HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes: OWN OF R�'�bi
Town of Reading
y / d
Meeting Minutes
J9.IxCORp° R'EriDIHC, �1t JJ.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Community Planning and Development Commission I011 QCT -3 A lI: 18 ►
Date: 2017-09-11 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Business Version:
Attendees:, Members - Present:
Chair Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Karen Goncalves-Dolan
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie
Mercier, Economic Development Director Andrew Corona, Barry Berman,
Virginia Adams, Tony D'Arazzo, David Traggorth, Robert Kiley, Judy Keogh,
Kristan Steanbruggen, John Zermani, J.Murphy, Dave Hubbard, Diane &
Kenneth Cain, Barbara Melanson, Dennis Dorandi, Pamela Adrian, Robert
Kylie, Angela Sciandra, Andrew Consigli, John Cain, Amanda Capobianco,
Dona Morin, Kerry Grant, Lorrane & Wade Willwerth, Greg Ryan, Heather &
Diane McLean, Tom & Sarah Brukilacchio, Gale Graham, Evelyn Lehr, Wayne
Dwyer, Jonathan Barnes, Rachel Hitch, Ron Weston, Sharlene Reynolds
Santo, David O'Sullivan
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Special Permit, Special Home Occupation
23 Edaemont Avenue, Judy Keoah
Judy Keogh was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Weston read the legal notice into the record.
Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, informed the Commission that this is
the first Special Home Occupation Special Permit application since the new bylaw was
instated in November 2016.
Mr. Safina explained the Applicant is seeking approval to hang an approximately 2' x 3'
business sign in a residential neighborhood. The sign will hang from a lamppost. He.asked if
the sign would need to hang no less than 8' above ground. Mr. Mercier explained that since
the sign is over the private property and not the public sidewalk, it could probably be less,
but she noted that the Building Inspector will have to make this determination.
Mr. Tuttle opined that the proposed sign looks good.
Page 1 1
Mr. Weston asked if the sign will be lit. Ms. Keogh explained that there will be a lamp at the
top of the lamppost. Mr. Weston commented that the sign bylaw is conflicting with regards
to sign lighting in a residential neighborhood. He added that a lamppost is not necessarily
lighting the sign. Mr. Weston questioned if a business sign is within keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. He suggested the Commission review special permit and
special home occupation criteria.
Mr. Safina'noted that traffic will be one -at -a -time and by appointment. There will not be a
queue of vehicles waiting to enter the business.
Mr. Weston questioned how far back the sign will be from the roadway. Ms. Keogh pointed
out two potential locations for the lamppost. M'r. Weston commented that the sign will be
seen from the roadway, and he asked if the sign should be mounted on the building instead.
Ms. Keogh said the purpose of the sign is for visibility to the public and to her customers.
Mr. Safina clarified that visibility is important for last-minute turns, not for vehicles a long
distance from the property. He noted that the Commission approved the sign at the home
dental business on Woburn Street. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that Barrows Elementary School is
across the street from this property and has a sign. Mr. Weston said the style of the sign is
fine, but suggested the Commission discuss the potential implications of allowing a sign in a
residential neighborhood, given the large amount of home occupations .in Town.
Mr. Tuttle looked through the sign bylaw. He opined that the proposed sign should not be a
concern. Anyone else who wants to put up a business sign in this neighborhood will have to
go through the same Special Permit process.
Mr. Weston agreed that allowing one sign would not be detrimental, but stated that the
neighborhood character will change if more residents request a sign. Mr. Tuttle replied the
residents would need a Special Permit from the Commission, so the proposed sign is not
setting a precedent. Mr. Safina said allowing a sign is discretionary.
Mr. Safina asked about the landscaping on the property. Ms. Mercier showed some photos
submitted by the Applicant. Mr. Safina stated that the sign is N3' from the sidewalk and —6'
from the roadway. Ms. Keogh explained that without increasing her curb cut, she expanded
her driveway to allow parking for six vehicles.
Mr. Safina opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. John Zermani of 33 Edgemont Avenue asked if the expanded parking area on Ms.
Keogh's property would be adequate for the business. He noted that Barrows School creates
parking challenges in the neighborhood. Ms. Keogh replied that her customers will park in
her driveway, not on Edgemont Avenue.
Ms. Keogh opined that the proposed sign is professional and will look nice.
