: Paul M Ognibene [mailto:paul@Urb..anSpacesLLC..c...o.m.1
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 20118:49 AM
To: 'Reyelt, William (OCD)'
Cc: b.engler@s-e-b.com; 'Jennifer Van Campen'; 'Phil Terzis'; 'Jeff Hirsch'; 'Wijnja, Elaine (OCD)'
Subject: RE: 30 Haven, Reading rents
Bill:
Thanks for your email regarding the parking issue. I appreciate your insight and think that the path of least resistance
3/27/2012 (9)
Page 3 of 4
is to skip the waiver and simply deduct a $50/month parking allowance from the affordable rents. I'll work with
Brian so we can adjust the rent spreadsheet and other documentation accordingly.
Thank you, also, for reviewing the documents so quickly. We'll stand by for your comments/confirmation/ approvals.
Best regards,
Paul
Paul M. Ognibene
Phone: 617.868.5558 x111
From: Reyelt, William (OCD) [maiIto: _ WilIiam.reyelt@state ma us]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 20114:14 PM
To: b.enaIer c(~. S-e-b.com; Paul Ognibene (pauI(s1UrbanSDacesLLC..com)
Cc: 'Jennifer Van Campen'; 'Phil Terzis'; Jeff Hirsch (jhirsch(d)ur a_nspacesl_I_c.com); Wijnja, Elaine (OCD)
Subject: RE: 30 Haven, Reading rents
Thanks Brian" Paul, I also mer 'o Brian that I Uow up vv,l yotr n :r= r thinking kin 1. sue,
In short, given the requirement in the zoni ig that the affor ' rr
further stipulation that prohih- this section from being; ire (attachied:
recommending, despite my m n personal syrupathies with w, feral r oral. 4,
parking costs, that a "park-ig ance" be deducted from ' nants in th
otherwise pay. Would not ha, o necessarily be rolled out o-,- ing allowa
need to be reduced by are equivdent amount
e= ( t h
>r un bun link ia1:. k rid
fforclable unit v
,ice p€:Yr se but ret `w Sul.,
I OaL es to instead pursm, a waiver from DHC that would allow Re.<din- s CPDD t ai=te this
requiremer-, I am happy t forovarc any arguments 0 ' ` light b, €.,l" to subrni_t to our hie C insel's Office
and/or Cry and schedule a i tin /een aktree and Chief C Treat psid, I a,n tai n.-Ao cert.in that
such a waiver would be grE ited.
Per my phone conversation with Brian th' afternoon, aside f n that i t, w, I ) be ab' r
review of the various documents subm' y Brian on Ti,. an ° v e~c t
requested confirmations/approvals.
Regards,
Bill
William Reyelt
Principal Planner, Smart Growth Programs
3C of Sustainable Cori-MILInities
Dept, of Housing Community Development
:100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300
Boston, 02114
517.573.1:355
3/27/2012
0
Page 4 of 4
wiIIiam.reveIt(@state.ma.us
From: brian engler fmailto_bra_n_en_gler.@s.-e.-b.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 20113:26 PM
To: Reyelt, William (OCD)
Subject: 30 Haven, Reading rents
Hi Bill,
Here is the updated spreadsheet with the updated language on refrigerators and ranges. Hopefully this isn't as
confusing.
Thanks again for your time and help,
Brian Engler
SEB
165 Chestnut Hill Ave.
Unit 2
Brighton., MA 02135
Phone: 617.782.2300 x203
Fax: 617.782.4500
email: b.e:cis l.er@s-e-b.com
3/27/2012 0
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
Lynn Tokarczyk [lynn@businessdevelopment-strategies.com]
Sent:
Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:32 AM
To:
Town Manager
Cc:
'Michael Frisoli'; 'JR McDonald'
Subject:
Keurig - Discussion follow-up
Peter,
Thank you for the return telephone call yesterday and discussing Keurig's proposed expansion plans
in Massachusetts or out of state. As we discussed, the company's real estate advisor, Cushman &
Wakefield, have explored all of the available real estate options in Reading and currently, there are
no properties that meet Keurig's requirements.
Should a potential property come to mind, please feel free to forward the information to Mike Frisoli
and JR McDonald at Cushman & Wakefield and I have listed their contact information below.
Michael R. Frisoli, Executive Director
Cushman & Wakefield
617-204-4139 Direct
617-943-3926 Cell
Michael. Frisoli@cushwake.com
J.R. McDonald, Executive Director
Cushman & Wakefield
617-204-4121 Direct
617-549-9911 Cell
JR.McDonald@cushwake.com
Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Cq3
Kindest regards,
Lynn Tokarczyk
Government Incentives Consultant
Business Development Strategies, Inc.
P.O. Box 26
Medway, MA 02053
Phone: 508-966-4300
Fax: 508-657-1119
Email: lynn@businessdevelopment-strategies.com <mailto:%201ynn@businessdevelopment-
strategies.com>
www.businessdevelopment-strategies.com <http://www.businessdevelopment-strategies.com/>
0
To: The Board of Selectmen
From: The Trails Committee
Re: Sunset clause
At its meeting on March 21, 2012 the Trails Com voted to convey to
the Board of Selectmen that it has no objection to the Board
instituting a sunset date of June 30, 2017 for the Trails Committee.
We would like the opportunity to continue and develop the work we have started.
In 2008, the Trails Committee constructed a handicapped assessable trail f rom the
Mattera Cabin to the head of Bare Meadow. At the head of Bare meadow, a wildlife
viewing platform was constructed using materials provided through a $5,000 grant
from REI.
Another grant was received from the state OCR for trails improvements in Bare
Meadow. This included clearing and improving trails, the construction of a boardwalk,
new signage and maps for the trails, blazing the trails, and the installation of three
informational kiosks.
Earlier this year the Trails Committee received a $13,800 grant from the DCR for
materials to build a new boardwalk into Kurchian Woods off of Franklin St.
Construction of this boardwalk has just begun.
We have worked with the local Boy Scout troops to develop consistent guidelines for
the replacement and construction of boardwalks in town property. New boardwalks
have been constructed by Scouts in the Town Forest, Kurchian Woods, and the
Pinevale Conservation area. A new trail was mapped and built by a Boy Scout in
Kurchian Woods.
The Trails Committee has started an Adopt-a-Trail program whereby local residents
serve as a steward of the trail and help to keep it in good order.
Going forward, the Trails Committee would like to continue and strengthen the
Adopt-a-Trail program they have established. Future projects that are being
considered are a trail in the Johnson Woods complex. The trails Committee may work
with ROLT to extend this trail into and through their property off of West St. The
committee is also looking at the possibility of constructing a trail in the Linnaea Thelin
Bird Sanctuary off of Hancock St. The Trails Committee also looks forward to
collaborating with the Town Forest Committee on various trail improvements there.
Sincerely,
Thomas Gardiner
Reading Trails Committee
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF READING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
To the Inhabitants of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold a publiiff7
hearing on Tuesday, March 27,
2012 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 1A'-z
Lowell Street, Readinc
Massachusetts on amending
Section 5.1 of the Board CV]
Selectmen Policies -
Community Services Revolving
Funds.
A copy of the proposed doc-
ument regarding this topic is
available in the Town
Manager's office, 16 Lowell
Street, Reading, MA, M-W-
Thurs from 7:30 a.m. -5:30
p.m., Tues from,?:30 a.m. -
7:00 p.m. and is attached to the
hearing notice on the website at
www.readingma.gov y
AI.I. interested parties are A
invited to attend the hearing, or
may-submit their, comments in
writing or by email prior to 6:00
p.m.. on March 27, 2012 to
town manager 9ci.reading. ma.u
By order of
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager ;
3/20
13
Section 5.1 - Communitv Services Revolvin Donation Funds
5. 1.1 - Creation
There are hereby created €eiff two donation funds within the Department of
Community Services inthe on. These shall be kept separate and distinct. They are as
follows:
Shopper- Asr , tance Fund El`a /T-1uf an Se yiees Di ,;sign
2.1 General Elder Residents Assistance Fund - Elder /Human Services Division
-3.2 General Resident Assistance Fund - Elder/Human Services Division
d. Health Pr-evention Fund Health Division
5.1.2 - Purpose
These funds are established as follows:
Fund No. 2 1 - to assist the elderly in times of need and when no other resources
are available. Examples may include: helping to meet transportation expenses, or
extraordinary repairs to property. This fund is set up so that in many instances,
loans can be repaid and the moneys made available again.
Fund No. -3 2 - similar to Fund No. 2, this fund is established to assist any resident
of the Town in time of need, and when no other resources are available. Some
elements of this fund may be set up on a loan basis, with repayment to go back
into the fund.
Fund No. 4 expenses to pay of the Health pr n a Health F
eyZ lI1l Vll 1 rV g1i111J and
5.1.3 - Procedures
The following procedures are approved for the administration of these funds by the
Board of Selectmen:
1. The funds are hereby established by the Board of Selectmen for the purposes
stated.
2. When moneys are received, they will be deposited through the Treasurer-
Collector, and a notation made in the appropriate monthly report. Gifts will be
accepted for a particular fund, but with no other restrictions unless such
restrictions are approved by the Board of Selectmen.
3. To expend moneys, the Department will use the normal Town bill-paying process,
with prior approval required from the i -eeter- of Elder/Human Services
Administrator for funds Number 1, -2-, and 3 2, and the Publie uo„i+h Sefviees
^ aministfate-• f r Fund Number- The Town Manager shall also sign for
expenditures from all funds. This will provide adequate checks and balances.
