Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading TOWNCLERKMeeting Minutes , REP,1I ;�; u, MA, '•,,,,,•,,, LU 2919 JUL -9 PM 5: 20 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2019-02-11 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Marie Kleponis, Janice Hart, Mark Wetzel, Richard Kleponis,Valerie Thayer, Patricia Stewart, Ron Petnn, Anne Grogan, Suzanne Algeri, Al Perry, Amy Cockrell, Thomas Cockrell, Diane Shatto, Brian Jakimczyk, Lauren Karpenko, Pauline Mastronardi, Debora Lane, Chuck Castelluccio, Brian Dunn, Judy and Michael Coltman, Corey Berkaurd, Leah Harrington, Paul Zanotti, Gale Calhoun, Ben Thayer, Kevin Greenwood, Praveen Limbach, Andrew Street Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Hearing. Definitive Subdivision Plan 135 139 & 149R Howard Street Infrastructure Holdings LLC Kevin Greenwood and Andrew Street were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read the legal notice. Mr. Andrew Street from Civil Design Consultants introduced himself and Kevin Greenwood. He informed the Commission of the meetings that were held with Town staff and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Street presented the proposed subdivision: • The properties are located in the S-15 District; • All three parcels combined are 4.1 acres; • The wetlands in the back were flagged by Norse Environmental in August 2018; • Two single-family homes in the front on Howard Street; • The neighbors are entirely single-family homes; • 6 single-family house lots and 350 foot road off Howard Street; • The pavement will be 24' wide with a 45' paved cul-de-sac radius at the end; • A 50' wide right-of-way layout is proposed; • Trees will be planted; • Development will result in a net of four new homes; • Test pits showed high groundwater; Page 1 1 Town of Reading 0r Meeting Minutes �•'''uRox • Site grading means some homes have drive-under garages; • Utilities brought in from Howard Street; • Sewer main on Howard Street - four back lots will have force mains and two front lots will use gravity; • Stormwater: the entire roadway pitches to wetlands/cul-de-sac; • The break in the curb will allow the stormwater to flow to a swale and infiltration system; • The infiltration will capture, treat and maintain peak Flows; and • The proposal will not improve the existing Flooding concern but will match current Flows. Mr. Street provided a list of waivers that resulted from discussions with Town staff and/or site conditions: • Limited Traffic Study; • Reduce the required roadway paved width from 30' to 24'; • Requesting a 50' right-of-way instead of a 60' right-of-way layout; • No landscaped island in cul-de-sac; • No sidewalks along the new roadway; • Water main deeper elevation than the sewer main; • The water main is not looped, no feasible connection; • No lighting; and • Force mains requested. Mr. Street concluded the presentation and stated: • The subdivision is by-right; • All DEP standards that are required are met; • Working with Conservation Commission; • The subdivision is low-impact in regards to traffic, water and sewer; and • The proposal fits in with the character of the neighboring lots. Ms. Mercier, Community Development Director said that staff recently received feedback from the Town Engineer, Conservation Administrator and Fire Lieutenant and the Applicant is aware of their outstanding concerns. Mr. Street said that a lot of the concerns will be addressed by updating the plans. Mr. Safina pointed out that a big concern from the Conservation Administrator is that the wetland line needs to be re-delineated in the spring. He asked what will happen if a lot is lost once the delineation is done in the spring. Mr. Street said the Applicant wanted to proceed with meeting with the Commission to receive feedback and will reassess this after meeting with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Safina asked if the findings from the test pits were acceptable to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Street explained the Conservation Commission questioned the wetland line when they walked the site. Norse Environmental does not believe the man-made ditch is jurisdictional. He said the meeting on Wednesday will be mainly about the delineation. Mr. Tuttle asked about the pork chop lots next door and asked whether the owners have approved the changes. Mr. Street explained the property line and said there are no proposed changes in that area of the site. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Tuttle for clarification. Mr. Tuttle said the proposal is very close to the neighboring pork chop lots and that this is an opportunity to improve the "back woods" circumstances for the neighbors. Mr. Street said the intent is to maintain the vegetation as much as possible. Page 1 2 Town of Reading 0$ z Meeting Minutes is`''•,Mor. Mr. Safina asked about the contours on the eastern property line. Mr. Street offered to provide more spot grades for clarification of water flows. Ms. Adrian asked about the setback on Lot 3. Mr. Street replied that the setback complies and that the home footprints are shown within the developable areas of each lot. The intent is to show that the homes fit each lot. Ms. Mercier asked if more specific house plans will be provided to the Conservation