Mr. Safina closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr.. Tuttle made a motion to close the public hearing for the Special Permit for a Special
Home Occupation for exterior signage at 23 Edgemont Avenue. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Ms. Mercier noted that the Applicant changed the color of the sign to black and white, and
that the Decision will be edited to reflect this change.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Special Permit for a Special Home Occupation for
exterior signage related to a business at 23 Edgemont Avenue as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Page 1 2
' Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review
20-24 Gould Street, Traggorth Companies LLC
David Traggorth, Andrew Consigli, Jim Murphy, Dan Hubbard and Jeff Olinger were present
on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Weston read the legal notice into the record.
Mr. David Traggorth, of Traggorth Companies, LLC, introduced the Development Team:
Traggorth Companies and Civico Development, Olinger Architects, Verdant Landscape
Architects, Design Consultants, and Sherwood Consulting Engineers. He described how his
presentation would proceed: Timeline to Date, Development Team, Current Conditions,
Conceptual Plans, History, Retail and Q&A. He noted that some changes have been made to
the plans based on feedback from staff and the neighbors; and he encourages continuing
communication.
Mr. Traggorth noted that he wants to get through a lot tonight, and he started by describing
the process he followed before meeting with the Commission. He explained that Traggorth
Companies has a lot of experience with 40R and smart -growth development, which are
great tools that allow a town to have mixed-use with affordable housing on older sites.
Mr. Traggorth presented previous 40R projects that he and his team have been involved
with. He commented on some of the successful commercial businesses on the ground floors
of these projects. He added that his company has worked in towns more than once, and
that the biggest compliment a town can give is to invite them back to develop other sites.
Mr. Traggorth presented the current building and site. The site comprises two parcels. There
are currently three curb cuts. and multiple entries into the building. The lot area is 30,770
square feet, and the building is a single story throughout with high ceilings. in some areas.
The building is right at the property line, and has boarded up windows along the rear wall
facing abutters. He showed photos of the existing site, building and impervious surfaces.
Mr. Traggorth gave a brief history of the site. The Ace Art Company invented and produced
Ace Corners, which are mounting corners for photographs, in Reading. The property is listed
on the National Register. He noted the additions to the building that were made over time.
The building has been occupied by EMARC for decades, but their lease is expiring in October
and the owner is.taking this opportunity to sell the building.
Mr. Traggorth explained that a drainage easement runs north/south through the site. The
pipe -is about 5' below grade and 32" wide. A Geotechnical and Structural Engineer will work
with the Town Engineer to preserve and protect the pipe, and maintain the Town's access to
it via the easement.
Mr. Traggorth reiterated that the plans have changed since the original submission. The
development team incorporated suggestions received from the Town and abutters.
Mr. Andrew Consigli of Civico Development introduced himself, and presented plans
prepared with Jeff Olinger of Olinger Architects. He confirmed that two curb cuts along
Gould Street will be removed, and explained that the courtyard is designed to face south,
and the majority of the building massing is at the street rather than on the rear property
line.
Mr. Consigli described'the Ground Floor Plan. He said that a two-way entrance/exit for the
enclosed parking will be off of Gould Street and will become one-way in a counter clockwise
direction throughout the garage. There will be 63 parking spaces in the enclosed garage,
which includes 28 compact spaces, 33 regular spaces and 2 handicap spaces. One benefit of
the enclosed garage is that snow plowing will not be necessary. He noted that the trash
room and transformer room were relocated so that a community room could be added. The
community room will highlight the history of the site. The trash room can now be accessed
off the driveway rather than the street. The ground floor will also have approximately 3,800
Page 1 3
square feet of retail space facing Gould Street, a management office, and a lobby that goes
back to the elevator, and a bike room with bike racks.
Mr. Consigli showed the Second Floor Plan, which contains a courtyard and a trash chute
that goes directly to the trash room. There are 60 residential units total over the proposed
three residential stories. A typical one -bedroom unit will be 600-800 SF, two-bedroom unit
will be 800-900 SF, and a three-bedroom unit will be 900-1000 SF. To lessen the building
massing, each floor is stepped back from the floor below it.