4. In the monthly report of the appropriate department or division, mention will be
made as to each circumstance of expenditure from the funds (omitting mention of
the name of the individual recipient).
-~-donor-s-,and to the Town in the
5. Annually, a summary report will be made to
Annual Report. The summary report will include the names (unless withheld at
the donor's request) and amount of donations, and the purposes for which each
expenditure was made.
This system is initiated to keep the necessary confidentiality, to provide the
appropriate checks and balances, and to provide for the operation of these funds in an
efficient and expeditious manner, since much of the need is often emergency in nature.
Adopted: September 13, 1988, amended 12-13-9, amended November 1, 2005; amended 3-27-12
S3
14
Sidewalk and Curb Projects
FY-12 to FY-14
FY-12
Prescott Street (Washington St. to Sunnyside Ave.) - Northern side
Haven Street (East of Main Street) - Northern side
Haven Street (East of Main Street) - Southern side
FY-13
Mineral Street bridge
Highland Street (Federal Street to Auburn Street) - Eastern side
Bancroft Avenue (Locust Street to Auburn Street) - Eastern side
FY-14
Mineral Street (Vine Street to High Street) - Southern side
Prescott Street (Summer Avenue to West Street) - Northern side PORTION
16
I ~2
lo~
TO: Board of Selectmen
From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2012
Re: AHTF Housing Allocation Plan
Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 authorized the Town of Reading to establish an Affordable Housing Trust
Fund (AHTF).
♦ "The Town of Reading may establish a separate fund to be known as the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund for the purpose of creating or preserving affordable housing for the purpose of creating,
maintaining or operating affordable housing."
♦ The AHTF may "develop new or rehabilitate existing dwelling units for purchase or rental by low and
moderate income housing purchasers or tenants;"
♦ "Expenditures shall follow an allocation plan submitted by the Board of Selectmen annually to Town
Meeting at the Annual Town Meeting, and approved by Town Meeting."
♦ "all expenditures from the fund, shall be in accordance with the allocation plan and approved by a
majority vote of the full combined memberships of the Board of Selectmen and the Reading Housing
Authority."
The purpose of the Affordable Housing Allocation Plan is to provide a framework for the Town to expend funds
on affordable housing. The current balance is $ 259,077. Funds have been accumulated over the years as
funds secured for the purpose by the CPDC, and funds deposited in one instance when an existing affordable
unit was no longer able to be kept affordable after efforts were made to do so. There are no Town generated
funds in the AHTF. The only expenditure to date from the AHTF is an amount of $200,000 for Oaktree
development to provide an additional 3 affordable housing units. That sum is in escrow and by the fall of 2012
the Town will know whether any or all of it has been utilized. Pending that information, the Board of Selectmen
has indicated that in the fall of 2012 it may ask to transfer funds from the 40R payments to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund.
Under Article 6 of the 2012 Annual Town Meeting, approval was received for hiring a consultant to update the
Town's Housing Plan, including the 5 year "Housing Production Plan". This work was also included in the
Town Manager's 2012 goals.
This effort is important as a defense against unfriendly 40B developments in the community, and requires the
Town to develop a phased plan to produce housing to reach the 10% threshold as required by the 40B statute.
As part of these planning efforts, the Town will evaluate how the AHTF can best be used to support the
"Planned Production" goals of the Housing Plan, and it is expected that at the next Annual Town Meeting the
Affordable Housing Allocation Plan will be fleshed out in better detail, although it is important that the plan
remain as flexible as possible to enable the Town to respond to opportunities as they arise.
An additional initiative that is being considered is to join a regional consortium which would assist the member
communities in monitoring and administering the Town's responsibilities for the various affordable housing
developments that exist and will be developed in the future, to maintain the affordable units that the Town has
worked so hard to create. This would be a potential use of the "Administrative" monies designated by the
Affordable housing Allocation Plan.
a Perna 1 17 (~5SD- 6C ,
Affordable Housing Allocation Plan
May 5, 2011
Pursuant to Article 24 of the 2011 Annual Town Meeting, an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan for
the Fiscal Year 2012 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 is as follows:
Available Balance - Unrestricted Funds: $458,017.68
Available Balance - Restricted Funds $ 0
Unrestricted funds shall be used for the following purposes:
99% for constructing affordable housing (including loan and grant programs); or for maintaining and
improving affordability of existing housing stock; or for the purchase of existing housing stock to add it
to or maintain it as a part of the existing affordable housing inventory
1 % for administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Until the Housing Plan is completed for consideration in the 2013 Annual Town Meeting approval of
the AHTF Housing Allocation Plan, , I would recommend that the Board of Selectmen adopt the
following allocation plan, which would also provide adequate funding for Reading's involvement of the
regional consortium as noted above.
Affordable Housing Allocation Plan
March 27, 2012
Pursuant to Article 19 of the 2012 Annual Town Meeting, an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan for
the Fiscal Year 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 is as follows:
Available Balance - Unrestricted Funds: $ 259,077
Available Balance - Restricted Funds $ 0
Unrestricted funds shall be used for the following purposes:
98% for constructing affordable housing (including loan and grant programs); or for maintaining and
improving affordability of existing housing stock; or for the purchase of existing housing stock to add it
to or maintain it as a part of the existing affordable housing inventory
2% for administration of Affordable Housing
V8
(~;G2
~o~~jOFRfq~~c Town of Reading
N
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
4P
639P MCDRP0
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
Website: www. readingma.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman of Human Relations Advisory Committee
Chairman of Trails Committee
Chairman of Fall Street Fa e Committee
FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner
r
DATE: March 6, 2012
RE: Sunset Provisions
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
Beginning approximately five years ago, when the Board of Selectmen established new Boards,
Committees and Commissions they instituted a process of establishing a sunset to the Board,
Committee or Commission. The purpose was to have a formal evaluation on a five year
schedule of the need for that Board, Committee or Commission.
The Board of Selectmen this spring will be evaluating two of the Boards, Committees and
Commissions that have sunset clauses - the Advisory Committee on Cities for Climate
Protection and the Economic Development Committee - and considering institution of new five
year sunset clauses expiring June 30, 2017 for the Human Relations Advisory Committee, the
Trails Committee and the Fall Street Faire Committee.
1 want to let you know of this process, and solicit any comments or suggestions that you have
with regard ,to this matter. This will appear on the Board of Selectmen agenda on March 27,
2012.
19
g) bj I
2.3.1 Human Relations Advisorv Committee
There is hereby established by the Board of Selectmen a Human Relations Advisory Committee.
The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall provide advice to the Board of Selectmen on how
the community can encourage an environment of tolerance, understanding and harmonious racial, ethnic,
religious, cultural and gender relations within the Town and among its citizens, prevent discrimination or
the perception of discrimination on the basis of color, age, gender, religion, disability, culture, national
origin, ancestry or sexual orientation within the Town or among its inhabitants, and enhance its ability to
mediate differences arising from the aforesaid relations.
The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall:
Engage in out-reach to such groups which may have suffered from or been the object of such
discrimination, or may perceive themselves to have been the object of the same;
♦ Provide a safe place where individuals or groups may air their concerns or complaints as to the
existence of such discrimination, or where concerns as to the potential existence of such
discrimination within the Town or community at large or the perception thereof may be discussed;
♦ Identify perceived problems of such discrimination or human relations conflicts within the Town,
and be a resource or referral agency to assist the parties or mediate among the parties so as, to the
extent possible, permit the resolution of the same at the local level;
♦ Promote and encourage understanding, tolerance and diversity and the recognition of human and
civil rights in the Town and community, and sponsor educational programs and the celebrations of
events for that purpose.
The Human Relations Advisory Committee shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the
Board of Selectmen, unless another means of appointment is indicated. Members shall reside in the Town
or have their place of business in the Town. Membership on the Human Relations Advisory Committee
shall include the following:
♦ One member shall be a member of the Board of Selectmen or its designee,
♦ One member shall be the Chief of Police or his/her designee,
♦ One member shall be designated by the School Committee,
♦ The remaining four members shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen and, to the extent
possible, shall be a diverse group which may include representatives from the following fields:
♦ A business owner other than the real estate business or a business association;
♦ A representative of a real estate business or association;
♦ A representative of the Reading Clergy Association.
The Committee may invite to serve as non-voting members such voluntary consultants in the field of
human relations or human rights as it may choose from time to time. The Town Manager may assign a staff
liaison representative to the Human Relations Advisory Committee and arrange for staff support.
The Committee shall be advisory to the Board of Selectmen and shall report at least annually to the
Board of Selectmen on policy issues. The Committee shall administratively fall within the Police
Department.
This committee shall sunset on June 30. 2017 unless renewed by the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted 2-13-01, Revised 7-22-0, Revised 12114104Revised 41--112
20
6d2
2.3.2 Reading
Climate Advisory Committee
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has established a "Cities for
Climate Protection" program, which works with cities, towns, and counties to reduce the pollution that
causes global warming.
There is hereby established a five (5) member dvisefy Committee (Gemmittee) on the "Cities
fir
Climate Chang°" ReadinLy Climate Advisory Committee pfegam to advise the Board of Selectmen on
implementation of the program. The purpose of the Committee is to:
Advise the Board of Selectmen on matters of policy related but not limited to the "Cities for
Climate Protection" Program for use within the Town of Reading. In doing this work, the
Committee will:
o Conduct a local emissions inventory of greenhouse gas emission.