Commission for the back lots. Mr. Street responded it was discussed, but that request is tricky. The owner wants to build homes to suit potential buyers. Mr. Weston pointed out the challenge of determining contours without more specifics on the proposed homes. Mr. Street replied that the elevations will be held. Ms. Adrian said there could be a concern if someone wants to move their driveway closer to the wetlands. Mr. Street said the intent is to show the general grading patterns and that the homes fit. Mr. Weston said the Engineering memo stated issues with the stormwater design. Mr. Street replied he believes the Engineering Division is seeking additional information and detail. Ms. Mercier apologized that she missed the Town's DRT meeting, and asked if the Applicant can go above and beyond strict compliance and improve the flooding situation for abutters. Mr. Street replied that there is not a lot of flow to begin with and that steps are proposed to reduce them as much as possible. Mr. Safina agreed with Ms. Mercier's question and asked if more capacity could be added to fix problems on the edge. Mr. Street replied that the pond is about as big as it can be. Ms. Mercier asked about adding interim rain gardens to capture some flow before it gets to the infiltration pond. Mr. Safina said the flow goes directly to the pond, and there is nothing slowing it down. Mr. Street said it is a low-impact design, so no hard features are proposed. He said the Applicant will continue to review and make some changes if possible. Ms. Mercier suggested additional soft measures throughout the site. Mr. Safina said the Fire Department is concerned that the 24' wide roadway will not provide fire access if there is on-street parking. Mr. Street replied that Howard Street is not wide, and suggested no on-street parking. He said he has reached out to the Fire Department to discuss. Mr. Tuttle said Lot 3 is entirely within the 100' wetland buffer. He suggested reducing the subdivision to 5 lots to help reduce the impact on the wetlands. Mr. Street said there were originally 7 houses proposed. He said all 6 house lots meet zoning requirements. Mr. Safina questioned how 7 lots could fit on the site. Mr. Tuttle said he understands the economics, but having 5 lots will help mitigate the Engineering and Conservation concerns. Mr. Street said he will talk to the Applicant but the intent is to have 6 houses. Mr. Safina commented that Lot 3 could be used for retention. Mr. Tuttle added that the house could be pushed back if Lot 3 were removed. Mr. Street said the site is woods and grass and is not generating a large amount of storm water. Mr. Safina said that the woods allow for stormwater uptake. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public. Leah Harrington of 127 Howard Street said she owns one of the pork chop lots and was not approached by the Applicant. She noted that the Applicant is not proposing to Increase the capacity of the system but her sump pumps are constantly running. She asked how the Town will access the overflow pipes in the rear of the property and wanted further explanation of the waivers that were requested. Mr. Street replied that a stormwater Page 13 Town of Reading 0� Meeting Minutes 4•�IM•P easement will be provided to the Town. Mr. Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, displayed the plan showing the easement. Mr. Safina explained that the Town's Subdivision Regulations are antiquated and went through the waivers requested by the Applicant. Mr. Street said the sewer in Howard Street is high so the water has to be below it. Mr. Ron Petrin of 119 Howard Street questioned if adding capacity would cause a problem if Howard Street is already high. Mr. Safina explained that Engineering is required to review and sign off on the design. Mr. Petrin expressed concern with the proof plan in relation to the plan being shown, and commented that the houses are skewed. He said the water won't be able to infiltrate and stated the owner must have an idea of the footprints of the homes. Mr. Safina explained the difference between the proof plan and the plan on the screen. He said the Applicant prepares an elaborate water infiltration and stormwater plan that Engineering reviews. Mr. Petrin asked for further explanation of the difference in the plan shown on the screen and the proof plan. Ms. Mercier further explained the proof plan. Mr. Petrin commented that the size of the houses should be important and asked if they will have cellars. Mr. Safina replied that two homes will have crawl spaces and four will have basements. He said the Applicant has to address the stormwater issues and convince Engineering that it works. Mr. Weston said the Applicant needs to submit additional detail to Engineering and prove that they will not make the stormwater situation worse. Ms. Anne Grogan of 136 Howard Street said she disagrees that the proposal is a small low- impact development. She said her view from her home will change and said even though she lives across the road she does get water in her basement. Ms. Grogan asked: what is the meaning of frontage; what are the setbacks; what is coverage; and what is the maximum size of houses? The Commission and Mr. Street answered her questions. Ms. Grogan commented that the average