Mr. Jeff Olinger of Olinger Architects said the site is 216' long. He pointed out how the Gould
Street fagade will appear. To help break down the length, there will be sections with fagade
elements such as balconies, recesses, and townhouse -like protrusions. Each element will be
no more than three stories tall, which will help with the view from the down the street. The
tallest elements will be on the retail corner to emphasize the public interface. Balconies will
be set into the recesses of the building and will help get people onto the street, and give the
area life. Mr. Olinger stated that building materials will include fiber cement, colonial brick,
and roman yellow and Indian red sandstone. He noted that the material at grade level will
be higher quality; and the proposed brick will work with the existing downtown.
Mr. Olinger provided the fagade view from Gould Street. He said that Gould Street has a
significant grade change from one end of the site to the other. As a result, the topography
pushes the garage entrance up, and one unit was lost.
Mr. Olinger provided views of the rear of the building as viewed from the abutters along
Green Street. He explained that the existing wall ranges between 8' and 14' in height, due
to the grade change. The building is stepped back on each level, which allows for gardens
and terraces off of the residential units that do not overlook the abutting properties. The 2nd
level courtyard is setback 13-6' from the property line, and buffered by an area of non -
accessible planted roof-scape. Mr. Olinger added that the.design team will work with the
abutters to determine the materials and treatments of the proposed rear building wall.
Mr. Traggorth said that after a discussion with the Town, the plans were updated to show a
civic space that will provide access to the history of the building and can be programmed for
non -profits, public meetings, community events, etc. The civic space will be overseen by the
management company during business hours. He added input that.is still needed for the
civic room: naming and branding, permanent displays, etc.
Mr. Traggorth noted that retail development is of critical importance to the Town. He stated
that he works closely with the entrepreneurs who locate in his buildings because sometimes
that iswhat it takes to help them be successful. He gave examples of this from his other
developments.
Mr. Traggorth opined that the key points to "Main Street" retail success are: space that is
well-designed at an ongoing reasonable/affordable rent, focus on experiences and services,
reduced upfront capital outlay, density of customers, and a supportive client base. He noted
from his conversations and review of the Economic Development Action Plan, the following
retail needs of Reading: the old grocery store at 30 Haven Street is missed, there is leakage
of specialty food stores, and a need for restaurants. He noted that he has had conversations
with business owners, and the density from all of the residential development downtown will
contribute to the viability of downtown businesses. He added that the proposed 3,800 SF of
retail space will be affordable and ready to go (fully equipped) once the building is open. He
pointed out that the retail is setback to allow room for cafe tables and that pedestrians from
the MBTA will pass by the retail to enter the residential units.
Mr. Traggorth summarized that the project provides 63 parking spaces for 60 residential
units. The primary waivers are for units per acre and the parking ratio. The height and
setbacks of the building meet 40R requirements.
Page 1 4
Mr. Traggorth reviewed the traffic study findings to date. He said that on -street parking is
underutilized on Gould, Green and Haven streets; off-street parking utilization for three
multifamily properties nearby ranges from .63 to .82. He noted that if none of the residents
utilize the MBTA, which. is conservative, there will be 38 net new vehicle trips during the
morning, and 52 net new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This is less than one
trip per minute during each peak hour.
Mr. Traggorth stated that the requested waivers are for density, parking, off-street loading
and deliveries, tree removal, drive aisle width and parallel parking spaces inside the garage.
Mr. Tuttle stated that after the site visit, he has a good feel for the neighborhood, and he
believes this will fit in. He commended the development team on the design. He questioned
how the circulation in the garage will work.
Mr. Weston asked for additional detail on the 3 multifamily properties and average parking
space data. Mr. Traggorth explained that Design Consultants Inc. did utilization counts at 30
Haven Street and two other downtown'multi-family properties in Reading. He said that a
memo Was submitted, after the original submission with all the information. Mr. Weston
stated that parking is a significant issue, and it was discussed at length with the creation of
the overlay district bylaw. He opined that the parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit was
pushing the limits of reasonability at the time the bylaw was adopted, but commented that
the world is a different place now. Mr. Traggorth said that if parking is not available for the
tenants, it will be an issue for his company. Mr. Tuttle added that it is important that the
right amount of parking is built. Mr. Safina asked whether the structural columns foi the
podium would actually reduce the parking spaces further. Mr. Traggorth noted that the
garage circulation and layout was re -designed based on feedback from staff. Mr. Olinger
said that the podium includes a strip for the mid -span structure, so no additional columns
should be needed.