♦ Recommend an emissions reduction target.
♦ Identify local actions that achieve the target.
♦ Develop a proposed implementation action plan identifying policies and actions.
♦ Quantify and report benefits created.
♦ Make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, and other bodies of the
Town on measures appropriate to implement such a program.
The Committee will be made up of five (5) members appointed for 3 year terms, so appointed that as
even a number of terms shall expire in each year. In selecting the Committee membership of 5 members, the
Board of Selectmen shall appoint all members and shall give consideration to members representing the
following interests within the community:
➢ Residents of the community who have expertise or interest in conservation, environmental affairs,
energy, or other areas of expertise which, in the opinion of the Board would be helpful in meeting
the Committee's mission.
Subcommittees may be created by a vote of the Committee. Members of Subcommittees do not
necessarily have to be members of the Committee.
The Committee shall be advisory in all matters. Decisions as to whether or not to implement measures
shall rest with the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or other body having jurisdiction in the matter.
This Committee shall administratively fall within the Department of Community Services. Staff as
available will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee.
This committee shall sunset on June 30, 2017 unless renewed by the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted 11-22-05Revised 41-112
21
6~) Ld 3
2.3.3 Policv Estahlishine an Economic Development Committee
There is hereby established a five (5) member Economic Development (Committee) to advise the
Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) and the Board of Selectmen on matters
related to current and future economic development in the community. The purposes of the Committee are
to advise the Board of Selectmen, the CPDC, and the Town Manager on matters of policy related but not
limited to:
• Develop a work program including the frequency of reporting to the Board of Selectmen and the
CPDC;
• Develop an Economic Development Strategy consistent with the Master Plan and goals and
objectives established periodically by the Board of Selectmen;
• Within the Economic Development Strategy, work with staff to obtain additional State and Federal
economic developmental grants;
• Explore the need for and legality of forming a "property based" and/or "business based" Business
Improvement District(s) funded by assessments on all businesses within the individual district(s);
• To the extent feasible, encourage commercial development and office leases of downtown space
consistent with the traditional atmosphere of a New England Village Center;
• Advise the Board of Selectmen, CPDC, and any other Town agency or official as appropriate, on
matters related to economic development in the community;
• Maintain an ongoing dialogue with business owners and owners of major properties on a pro-active
basis to understand how the Town can work with them to achieve their plans;
• In order to achieve the above, review options to funding economic development activities in
cooperation with other civic organizations.
The Committee will be made up of five (5) members appointed for 3 year terms, so appointed that as
even a number of terms shall expire in each year. In selecting the Committee membership of 5 members, the
Board of Selectmen shall appoint all members and shall give consideration to members representing the
following interests within the community:
• Member or designee of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce;
• Member or designee from the utilities serving the community, including electric, gas, internet
access, cable TV, or others;
• Merchants or businesses from the downtown area of Reading;
• Residents of the community who do not represent the above groups, and who have expertise in
planning, economic development, finance, business management, construction, training and
education, marketing, or other areas of expertise and experience which would assist the community
in attracting appropriate businesses to the community and otherwise carrying out the mission of the
Committee.
Subcommittees may be created by a vote of the Committee. Members of Subcommittees do not
necessarily have to be members of the Committee.
The Committee shall be advisory in all matters. Decisions as to whether or not to implement measures
shall rest as appropriate with the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, the CPDC, or other body having
jurisdiction in the matter.
This Committee shall administratively fall within the Department of Community Services. Staff as
available will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee.
This committee shall sunset on June 30, 241-2 2017 unless renewed by the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted 3-7-06; Revised 41---1I2
22
0 (,J~
2.3.4 Policv Establishine a Reading Trails Committee (RTC)
Based on the recommendation of the Northern Area Greenway Committee, there is hereby established a
five (5) member Reading Trail Committee (RTC) which will assume the responsibilities of planning,
developing, and maintaining present and future trails in the Town of Reading. The goal is for the Town to
create and maintain a connected, well coordinated system of trails to serve the residents of the community.
The RTC will undertake the following responsibilities.
♦ Make recommendations to the Conservation Commission, Town Forest Committee, and Recreation
Committee regarding development, operation, use, and maintenance of trails crossing lands under
the jurisdiction of these bodies. The RTC shall have no rule-making authority itself.
o Act as a liaison between the Town of Reading and the Reading Open Land Trust, Friends of Reading
Recreation, Walkable Reading, Scout groups, and other youth and community groups with respect to
development, operation, use, and maintenance of trails.
♦ Coordinate and manage an Adopt-a-Trail program, if appropriate, for the maintenance of trails or
portions there-of.
s Set trail construction, maintenance, use, accessibility, and signage standards.
♦ Oversee production of trail maps and guides.
♦ Provide advice and recommendations on the development of the Ipswich River Greenway and other
trail initiatives arising from Town reports and studies.
o Approve volunteer trail projects before the volunteers seek approval for projects from the
Conservation Commission, Town Forest Committee, or other Town or other cooperating
organizations.
♦ Organize training, hikes, trail maintenance days, and trail construction projects.
♦ Foster working relationships with DPW, Police, Fire, Schools, or other agencies to carry out the
mission of the RTC.
♦ Encourage cooperation and address problems and conflicts in trail areas.
♦ Identify grant opportunities to support trail initiatives.
♦ Make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, and other bodies of the
Town on measures necessary and appropriate to implement the trails program.
The Committee will be made up of five (5) members appointed for 3 year terms, so appointed that as
even a number of terms shall expire in each year. Associate members may also be appointed. In selecting
the Committee membership of 5 members, the Board of Selectmen shall appoint all members and shall give
consideration to members representing the following interests within the community:
➢ Recommendation of the Conservation Commission;
➢ Recommendation of the Town Forest Committee;
➢ Recommendation of the Recreation Committee;
➢ one or more residents of the community who do not represent the above groups, and who has
expertise in, conservation, environmental affairs, trails operation and maintenance, or other areas of
expertise which, in the opinion of the Board would be helpful in meeting the Committee's mission.
Subcommittees may be created by a vote of the Committee. Members of Subcommittee members do not
necessarily have to be members of the Committee.
This Committee shall administratively fall within the Department of Community Services. Staff as
available will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee. Thisc~ffifflittee shall su
This Committee shall sunset on June 30. 2013 unless renewed by the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted 3-25-08: Revised 41---112
23
6 ~ ~d~
2.3.6 Readine Fall Street Faire Committee
There is hereby created as a standing committee of the Town pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Board of
Selectmen policies, the Reading Fall Street Faire Committee, herein called "the Committee." The
expectation is that, by creating a standing committee, the leadership and workload in carrying out the Fall
Street Faire may be spread among a number of individuals, and that the leadership of this event will rotate
among members of the Committee.
The purpose of the Committee is to:
• Plan, organize, and carry out an annual celebration known as the Reading Fall Street Faire,
on a date annually to be recommended by the Committee and approved by the Board of
Selectmen
• Expend funds allocated by the EDC from the Downtown Improvement and Events Trust
(DIET) and from other sources as available, to operate a high quality Faire; and return funds
remaining at the completion of the Faire to the DIET. Accounting of all funds for the event
will go through the Town's accounting system. A report will be submitted to the EDC
monthly, or more frequently if needed, detailing the expenditures from the DIET for the Fall
Street Faire.
• Immediately following the event, solicit feedback from participants and attendees and utilize
that feedback in planning the next year's event.
• Not later than December 31 of each year, report to the Board of Selectmen on the activities,
evaluation, and finances of the event for that year.
The Committee will be made up of five (5) members. If possible, at least one member will be a
Selectman or designee and one member will represent the interests of the Reading business community.
Subcommittees may be created by a vote of the Committee. Members of Subcommittees do not
necessarily have to be members of the Committee.
The Committee shall meet as needed, with meetings of the Committee and Subcommittee(s) held in
accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
The Committee shall administratively fall within the Department of Community Services. Staff
support for the direct work of the Committee, and for the Reading Fall Street Faire, shall be assigned by the
Town Manager as needs and available resources dictate.
This Committee shall sunset on June 30. 2017 unless renewed by the Board of Selectmen
Adopted 2-15-2011,7Revised 41-112
24
Reading Climate Advisory Committee
Mission Statement
The Reading Climate Advisory Committee (RCAC) is an official town advisory
committee comprised of concerned citizen volunteers seeking to achieve environmental,
economic and societal sustainability by raising public awareness and influencing the
community, including its government, to reduce energy use and foster environmental
stewardship in a cost effective manner.
Specific Goals
➢ Minimize Reading's contribution to climate change by reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions.
➢ Reduce Reading's dependence on fossil fuels by promoting energy conservation,
energy efficiency, renewable energy purchase and generation, and alternative
modes of transportation.
➢ Ensure the longevity of our local and global ecosystem by fostering responsible
stewardship.
➢ Enhance public health by improving air quality and protecting the Earth's natural
resources.
Methods
➢ Educate our citizenry with a strong public awareness campaign that involves town
government, the schools, the media, and various public forums.
➢ Look for grant opportunities at the regional, state, and federal levels, and pursue
those that would help us to meet our goals.
➢ Partner with local businesses to increase effectiveness and cooperation.