Mr. Safina inquired as to how ventilation will get through to the roof. Mr. Traggorth pointed
out the mechanical shaft that goes from the retail space to the roof.
Mr. Safina noted that the east fagade may not really meet the step back requirements.
Mr. Safina asked where moving trucks and move -in loading would take place. Mr. Traggorth
stated that the garage has a 10' clearance and will only accommodate vans and box trucks.
Mr. Safina asked whether one elevator is enough for 60 units, and mentioned that a prior
applicant said 50 units was the cut-off for one elevator. Mr. Olinger replied that since it is a
4 -story building, some residents will just walk up to the 1St floor. He also noted that the
removal of two of the curb cuts will enable additional parallel parking along Gould Street.
Mr. Safina asked whether the building would be designed to LEED Silver or if the Applicant
is just pursuing certification. Mr. Consigli said that both are possible, but they generally try
for better. Mr. Traggorth added that the standards to receive LIHTC financing determine the
ultimate building design.
Mr. Tuttle noted that.Eastern Bank is immediately across Gould Street and that Rite Aid is
just down the street from the project. He recommended that the Applicant reach out to
them about shared parking. Mr. Hubbard indicated that contact has already been initiated.
Mr. Safina asked for comments from the public.
Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street identified herself as the spokesperson for the Gould and
Green Street Alliance. She noted that 21 abutters attended the neighborhood meeting with
the developer, and then met again later to work on their list of concerns. She read some of
the 40R bylaw aloud, and noted that the Town has bylaws for a reason and they should not
be ignored.. She opined that ignoring them opens the Town up to lawsuits, and that what
you grant to one developer, you must grant to others. She asked for a complete traffic
Page 1 5
study, and opined that the building is too large, too dense, and too tall for the 0.7 acre lot.
She commented that the impacts of the project will be massive and negative on all streets
downtown.
Mr. Dennis Dorandi of 32 Green Street distributed the abutters' letter to the Commission.
Ms. Adrian went through some of the major concerns, which include: safety, traffic, and
parking, which she opined, is an abysmal problem for the Town. She added that the building
is imposing and not well -integrated into the neighborhood.
Ms. Kerry Grant of 32 Green Street expressed a safety concern for her 7 -year old son. She
asked about the building demolition process and noted that she is worried about whether it
might contain asbestos or some other hazardous material.
Mr. Robert Kylie of 34 Gould Street read from a list of questions. He asked whether the
drainage pipe easement is able to be covered. Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant will have
to work that out with Engineering. Mr. Olinger stated that they are allowed to build over it
as long as they provide manhole access to the Town..
Mr. Kylie asked whether the Town will hold a bond for the construction. Mr. Traggorth
responded that a payment and performance bond with insurance is typically sufficient.
Mr. Kylie asked how much insurance the Applicant will carry, and what is the value of a life.
Mr. Traggorth replied that their insurance will cover damages to abutters, and that their
contractor will- be responsible. He noted that they have not .yet selected a contractor, but
when they do, they will provide proper insurance certificates to the Town.
Mr. Kylie asked whether the parking spaces are supposed to be standard size. Mr. Olinger
noted that the bylaw allows for 50% of the spaces to be compact. He explained that
compact spaces are 7.5' x 16' while regular spaces are 8.5' x 18'.
Mr. Kylie confirmed that trash will not be on the sidewalk, and asked whether it would be
separated. Mr. Traggorth replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kylie asked whether the town or State is giving the developer a tax break. Mr.
Traggorth replied in the negative.
Mr. Dorandi asked why things in the bylaw can be waived. He noted that a standard parking
space is actually 9' x 18'. He asked for elevations that show vehicle blind spots with cars
parked on the street.
Mr. Weston of 63 Blueberry Lane, a member of the Reading Historical Commission (RHC),
reiterated points made in the RHC's memo to the Commission. He noted that the building is
on Reading's Historical and Architectural Inventory and on the National Register of Historic
Places, and that it is the Town's only example of Art Deco architecture. He asked that the
Applicant work with the Town to minimize the negative effects of demolishing the historic
structure, and consider and respect the input from this 150 -year old neighborhood. He said
that the historic plaques and displays proposed by the Applicant make sense, and he noted
that the Applicant will have to apply for a Demolition Delay hearing prior to demolishing the
building.
Mr. Wayne Dwyer of 61 Ash Street mentioned his impression that low income housing is
required and if we meet thresholds the Town is more likely to get money from the State.
Mr. Tuttle and Mr.'Safina explained the interplay between 40R and 40S, and mentioned that
this only applies if the Town can prove a significant impact to the schools, and if the State
actually has money to disburse.
Ms. Adrian noted that all developments impact the Town with regards to schoolchildren, and
asked what the Town is going to do about this. Mr. Weston explained that sometimes
Page 1.6
developers provide an Economic Impact Analysis, and that it almost always comes out on
the positive side for the Town because the tax revenue generated by, the project outweighs
impacts to municipal infrastructure and schools. Ms. Mercier noted that an Economic Impact
Analysis is not one of the requirements of the 40R application.
Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street, a member of the Reading Historical Commission,
reminded the Commission and the developer that dependent on project financing, the
project may be subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), and
that the MHC will seek input from. the RHC. He noted that there maybe impacts that affect
the Commission's Decision.
Mr. Barry Berman of 54 Longview Road, a member of the Board of Selectmen, noted that
the Town has been reviewing a lot of projects recently and that parking is always a concern.
He noted that it is hard to live in Reading without a car, because of the lack of groceries
downtown. He stated that while some people will probably use the Commuter Rail, it will not
negate the need for parking. He asked the Applicant to consider shared parking as well as a
discount for units that do not need parking in the leasing strategy. He commented that the
Applicant could provide subsidies for tenants who utilize ride sharing, Uber or Zip Car. He
concluded that he encourages the development team to think creatively.
Mr. Thomas Brukilacchio of 28 Green Street stated that he has two young children and a
relatively small backyard, and that he is worried about construction debris in his yard.
Ms. Heather McLean of 20 Green Street opined that there are great points to the design but
that she and her family cannot get past the safety concern for their 5 -month old baby, as
the proposed building will be right up against'the property line. Mr. Safina responded that
the contractor will have to respect the property line, and noted that most contractors do not
want accidents because they can get better insurance rates with a clean record.
Ms. Angela Sciandra of 34 Green Street noted that the Applicant submitted a parking study
but not a traffic study. She commented that she is not sure where the parking data came
from or how relevant it really is. She noted that half of the General Washington building is
studios. Mr. Traggorth stated that the traffic study is still in process.
Ms. Sciandra opined that the building is a monstrous, horrendous boondoggle. She stated
that Gould Street may be the smallest street in Reading. She commented that most people
do not drive compact cars. She accused Mr. Safina of not caring about the neighbors. Mr.
Safina responded that he takes the neighbors' concerns very seriously for every project, and
asked her not to impugn his service to the Town.
Mr. Traggorth provided some responses to the concerns, and noted that he looks forward to
continuing conversations with the abutters. He stated that the Traffic Study is in process,
and noted that a Hazmat Report has been done, which showed that a lot of abatement was
done by EMARC. He stated that Axiom Environmental has been hired to monitor the air
quality throughout the project. The blond spot at the driveway exit will be managed through
signaling. He reminded the abutters that right now the property has three curb cuts, so only
have one will minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. As regards demographics, he said that
some families are to be expected, but that they lots of young professionals and older people
looking to downsize. He noted that his team will work with MHC, and that if changes are
required, they will come back for a Minor Modification. In terms of construction, he stated
that they recognize it is in peoples' backyards and that they will need to work with the
neighbors. He said they will hire people with good reputations, for which information is
readily available. He concluded that the project is a $22 million investment and asked the
abutters to think proactively about what they want.
Ms. Grant asked the Commission to think about this project as if it were in their own
backyards. Mr. Safina stated that he does that with every project, and that the Commission
strives to protect neighborhoods..
Page 1 7
Ms. Adrian commented that the general feeling is not a `no', it's that the project is too big
for this lot.