➢ Influence the town's bylaws, policies, and codes, including those pertaining to
zoning, the town's master plan, and other proceedings to formalize sustainable
improvement.
Encourage state and federal officials to take a more active role in climate protection.
➢ Foster discussions on climate change and engage the community to envision a
productive and resilient community based on renewable energy.
➢ Reach out to neighboring communities to assist them in establishing similar
efforts and to collaborate on regional projects.
25
g Ge~
Reading Trails Committee
Reading, MA 01867
2011 Annual Report
To whom it may concern:
This is the Annual Report of the Reading Trails Committee (RTC) for 2011, outlining the
activities and events that members, associate members and volunteers participated in
throughout the year.
The RTC is happy to report another productive and successful year of activities. The
committee is a very dedicated and active group of Reading residents who feel that it is
important to maintain and develop Reading's trail systems for others to explore, respect
and enjoy. The group is made up of five voting members, a few associate members and
Kim Honetschlager, the GIS Coordinator for the Town of Reading and a variety of hard
working volunteers. The Reading DPW crew has also been very supportive by providing
time and equipment towards whatever is needed.
Focus in 2011 by the RTC and Scouts has been in the Kurchian Woods conservation area
where a trail system has existed for many years. A very generous Department of
Conservation and Recreation grant was received which is to be used to build and replace
a very old boardwalk built back in the 1970's. The new boardwalk will be at the Franklin
Street entrance to Kurchian and will be a huge undertaking. The planning has begin, the
funds received and the first two six foot sections are in place, and the project will
continue into 2012.
Every year we have a few Boy Scouts who are eager for ideas and projects they can work
on as a way to earn their Eagle Scout Awards, and they have accomplished much again
this year. Major projects have been completed this year such as a trail clean-up, clearing
and blazing; the designing and building of a bridge across a stream making access of the
trail more accessible and safer; an old sign built in 1974 by a previous Boy Scout was
painted and "restored", all making the Kurchian area a nice place to spend time.
There have been monthly RTC meetings at the Town Hall and at the Mattera Cabin and
some members have attended additional Town meetings for various reasons that were
pertinent to RTC or conservation business.
In June, National Trails Day was a day to get out and clean up the Mattera Cabin yard
and other members participated in the Ipswich River Cleanup collecting trash, bottles,
cans and disposing of them. Participating in the Friends and Family Day also in June is a
time to share what the RTC has been up to when people stop by the display table. Will
Finch's turtles are always a hit and draw a crowd.
(0
With all of the snow in the Winter, a few snowshoe outings were enjoyed at Bare
Meadow and in the Town Forest, Woodcock (bird) walks, a few finishing touches at the
Mattera Cabin, the retirement of Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator, clearing trails at
Kylie Drive, a Girl Scout hike at Bare Meadow and many other fun times took place in
our town. The availability of trails and woods for theWinter, Spring, Summer and Fall
add to everything else Reading has to offer its residents.
Thank you.
Reading Trails Committee
Tom Gardiner, Chairman
Joan Hoyt, Secretary
Dave Williams, Member
Susan Giacalone, Member
Alan Rosh, Member
John Parsons, Associate Member
Will Finch, Associate Member
February 2012
P
Z
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss: Zoning Board of Appeals
NORTHEAST YOUTH BALLET, INC.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
AS TO 32 LOWELL STREET, READING, MA
Property
This application concerns property known as 32 Lowell Street. The property is situated in the S-
15 zoning district. The site includes 23,186 square feet of land and a gothic stone church. There
is a 9.6 foot wide curved driveway on the property that runs under an existing overhang. There is
room for three vehicles to tandem park in the driveway. The shape of the lot and building and
the building design are shown on the submitted site plan and photographs.
Applicant
Northeast Youth Ballet Inc. is a nonprofit educational corporation. The school will educate
students in classic ballet. It has been determined to be a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax exempt
organization by the Internal Revenue Service, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. Its Articles of Organization permit it to engage in
educational activities. Because of the nature of the applicant and its intended use, it falls within
the so-called Dover amendment to the Zoning Act. The Supreme Judicial Court has indicated
that the term "educational use" is to be interpreted broadly.
Proposal
The Applicant wishes to reuse the building for a classic ballet school. The CPDC has issued
site plan review approval for that reuse. This provides an excellent reuse of a building while
providing cultural opportunities for residents.
1
Relief
The sole issue before the Board relates to parking. The Building Inspector has determined
that Section 6.1 of the Reading Zoning By-law requires that there be one parking space on the
site for every 300 square feet of gross floor area in the building. If that is the case, the applicant
cannot use the building for a classic ballet school without relief from this Board. Therefore, the
applicant seeks the following alternative relief from the Board:
A. Appeal from Determination: The applicant appeals from the Building Inspector's
determination as to the current zoning parking requirement. There is no provision in the
Zoning Bylaw that requires on-site parking for a church or school. The by-law is explicit
in the parking standards for various uses. This is not simply a matter of determining into
which category a use falls. None of the uses stated in the parking requirements in the
bylaw are even close to a school use. See the parking table at Section 6.1.13.
In those municipalities that have parking requirements for schools, churches or
places of assembly, they expressly state in the bylaws the parking requirement for those
uses. No such requirements exist in the Reading bylaw. It is inappropriate to apply the
parking the requirements for a Retail Stores, Offices and Consumer Service
Establishments to the use of the property for a non-profit education corporation. Nothing
in the zoning by-law warrants defining a school as a "retail store, office or consumer
service establishment" (which is a defined term meaning "a barber shop, beauty parlor,
dry cleaning establishment, lunchroom restaurant and photographer's shop or studio").
Trying to create a parking standard when none exists is not a proper function of the
executive branch of Town government. That is a function that is solely within the
purview of the Town's legislative branch, Town Meeting. One cannot simply interpret
zoning to apply to a situation because one wants such a requirement to apply. Such a far
reaching interpretation is tantamount to a zoning change, and requires that the proper
procedure be followed to so change the bylaw.
B. Exemption: If the Board determines that the parking requirement for the school falls
within the category of a Retail Stores, Offices and Consumer Service Establishment, then
the exception in Section 6.1.1.1 must also apply. That section states that a building so
used that is within 300 feet of a public off-street parking facility is exempted from the
off-street parking requirement. The property abuts the municipal parking lot next to
Town Hall. What is a "public off-street parking facility" is not defined in the zoning
bylaw, but logic would dictate that a parking lot open to the public is such a facility. The
parking lot next to the Town Hall could be found to meet that standard.
2
C. Variance: If the Board concludes that the parking requirement for Retail Stores, Offices
and Consumer Service Establishments applies to a church and non-profit educational
corporation and that the parking exemption in Section 6.1.1.1 does not apply, the
applicant seeks zoning relief in the form of a variance from the parking requirements.
The following grounds do exist for the grant of a variance:
1. There are circumstances relatine to the soil conditions, shave, or tonoRra-ohv of
such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting
generally the zoning district in which it is located. The existence of a church structure on
a lot is an unusual feature that does not apply to the zoning district as a whole. The lot has
an unusual shape, with a long, narrow point at the intersection of two streets. The
structure is situated on the lot so as to preclude a useable parking lot. The grade of the lot
at the rear of the church building is narrow and slopes upward to the church. The
structure has an unusual shape with the overhang at the front. The site is subject to a
historical preservation restriction that prohibits changes to the property. A copy of that
restriction has been provided to the Board.
2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve
substantial hardship. financial or otherwise. If a variance is not granted, the property
cannot meet the requirement of one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross
building area. There is just no area on the site to create such parking.
Front Yard: The shape of the lot and the location of the building prevent parking
from being placed in front of the church.
Side Yard: There is inadequate room on the sides of the church to create parking
there.
Rear Yard: The rear yard does not have a geometric shape or the topography to
function as a useable parking lot. The stair well at the rear corner of the building is only
about 35 feet from the rear lot line. The rear yard slopes up to the church. The grade
differential is between 4 to six feet from the lot line to the building. Trying to cut the
grade down for a limited use parking area would require a significant retaining wall at the
rear of the church. Once such a paved area is created, the Town will require a best
management practices drainage system with a grease trap. The total cost would be
prohibitively expensive (especially for a nonprofit school) and could run afoul of the
historic preservation restriction. Mature shade trees would be lost in any such effort.
Requiring on-site parking when none is practicable or financially feasible has the
consequence of rendering the building not being practically useable. That is certainly a
substantial hardship. While it would be an absurd economic waste to do so, one cannot
3
even tear down a part of the building to create parking because of the historic
preservation restriction.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Granting the relief requested will not be substantially detrimental. In fact, allowing the
building to be so used will result in the preservation of the character and setting of the
historic structure. As is demonstrated by the traffic reports there is ample parking
available to accommodate the small traffic impact from the proposed use as a classic
ballet school. The historic use of the property as a church generated more traffic than the
proposed use.
4. Relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or uumose of the zoning by-law. Allowing the ballet school to operate in this
building will not result in any change to the appearance of the property. The actual use
will be within the structure. Allowing the proposed use of the facility will be beneficial
and will be consistent with the stated Purpose [Section 1.0] of the zoning bylaw, as such
a cultural use will "...promote the... general welfare of the inhabitants... facilitate the
adequate provisions of...schools ...encourage the most appropriate use of land... [and]
...preserve historic sites...". Allowing the use of the property without more off-street
parking will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning
by-law, which does not even mention a parking requirement for a school.