Mr. Safina suggested the Applicant present a 3D electronic model so that the building
massing can be better understood and visualized.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to October 2, 2017. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review & Special Permit
292 (aka 288) Grove Street, Meadowbrook Golf
No one was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Safina read the request for a continuance into the record.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing until September 25, 2017. The.
motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review
136 Haven Street, LLC, 136 Haven Street & 0 Sanborn Street
Attorney Brad Latham, Tom Connery, David O'Sullivan and Scott Cameron, P.E. were
present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Safina asked if the Applicant has seen and is okay with the memo from the Town
Engineer. Mr. Latham confirmed the Applicant has reviewed the memo. Ms. Mercier stated
that the Town Engineer told her he has no concerns with the Commission approving the
project, and that anything outstanding can be addressed prior to the building permit being
issued. Mr. Weston noted that the extension of the municipal drain in Haven Street will need
to be clarified. Mr. Cameron replied that he is working with Engineering on this. Ms. Mercier
confirmed that there is a condition in the Decision about the drainage extension in Haven
Street.
The Commission reviewed the Draft Decision.
Mr. Safina commented that approval of the waivers is contingent on the plans submitted,
which show step backs and building details that help minimize the overall massing 'of the
structure. He warned the Applicant not to strip away the details. Ms. Mercier said that the
Decision- will reference the `Final Plans submitted to CPDC.'
Ms. Goncalves-Dolan expressed her concern with the potential for three downtown
developments commencing at the same time. She asked how the Town will deal with
construction sequencing, contractor vehicles, etc. Ms. Delios, Assistant Town Manager,
explained that the Town always conducts a pre -construction meeting with developers to go
over details for public safety, health, contractor parking, construction hours, etc. She noted
that the Town approves projects, but that it is hard to know when construction will start,
since all developers have different timeframes and requirements prior to construction.
Ms. Mercier asked about lighting for the entries and exits. Mr. O'Sullivan said the Lighting
Plan shows the courtyard lighting; and the entries and exits will have low level bollards.
Mr. Weston noted that the location for the proposed. on -street loading zone has not been
shown to or discussed by the Commission, so they have no opportunity to comment. Ms.
Mercier explained the Town's Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) process. She
said that after the PTTTF reviews the proposed loading zone; a recommendation will be
forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. She offered to forward the Commission a copy of the
plan with the proposed loading zone location so they can comment.
Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public.
Page 1 8
Ms. Virginia Adams of the Reading Historical Commission asked whether the Commission
will have to.approve a minor modification for changes to the stone wall. Mr. O'Sullivan said
the details have not been finalized, but that they will try to preserve the stonewall fagade as
much,as possible. He added that for public safety, the sight lines cannot be blocked. Mr.
Jonathan Barnes of the Reading Historical Commission asked whether a condition could be
added requiring the developer to submit the final stone wall plan to the Reading Historical
Commission for input. Mr. Safina agreed that such a condition could be added. .
Mr. Wade Willwerth of 26 Green Street questioned the impact the development will have on
downtown infrastructure. Mr. Tuttle explained that the development will be required to meet
the Building Code and all utilities will have to have sufficient capacity. The Applicant is also
responsible for paying an I&I fee to connect to the sewer system.
Mr. Willwerth asked about the Variances issued for the development. Mr. Safina said the
development is requesting waivers not Variances. Mr. Weston explained that Variances are
a different process than waivers. Mr. Safina explained the waivers for the project.
Ms. Goncalves-Dolan requested the allowed snowbank height be reduced to 24". The
Applicant agreed that this would be fine.
Mr. Safina closed the meeting to the public:
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to close the public hearing for the 40R Plan Review at 136 Haven
Street & 0 Sanborn Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-
0-0 vote.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the 40R Development Plan at 136 Haven Street & 0
Sanborn Street, as amended, including the waivers. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Planninci Updates and Other Topics
Mr. Safina said he is concerned that a secured fence is not installed around the test.pit hole
at the Reading Village development ori Lincoln Street. Ms. Mercier said she brought -the
concern to the Engineering Division, but suggested he contact them directly.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 PM. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meeting:
CPDC Agenda 9/11/2017
Request for Continuance, Meadowbrook Golf Club
23 Edgemont Avenue Special Home Occupation:
a)
Legal Ad
b)
Application
c)
Justification & Special Permit criteria
d)
Images and Documents
e)
Draft Decision
24 Gould Street 4011 Development:
a) Legal Ad
b) Application
c) Plans
d) Supporting Documents & Additional Information
e) Parking Memo
f) Letters from MHC and RHC
g) Map of Residential Units Downtown
h) Memo from Town Engineer
i) Draft Decision
136 Haven Street 4011 Development:
a) Traffic Memo
b) Memo from Town Engineer
c) Revised Draft Decision
Page 1 9