The Applicant requests that the Board grant relief to allow the ballet school to use the church
building.
Respectfully s bmitted,
O
.43 ley atham
4
ZONING
ZONING 40A § 3
ifg. Co. v. Board of
§ 2, Repealed, 1987, 685, Sec. 2
) 86 N.E.2d 906, 324
arming cy 2; Zoning
Historical and Statutory Notes
St.1987, c. 685, § 2, repealing this section, The repealed section, derived from St. 1975, c.
was approved .Tan. 6, 1988. 808, § 3, related to special permits for cluster
. development.
following mean-
§ 3. Subjects which zoning may not regulate; exemptions; public hearings;
temporary manufactured home residences
administrator.
No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the use of materials,
unlight.
or methods of construction of structures regulated by the state building code,
re, a substantial
nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, unreasonably regulate or
. provide for the
require a special permit for the use of land for the primary purpose of
ating or cooling,
agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture; nor prohibit, or unreason-
ably regulate, or require a special permit for the use, expansion, or reconstruc-
tion of existing structures thereon for the primary purpose of agriculture,
d of selectmen,
horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture, including those facilities for the sale of
lministrators as
produce, and wine and dairy products, provided that during the months of
special permits.
June, July, August, and September of every year or during the harvest season of
awns to regulate
the primary crop raised on land of the owner or lessee, the majority of such
the independent
products for sale, based on either gross sales dollars or volume, have been
alth, safety and
produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located,
except that all such activities may be limited to parcels of more than five acres-
f appeals pursu-
in area not zoned for agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture. For
such purposes, land divided by a public or private way or a waterway shall be
construed as one parcel. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall exempt land or
.1987, c. 685, § 1.
structures from flood plain or wetlands regulations established pursuant to
general law. For the purpose of this section, the term horticulture shall
include the growing and keeping of nursery stock and the sale thereof. Said
r-
mit "the b granting board";
author-
m
nursery stock shall be considered to be produced by the owner or lessee of the
tors" for "adminis-
land if it is nourished, maintained and managed while on the premises.
Zoning, deleted "as
1 mean" preceding
No zoning ordinance orby-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a
g
iefinition of zoning
single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law
11 mean" preceding
7 'prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes
or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or
any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or
denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however,
oc, § 7.
23c.
i
that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concern-
ing the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area,
setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. Lands or
`
`
s
tructures used, or to be used by a public service corporation may be exempteC
23.1, Constitutional
in particular respects from the operation of a zoning ordinance or by-law if,
3.10, Non-conform-
upon petition of the corporation, the department of telecommunications and
energy shall, after notice given pursuant to section eleven and public hearing in
23.21, Special Per-
the town or city, determine the exemptions required and find that the present
23.22, Variances-
or proposed use of the land or structure is reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public; provided however, that if lands or
9
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
REF.: MAX-2011105
February 8, 2012
Ms. Denise Cecere
13 Wicker Lane
Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880
SUBJECT- Supplemental Parking Demand Evaluation
Proposed Northeast School of Ballet
Lowell Street- Reading, Massachusetts
Dear Denise:
c-e, v g /12--7 )i _~7_
Greenman-Pedersen Inc. (GPI) has prepared this letter for the re-occupancy of First Church of Christ
Scientist with a proposed Northeast School of Ballet to be located at 32 Lowell Street in Reading,
Massachusetts. The Northeast School of Ballet is currently located at Memorial H al I in Melrose,
Massachusetts. In the Parking Demand Evaluation letter dated December 19, 2011, GPI provided a
comparison of the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site with the parking demand of
the proposed Northeast School of Ballet, as well as a trip-generation comparison of the traffic-volume
characteristics for the existing First Church of Christ Scientist with that of the proposed Northeast School
of Ballet. This subsequent letter has been prepared to address comments made by Town of Reading
officials at the Reading Development Review Team meeting on January 25, 2012 with respect to on-site
circulation, a class schedule for the existing Northeast School of Ballet in Melrose, and a parking
generati on rate based on the exi sti ng cl ass space used at the M el rose f aci I i ty.
On-Site Circulation
As proposed, the Northeast School of Ballet will re-occupy space within the existing First Church of
Christ Scientist building. The site is bounded by Lowell Street to the north and Sanborn Street to thewest.
Lowell Street is a two-way roadway that provides for both eastbound and westbound travel, and Sanborn
Street provides one-way travel southbound between Lowell Street and Woburn Street. Access to the site
is currently provided and is proposed to remain to be provided via a one-way circulation driveway that
connects Sanborn Street and Lowel I Street.
At the proposed Reading location, there will be space for approximately 5 faculty vehicles to park along
the site driveway that provides one-way circulation from Sanborn Street to Lowell Street. Based on
information provided by the proposed Northeast School of Ballet, there is anticipated to beapproximately
3 faculty vehicles parked in tandem (nose-to-end) along the driveway at any given time. Therefore, the
avai I abl e parki ng area al ong the dri veway i s anti ci pated to accommodate the f acul ty parki ng demand of
the Northeast School of Ballet. To enhance safety, it is recommended that a DO NOT ENTER sign (R5-1)
be posted on the driveway facing Lowell Street to reinforce the one-way circulation from Sanborn Street
105 Central Street, Suite 4100, Stoneham, MA 02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
Ms. Denise Cecere
February 8, 2012
Page 2 of 4
to L owel I Street. In addition, it is recommended that any plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing
along the Lowell Street site frontage be kept low to the ground (no more than 3.0 feet above street level)
or set back sufficiently from the edge of the site driveway and adjacent roadways so as not to inhibit the
availablesight Iinestoensurethesafeand efficientflow of traffic.
Northeast School of Ballet Class Schedules
The Northeast School of Ballet is currently located at Memorial Hall in M ei rose. As described in the
December 19, 2011 Parking Demand Evaluation letter, the most amount of students at the existing
facility generally occurs on Tuesdays.' The number of arriving students per time period i s summari zed in
Table 1.
Table 1
NORTHEAST SCHOOL OF BALLET - Number of Students
Number of Arriving Students
Start Ti me
M onday
Tuesday
Wednesday Thursday
Fri day
Saturday
9:15 AM
0
0
0 0
0
12
10:OOAM
0
0
0 0
0
10
10:15 AM
0
0
0 0
0
18
11:00AM
0
0
0 0
0
9
2:00 PM
0
6
0 0
0
0
2:45 PM
0
10
0 0
0
0
3:00 PM
0
0
0 5
4
0
3:30 PM
21
28
21 20
27
0
4:00 PM
4
0
4 0
0
0
4:30 PM
0
0
0 0
0
0
5:00 PM
18
33
18 31
0
0
6:30 PM
0
0
5 0
0
0
TOTAL
43
77
48 56
31
49
'Proposed Northeast School of Ballet Parking Demand Evaluation Letter- to Ms. Denise Cecer•e. Reading, MA. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
December 19, 2011
LAOS Srryp/emenral Prn-kmg Demand Lever 020812.dre
Ms. Denise Cecere
February 8, 2012
Page 3 of 4
A copy of the current Northeast School of Bad I et cl ass schedule is attached to thi s I etter. As projected, this
schedul e wi I I al so be contempt ated f or the proposed faci I i ty. I t shout d be noted that si nce each cl ass si ze
i s dependent upon the i nterest and demand of the students at any gi ven ti me, the number of students and
the number of classes offered could vary. Therefore, the Reading Development Review Team requested
that a parking generation rate be established based on the size of the class space used at the existing
Northeast School of Ballet in Mel rose and applied to the proposed class space to be used at the f aci l i ty in
Readi ng.
Parking Generation
The space currently used by the Northeast School of Ballet at Memorial Had l in Melrose includes
3,135 square feet of cl ass space, as wel I as a recepti oni st desk and two bathrooms for dressi ng rooms.
Based on the vehicular operations survey performed on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 during the
weekday PM peak period (3:00 to 6:45 PM) at the existing Northeast School of Ballet for non-faculty
vehi cl es, the average number of vehi cl es parked at the f aci I i ty was observed to be 7 vehi cl es and the
average I ength of stay was observed to be <30 mi nutes.2 Therefore, the average peak-period parking
demand was determined to be 2.23 spaces per thousand square feet of used class space (7 parked
vehi cl es(3.135 thousand square feet).
As proposed, the space proj ected to be used by the Northeast School of Ballet at the existi ng First Church
of Chri st Sci enti st bui I di ng i n Readi ng i ncl udes 2,800 square f eet of cl ass space, as wel I as space f or
bathrooms, had Iways, and stai rways. By applyi ng the rate of the average peak-peri od parki ng demand per
thousand square f eet of cl ass space f rom the exi sti ng f aci I i ty i n M el rose to the cl ass space proposed to be
used at the Reading facility, the proposed facility would be expected to require 6 non-faculty parking
spaces (2.23 spaces per thousand square feet x 2.8 thousand square feet). Therefore, this methodology
suggests that the available parking spaces observed to be provi ded along L owel I Street and along Sanborn
Street (18-25 spaces)3 are anticipated to accommodate the average parking demand of the Northeast
School of Bad I et during peak time periods.
In summary, the parking demand observations conducted at the existing Northeast School of Ballet in
Melrose and the on-street parking observations conducted in the vicinity of the site in Reading indicate
that there is expected to be adequate parking available for non-faculty and faculty vehicles at the
proposed Northeast School of Ballet. In addition, the parking generation rate based on the existing class
space at the Melrose facility applied to the proposed class space at the Reading facility suggests that there
is adequate parking available within the vicinity of the site to accommodate non-faculty and faculty
vehi cl es.
21bid
31bid
11105 Snpplemenlal Parking Demand Lelrer 0 20812. doe
Ms. Denise Cecere
February 8, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at (781) 279-5500.
Si ncerel y,
GREENMAN - PEDERSEN, INC.
Jason R. Plourde, P.E.
Assi stant V ice President
attachment(s)
11105 Siipplemeirlal Parking Demand Lever 020812.doc
SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
Northeast School of Ballet -Reading, Massachusetts
ATTACHMENTS
NORTHEAST SCHOOL OF BALLET CLASS SCHEDULE
Northeast School of Ballet Current Schedule and Enrollment
Studio
Level)
Age 4+5
9:00 a.m.
9:15-10:00
(12 students)
Beginner
Level V-VII
10:15 a.m
Age 6-8
1 hr.
11:30 a.m.
10:00-11:00
(18 students)
10 students)
Age 3.4
Age 9-12
Level VI-A & VII-A
45 min.
11:00-12:00
11:00-12:30
2:00 P.M.
(6 students)
(9 students)
(18 students)
[18 students]
Pre-Ballet II
Age 9-12
Int.
45 min.
3:00-3:30
3:00-3.30
2:45 p.m.
(10 students)
( 5 students)
(4 students)
Level l-A
Level
Level I-B
Level
Level t-A
Level
Level II-B
Level
Level III-B
Level
112 hr.
IV-A & VA
1 hr.
IIA & 111-A
112 hr.
IV-A & V-A
1 hr.
IIA & 111-A -
1.5 firs,
IVA & V -A
3:30p.m.
3:30-4:00
1'.5 hrs.
(13 students)
1.5 hrs.
3:30-4:00
1.5 hrs.
(10 students)
1.5 hrs.
(v' students)
1.5 hrs.
(3 total student)
(18 students)
(15 students) "
(3 students)
(18 students)
(15 students)
(18 students)
Level I-A
Level I-B
Level I-A
Age 9-12
1 hr.
1/2 hr.
1 hr.
4'.30-5:00
4:00 p.m.
(7 students)
4:30=5:00
(7 students)
(5 students)
[3 students]
13 students)
[3 students]
[5 students]
[3 students]
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Int.
VIA & VII-A
I V-B & V-B
VI-A & V1 [-A
lV A & V-A
VI-VII-A
IV-B & V-B
Vl-V11A
5;00-6:00
5:00 p.m.
1.5 hrs,
1.5 hrs.
1,5 hrs,
1.5 hrs.
1.5 hrs.
1.5 hrs.
1.5 Mrs.
(10 students)
(18 students)
(15 students)
(18 students)
(18 students)
(18 students)
(13 students)
(18 students)
[10 students]
[18 students]
Boys Class
Level
1 hr.
VI-A & VII-A
6:30 p.m.
6:30-7:30
1.5 hrs.
(5 students)
(18 students)
[18 students]
7.00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
REF.: MAX-2011105
December 19, 2011
Ms. Denise Cecere
13 Wicker Lane
Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880
SUBJECT: Parking Demand Evaluation
Proposed Northeast School of Ballet
Lowell Street -Reading, Massachusetts
Dear Denise:
p YCe- / 312-7 -Z_
Greenman-Pedersen Inc. (GPI) has prepared this letter for the re-occupancy of First Church of Christ
Scientist with a proposed Northeast School of Ballet to be located at 32 Lowell Street in Reading,
Massachusetts. The Northeast School of Ballet is currently located at Memorial H al I in Melrose,
Massachusetts. The proposed site is bounded by Lowell Street to the north and Sanborn Street to thewest.
Access to the site is currently provided and is proposed to remain provided via a one-way circulation
driveway that connects Sanborn Street and Lowell Street. The site location in relation to the surrounding
roadways is shown on the map on Figure 1. Due to the limited on-site parking available, this letter has
been prepared to provide a comparison of the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the si to to
the parking demand of the proposed Northeast School of Ballet. In addition, the letter includes a trip-
generation comparison of the traffic-volume characteristics for the existing First Church of Christ
Scientist to that of the proposed Northeast School of Ballet.
Available Parking
A parking evaluation has been conducted of the on-street parking areas along the north side of Lowell
Street across from the site and along both sides of Sanborn Street between Lowell Street and Woburn
Street. A parking survey was performed on Thursday, December 8, 2011 during the weekday AM peak
period (9:00 to 11:45 AM) and the weekday PM peak period (3:00 to 6:45 PM). The observations were
conducted i n 15-mi nute i ncrements and consi sted of noti ng the 11 cense pl ate of each vehi cl e. A I I parki ng
count data are attached to this I etter.
The pri mary purpose of the on-street parki ng eval uati on was to determi ne the average number of vehi cl es
parked per study period (turnover) and the percentage of parking spaces used per study period
(occupancy) in each of the on-street parking areas. The license plate surveys also provide the approximate
length of stay (duration) for each vehicle. Table 1 summarizes the parking observations during the peak
peri ods.
105 Central Street, Suite 4100, Stoneham, MA 02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
PARKING DEMAND EVALUATIONS IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY
Northeast School of Ballet - Reading, Massachusetts
r A! =t
gym---~ .9w~s» C ( N ~1y .l
W"L y
a a ~ F
f 4 ~ ~ f Z l. ~1
VM ~ 4 1
.
a
- SITE
4 -
129
r Fi
r
• • • 00itenman-Pedersen, Inc.
"Aml
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Construction Engineers & Inspectors
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Ms. Denise Cecere
December 19, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Table I
ON-STREET PARKING OBSERVATIONS
Average
Average
Location/Time Period
Turnover
Occupancy
Length of Stay
North Side of Lowell St. across from the site:
Weekday AM Peak Period
0.5
8%
<15 minutes
Weekday PM Peak Period
0.3
2%
<15 minutes
Sanborn St. between Lowell St. and Woburn St.:
Weekday AM Peak Period
1.0
39%
<45 minutes
Weekday PM Peak Period
1.4
68%
<1 hour 15 minutes
As shown along the Lowell Street study area, the highest turnover of parked vehicles occurred during the
weekdayAM peak period (6different parked vehicles(12marked parking spaces = 0.5). During the
weekday AM and weekday PM peak periods evaluated, on average, only between 2 and 8 percent of the
parking spaces were used, leaving 92 to 98 percent of the parki rg spaces available (between 11-
12 spaces). The average length of stay was observed to be <15 minutes during the weekday AM and
weekday PM peak periods.
Along the Lowell Street study area, the highest turnover of parked vehicles occurred during the
weekday PM peak period (30 different parked vehicles/22 potential parking spaces = 1.4). During the
weekday AM and weekday P[`/I peak periods evaluated, on average, between 39 and 68 percent of the
parking spaces were used, leaving 32 to 61 percent of the parking spaces available (between 7-13 spaces).
The average I ength of stay was observed to be <45 mi nutes duri ng the weekday A M peak peri od and
<1 hour and 15 mi nutes duri ng the weekday PM peak peri od.
Parking Demand
To determine the current parking demand for the Northeast School of Ballet, an evaluation has been
conducted of vehicular operations at the existing facility in Mel rose. A vehicular operations survey was
perf ormed on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 duri ng the weekday PM peak peri od (3:00 to 6:45 PM) as thi s
is the day of the week and time period that coincide with the highest number of students. The
observati ons were conducted i n 15-mi nute i ncrements and consi sted of noti ng the I i cense pl ate of each
vehi cl e. AI I vehi cul ar operati ons data are attached, to thi s I etter.
The pri mary purpose of the eval uati on of vehi cl e i nteracti on at the exi sti ng f aci I i ty was to determi ne the
number of vehicles that park and/or drop off students at the Northeast School of Ballet. This information
11105 Parking Demand Letter 12191 L.doc
Ms. Denise Cecere
December 19, 2011
Page 3 of 4
could then be used to determine if the available parking spaces at the proposed Reading site would be
abl e to accommodate the parki ng demand for the Northeast School of Bad l et.
At the time of the observations, four faculty vehicles were parked at Memorial Hall for the Northeast
School of Bad I et. At the proposed Readi ng I ocati on, approxi mate) y fi ve parki ng spaces wi I I be provi ded
for faculty along the access roadway that provides one-way circulation between Sanborn Street and
Lowell Street. In addition to vehicles parking at the Northeast School of Ballet in Melrose, observations
reveaded that, on average, 4 vehicles dropped students off. Based on the observations at the existing
Northeast School of Ballet for non-faculty vehicles, the average number of vehicles parked at thefacility
was 7 vehi cl es and the average I ength of stay was observed to be <30 mi nutes duri ng the weekday PM
peak period. Therefore, the observations indicate that the available parking spaces ad ong Lowell Street
and ad ong Sanborn Street (18-25 spaces) are anti ci pated to accommodate the peak parki ng demand of the
Northeast School of Ballet.
Parking Demand Comparison
The exi sti ng site at 32 Lowel I Street i n Readi ng i ncl udes a 6,915 square foot bui I di ng contai ni ng Fi rst
Church of Christ Scientist. To determine the expected parking spaces that would be required for the
existing use, standard rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking
Generation report were researched.' All parking-generation data are attached to this letter. Based on Land
Use Code 560 (Church), the existing First Church of Christ Scientist would be anticipated to generate a
peak-hour parking demand of 58 parking spaces. In comparison, the average peak-hour parking demand
for the Northeast School of Ballet was observed to be 7 vehicles. Therefore, the ITE data and the
observati ons i ndi sate that the proposed proj ect i s anti ci pated to generate 88 percent I ess of a peak parki ng
demand than the existing use.
Trip-Generation Comparison
For tri p-generati on purposes, traff i c anti ci pated to be generated by the exi sti na Fi rst Church of Christ
Scientist was forecast using the ITE Trip Generation report for Land Use Code 560 (Church).z All trip
generation data are attached to this letter. Based on the ITE data for the existing use, the First Church of
Christ Scientist would be expected to generate 81 total peak-hour trips. In comparison, the observations
conducted at the N ortheast School of Bad I et i n M el rose reveal ed a total of 63 peak-hour tri ps. Therefore,
the I TE data and the observati ons i ndi cafe that the proposed proj ect i s anti ci pated to generate 22 percent
I ess peak-hour tri ps than the exi sti ng use.
Parking Generation: an Informational Report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 2010.
2 Trip Generation, 8h Edition: an ITElnformational Report. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008.
11105 Parking Demand Letter 12191 Ldoe
Ms. Denise Cecere
December 19, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, pl ease contact meat (781) 279-5500.
Si ncerel y,
GREENMAN - PEDERSEN, INC.
Jason R. Plourde, P.E.
Assistant Vice President
attachment(s)
11105 Parking Denrcmd Lever 121911.dnc
PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
Northeast School of Ballet - Reacting, Massachusetts
ATTACHMENTS
PARKING COUNT DATA
PARKING TURNOVER AND OCCUPANCY WORKSHEETS
PARKING LENGTH OF STAY AND NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES WORKSHEETS
PARKING-GENERATION WORKSHEET
TRIP-GENERATION WORKSHEET
ON-STREET PARKING COUNT DATA:
LICENSE PLATE DATA WORKSHEET
Lowell Street acro%from Reading Town Hall
NOTE Every 15 minutes, write the last 3 digits of each
license plate.
DATE Thursday, 12/8/11
105 Central Sreet, 3uite4100, 8oneham, MA02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
Start Time Car 1 Car 2 Car 3 Car 4 Car 5 Car 6 Car 7 Car 8 Car 9 Car 10 Car 11 Car 12
ON-STREET PARKING COUNT DATA:
LICENSE PLATE DATA WORKSHEET
Parking Diagram Lowell Street ac rossfrom Fbading Town Hall
. 2 '1 h x~ _ fi 'll ~
f~ ~w NOTE Every 15 minutes, write the last 3 digits of each
license plate.
DATE Thursday, 12/8/11
`
105 Central Sreet, ajite 4100, $oneham, MA02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Pax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
ON-STREET PARKING COUNT DATA:
LICENSE PLATE DATA WORKSHEET
Parking Diagram: ' Sanborn Street between Lowell Street and Woburn Street
NOTE: Every 15 minutes, write the last 3 digits of each license plate.
DATE: Thursday, 12/8/11
Start Time ; Car 1 . Car 2 Car 3 Car 4 i Car 5 Car 6 Car 7 Car 8 Car 9 Car 10 ; Car 11 Car 12 Car 13 Car 14 ! Car 15 ; Car 16 ; Car 17 ; Car 18 ; Car 19 ; Car 20 ? Car 21 ; Car 22
9:00 AM ! CKO 1 R58 ? T2
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10'00 AM
10 15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
------------------1----- -----h---- -----1-----
11:00 AM
11:15 AM ,
11:30 AM
V R
105 Central Street, Suite 4100, Stoneham, MA 02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
i ON-STREET PARKING COUNT DATA:
LICENSE PLATE DATA WORKSHEET
Parking Diagram: Sanborn Street between Lowell Street and Woburn Street
NOTE: Every 15 minutes, write the last 3 digits of each license plate.
s DATE: Thursday, 12/8/11
Start Time ! Car 1 ! Car 2 1 Car 3 I Car 4 I Car 5 I Car 6 ! Car 7 Car 8 i Car 9 1 Car 10 1 Car 11 ! Car 12 i Car 13 ' Car 14 ! Car 15 Car 16 Car 17 ! Car 18 ! Car 19 ! Car 20 1 Car 21 ! Car 22
3:00 PM I NH7 ! 28C 855 H23 1 B20 5FC 8JT T27 R58 CKO BJV 916 P64 440 1 HMB M55 HN5 SEC
- -
i i I I
315 PM
-____t____. _ t___-. i _ _
I 1 I ~ I I i I I
3:30 PM 1
! i ~ I
i
= - - - r-•--- - - -t---` 7----
3:45PM 1 i 1
I "°'F----- -----F----- -----t----- ----T----- 1
T - 1 -4-
4:00 PM
-
t
4:15 PM
i . ! ----`----------1-----
4:30 PM K08 258 V31
-
4:45 PM 5CS 7BM 650 I
- -----I---- -----------F----------.
I I
500 PM 710
- -Y t - -Y--- - Y '
5.15 PM [MR 350 733
_ i__
5.30 PM GJ9 I
1 Y
5.45 PM I i
600 PM
1
1
6:15 PM v \ • \ +
'
6:30 PM 1 i IV" V i v I V V I V V !
105 Central Street, Suite 4100, Stoneham, MA 02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
NORTHEAST SCHOOL OF BALLET PARKING COUNT DATA:
LICENSE PLATE DATA WORKSHEET
; I !
Start Time j Car 1 Car 2 Car 3 Car 4
3:00 PM A B C
-
i
315 PM
r
3:30 PM I
t'
345 PM i
t-
4:00 PM
;
!
4:15 PM j
Car 5 Car 6
HD9 EE7
i DCV
Car 7 Car 8
SMD 6VJ
Memorial Hall - Melrose, MA
NOTE: Every 15 minutes, write the last 3 digits of each license plate.
DATE: Tuesday, 12/13/11
Car 9 ! Car 10
ZHR 445 M15
I
V
'
4:30 PM XCX X84 j C12 BEF M2Z
I
,
.._.___.f__._._. _______f------- _ i-------
L 4
;
4:45 PM
I
1
- - - -
500 PM PE9 700 l SDP
-
515 PM D 532 71-V 2VT D85
' - 1------- -----Y------ ------V------ -----Y ------Y------
5.30 PM I 6AS
i
I
\I
5:45 PM j
-
6:00 PM
- Y---------------------- -
6:15 PM 4PV TES LRV B33 i 95J E9Z NC5 534
V I I V V V
3
6
3
1
0
0
0
1
105 Central Street, Suite 4100, Stoneham, MA 02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.com
i Drop Off
Car 11 Car 12 Car 13 Car 14 Car 15 Car 16 j Car 17 i Pick Up
ON-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS:
TURNOVER AND OCCUPANCY RATES
Lowell Street across from Reading Town Hall
Number of
Turnover
Occupancy
Number of
Turnover
Occupancy
Start Time
i Parked Vehicles ;
Rate
;
Percentage
Start Time Parked Vehicles
Rate
Percentage
9:OO AM
:00 A
~ '
~ ~
'
%
1
3_00 PM
-
-
T-------
-
:15 AM------;- 1 I 0.1 I
9
-
8%
3:15 PM I
L
T
I 0
-------J_
0%
- I---------------•
_
--------------1_____________________J________________J---------------
9:30 AM ' 0 0.0 0%
3:30 PM
-
0.0
0%
-
9:45 AM 0 0.0
0%
3:45 PM ;
-
0
0.0
°
; 0/o
•----------------T---------------------7----------------,-
10:00 AM ; 0 ; 0.0 ; 0%
4:00 PM ' '
0
1
0.0
0o°
1---------------
10:15 AM
1_____________________J__
i 1
0.1
_J-
;
8%
4:15 PM ~
0
0-0
o
0
T______________
-________________T_____________________7---------------
1
10:30 AM I 1 ; 0
-
I
8%
-
_____________T_
4:30 PM
0 ;
0.0
I 0%
.
f--------------------- i---------------- i-
10:45 AM 0.1
8%
-------------1--
4:45 PM--
-
1
;
0.1
-
--8%°
11:00 AM 1 0.1 8%
5:00 PM
0
0
0
i 0%
T____________
1
11:15 AM ; 0 ; 0.0 ; 0%
__T--
5:15 PM ;
_.T
0 ;
-
-
0.0
.Y._____ oo/O
---------------------J--
3
*
11:30 AM
0.3
--J-
;
25
%
5:30 PM
;
;
0
0-0
%
-
-
11:45 AM 0 0.0
0%
5:45 PM
0
0.0
i °
6:00
PM
1
O
-
Overall =
0.5
7%
-
- t
6_15 PM 0
-
0.0
Average =
0.1
6:30 PM
0
0.0
0%
Overall =
0.3
2%
Average =
0.0
105 Central Elreet, 3aite4100, 3oneham, MA02180 Tel: (781) 279-5500 Fax: (781) 279-5501
www.gpinet.o m
ON-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS:
TURNOVER AND OCCUPANCY RATES
Parking Diagram:
" ,
Sanborn Street
1
between Lowell Street and Woburn Street
Number of Turnover
Occupancy
Number of
Turnover
1
Occupancy
Start Time
me
Parked Vehicles
Rate
Percentage
Start Time Parked Vehicles
Rate
Percentage
9:00 AM
6
L
0.3
L
27%
3:00 PM i 18
0.8
1
82%
9:15 AM
1 6 ,
T_-_------
_
-
0 3
27%
•-------------i-------- 1-
3:15 PM 18
0.8
-
-
82%
9:30 AM
r
-r_
~
18%
.----________T_-------
3:30 PM 1 18 ;
0.8
-
1
82%
9:45 AM ; 6 ;
0.3 ;
27%
3:45 PM ;
18 ; 0.8
; 82%
1 0:00 AM
-
; 8 ~
--T_----------_--_----__r__-
0.4
r
36/° °
; - 17
4:00 PM
0.8
-t-
77%
0:
1
5
AM
7 ,
-
0.3 ; 32%
4:15 PM ; 14 ; 0.6
-T
64%
- 10:30 AM
7
r------------------------
-
0.3
-
32%
- -
4_30 PM 17 i
0.8
- -
i
77%
AM
1 9 1
~
0.4 ;
41%
4:45 PM 1 16 1
0.7
1
73%
----------------------f---
11:00 AM 12
h--------------
0.5 ; 55%
------------~r-------------------
5:00 PM ; 16 ; 0.7
- f---------------
; 73%
11:15 AM
;
-
13
*
0.6
59%
5:15 PM 14
-----0 6
----64/-
°
1130 AM 13 ;
1--------- --____-__---L-__
0.6
- -
5:30 PM ; 15 ;
1
1
°
1
11:45 AM
13
0.6 j
59%
5:45 PM 13
0.6
_
-
59%
6:00 PM 12
0.5
55%
Overall =
1.0
39%
.--_____________t--
6:15 PM 1 11 ;
0.5
_r-
1
_
50%
Average =
0.4
-------------------f--------------
6:30 PM 8 ; 0.4
-f---------------
; 36%
Overall =
1.4
68%
Average =
0.7
-
105 Central Greet, Suite4100, 3oneham, MA02180 Tel-.(781)279-5500 Fax-.(781)279-5501
www,gpinet.com
LENGTH OF STAY AND NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES WORKSHEET
Location:
Project:
Job
Length of Stay
s15 min
30 min
45 min
1 hour
1 hr 15 min
1 hr 30 min
1 hr 45 min
2 hours
2 hr 15 min
2 hr 30 min
2 hr 45 min
?3 hours
Total:
Reading, Massachusetts
Proposed Northeast School of Ballet
MAX-2011105
Sanborn Street between Lowell Street and Woburn Street
Weekday AM Peak Period
Weekday PM Peak Period
Num.
Cum.
%
Length of Stay
Num.
Cum.
%
1
1
5%
<_15 min
2
2
7%
9
10
48%
30 min
3
5
17%
2
12
57%
45 min
3
8
27%
3
15
71%
1 hour
3
11
37%
1
16
76%
1 hr 15 min
4
15
50%
16
76%
1 hr 30 min
1
16
53%
1
17
81%
1 hr 45 min
3
19
63%
17
81%
2 hours
2
21
70%0
1
18
86%
2 hr 15 min
21
70%
18
86%
2 hr 30 min
21
70%
18
86%
2 hr 45 min
21
70%
3
21
100%
>3 hours
9
30
100%
21
Total:
30
Weekday AM = 9-11:45 AM
Weekday PM = 3-6:30 PM
Number of
Weekday AM Peak Period
Number of
Weekday PM Peak Period
Parked Vehicles
Num.
Cum.
%
Parked Vehicles
Num.
Cum.
%
1
0
0%
1
0
0%
2
0
0%
2
0
0%
3
0
0%
3
0
0%
4
1
1
9%
4
0
0%
5
1
9%
5
0
0%
6
3
4
36%
6
0
0%
7
2
6
55% I
7
0
0%
8
1
7
64%
8
1
1
7%
9
1
8
73%
9
1
7%
10
8
73%
10
1
7%
11
8
73%
11
1
2
13%
12
1
9
82%
12
1
3
20%
13
2
11
100%
13
1
4
27%
14
11
100%
14
2
6
40%
15
11
100%
15
1
7
47%
16
11
100%
16
2
9
60%
17
11
100%
17
2
11
73%
18
11
100%
18
4
15
100%
19
11
100%
19
15
100%
20
11
100%
20
15
100%
21
11
100%
21
15
100%
22
11
100%
22
15
100%
23
11
100%
23
15
100%
24
11
100%
24
15
100%
25
11
100%
25
15
100%
26
11
100%
26
15
100%
27
11
100%
27
15
100%
28
11
100%
28
15
100%
29
11
100%
29
15
100%
30
11
100%
30
15
100%
Total
11
Total:
15
Parking Observation Worksheet.xls
LENGTH OF STAY AND NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES WORKSHEET
Location:
Project:
Job
Reading, Massachusetts
Proposed Northeast School of Ballet
MAX-2011105
Lowell Street between Sanborn Street and Salem Street
Length of Stay
<_15 min
30 min
45 min
1 hour
1 hr 15 min
1 hr 30 min
1 hr 45 min
>_2 hours
Weekday AM Peak Period
Num.
Cum.
%
4
4
67%
1
5
83%
5
83%
1
6
100%
6
100%
6
100%
6
100%
6
100%
Total: 6
Weekday AM= 9-11:45 AM
Weekday PM = 3-6:30 PM
Number of
Weekday AM Peak Period
Parked Vehicles
Num.
Cum.
%
1 (
5
5
71%
2
1
6
86%
3
1
7
100%
4
7
100%
5
7
100%
6
7
100%
7 (
7
100%
8
7
100%
9
7
100%
10
7
100%
Total: I
7
Weekday PM Peak Period
Length of Stay
Num. Cum.
%
:515 min
3 3
100%
30 min
3
100%
45 min
3
100%
1 hour
3
100%
1 hr 15 min
3
100%
1 hr 30 min
3
100%
1 hr 45 min
3
100%
>_2 hours
3
100%
Total: '
3
Number of Weekday PM P
Parked Vehicles Num. Cum
1 3 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 3
6 3
7 3
8 3
9 3
10 3
Total 3
eak Period
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Parking Observation Worksheet.xis
LENGTH OF STAY AND NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES WORKSHEET
Location
Project:
Job
Melrose, Massachusetts
Proposed Northeast School of Ballet
MAX-2011105
Memorial Hall - Non-Faculty Parking
Length of Stay
<_15 min
30 min
45 min
1 hour
1 hr 15 min
1 hr 30 min
1 hr 45 min
2 hours
2 hr 15 min
2 hr 30 min
2 hr 45 min
>_3 hours
Total:
Weekday PM Peak Period
Num.
Cum.
%
17
17
44%
4
21
54%
8
29
74%
4
33
85%
33
85%
2
35
90%
35
90%
1
36
92%
36
92%
1
37
95%
37
95%
2
39
100%
39
Weekday PM = 3-6:30 PM
Number of
Drop-Off Vehicles
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total:
Weekday PM Peak Period
Num.
Cum.
%
4
4
29%
4
8
57%
8
57%
3
11
79%
1
12
86%
1
13
93%
1
14
100%
14
100%
14
100%
14
100%
14
100%
1 14
Number of
Weekday PM Peak Period
Parked Vehicles
Num.
Cum.
%
1 1
0
0%
2 I
0
0%
3
4
4
29%
4
4
29%
5
4
29%
6
2
6
43%
7
1
7
50%
8
2
9
64%
9
9
64%
10
1
10
71%
11
2
12
86%
12
2
14
100%
13
14
100%
14
14
100%
15 (
14
100%
16
14
100%
17
14
100%
18
14
100%
19
14
100%
20
14
100%
21
14
100%
22
14
100%
23
14
100%
24
14
100%
25
14
100%
26
14
100%
27
14
100%
28
14
100%
29
14
100%
30
14
100%
Total
14
Parking Observation WorksheetAs
Land Use: 566
Church
Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
On a: Sunday
Statistic
Peak Period
Number of Study Sites
Average Size of Study Sites
Average Peak Period Parking Demand
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation
Range
85th Percentile
33rd Percentile
N
350
300
v
250
>
200
150
a
100
1
50
1
IL
0 .
0
Peed( Period Dej,,a- tod
9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m,;, 7:00-8:0-0 p,m.
12
13,200 sq. ft. GFA
8.37 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
5.63
67%
1.82-16.94 vehicles per 1,000 sq< ft. GFA i
14.38 vehicles per 1,000 sq.. ft. GFA
i 3.88 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Sunday Peak Period
Parking Demand
0
10 20
x = 1,000 sq, ft. GFA
• Actual Data Points
a
I
30
40
Institute of Transportation Engineers >4 [ 259 ~ Parkin{ Generation, 4th Edjiion
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Land Use Code (LUC) 560 - Church
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Independent Variable (X): 6.915
SUNDAY DAILY
T = 36.63 * (X)
T=36.63* 7
T = 253.30
T = 253 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 127 vph) entering and 50% ( 126 vph) exiting.
SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 11.76 * (X)
T= 11.76 * 6.915
T= 81.32
T= 81 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 41 vph) entering and 50% ( 40 vph) exiting.
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. ITE LUC 560 - 6915 sf.xls