size house should be similar to the existing houses on Howard Street. Mr. Harrington, father of Leah Harrington, expressed concern with the water issue. Mr. Mark Wetzler of 163 County Road said he is familiar with the neighborhood and introduced himself as a Professional Engineer and DPW Director of Ayer, MA. He gave his opinion that what an engineer says and what actually happens are often not the same and stated the following: • The site is currently wooded, and the proposed pavement will cause water to travel more quickly and sheet flow down the road to the cul-de-sac; • He is concerned there are no catch basins to capture sediment; • Wetlands are there because water doesn't infiltrate; • He doesn't think drainage system will work at all; and • The Town Engineer's memo agrees it won't work. Mr. Street responded that he is a Professional Engineer, and that he follows strict guidance on how to design the systems to assure they will work. Mr. Safina asked how the sediment removal will be handled. Mr. Street replied that the sediment will be collected in the forebay and the forebay will be cleaned. Mr. Chuck Castelluccio of 62 Wescroft Road said there is a ground water problem not a stormwater problem. Page 1 4 Town of Reading 0Meeting Minutes Ms. Suzanne Algeri of 149 Howard Street asked about the process moving forward and what the residents should expect. Ms. Mercier said the CPDC will keep their hearing open until the Conservation issues are worked out. She said there could be a number of meetings in the next couple of months. Mr. Weston said before the Commission makes a decision all Conservation issues need to be resolved and Engineering needs to approve the design. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about house plans and plot plans. Ms. Mercier explained that the Definitive Subdivision process does not require information about the actual houses, but that the Conservation Commission typically requires detailed plans for homes/lots that are within resource areas. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there will be additional hearings for each house lot. Ms. Mercier said there will not be another hearing with the Commission but that plot plans are required for each building permit, and that Engineering will need to review the drainage on each lot. She explained that the Conservation Commission might require another meeting once more details of the proposed homes are available, or if the proposed homes change in a way that impacts resource areas. Mr. Petrin asked about the private road/driveway. Ms. Patricia Stewart said her property runs adjacent to the private road/driveway and gave a brief history of how the private road/driveway was created. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Definitive Subdivison for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street, Infrastructure Holdings LLC, to March 11, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street. Readina CRE Ventures LLC Praveen Limbachiya was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina stated that the Applicant has requested the hearing to be continued to March 11, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC, to March Il, 2019 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Sian Permit Analication 587 Main Street. Your CBD Store Brian ]akimczyk was present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Mercier said she clarified with Town Counsel that cannabidiol (CBD) products are not regulated under MGL chapter 94G or in the Zoning Bylaw under the definition of'Marijuana Establishment'. She added that Town Counsel informed her that this product can be regulated at the local level if the Town chooses. Mr. Tuttle explained that CBD is a hemp product and not a marijuana product. He pointed out a local business in Town that has a substantial display of the hemp product. The owner of the business, Mr. Brian ]akimczyk, said Your CBD Store is a national franchise. The product is pulled from industrial hemp and has 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC); and is better categorized as an effective anti-inflammatory, vitamin, aloe, ginseng, and health supplement than a marijuana product. He said the product is legal on the Federal and State level and he is not intending to expand further into other products. Page 1 5 Town of Reading 09 x' Meeting Minutes 4�'�Koar� The Commission reviewed the proposal. Mr. Tuttle noted that the neighboring businesses have a lighter band on the bottom and suggested similar features be used. Mr. Jakimiczyk replied he is open to ideas, and suggested a light blue background with a darker blue flowering and gold lettering. Mr. Safina said a darker awning would stay clean longer. He said the sign has to be opaque. Mr. Jakimiczyk said he would like a turquoise awning. Mr. Safina commented that there is not an existing Master Signage Plan on the building, so colors are not dictated. Mr. Jakimiczyk said the existing awning will be recovered. Mr. Safina cautioned that once the tree is in bloom the awning will be blocked from view. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned the existing Flashing "open" sign. Ms. Mercier said flashing signs are not allowed in Town. Mr. Jakimiczyk said he will make sure the flashing is shut off. Mr. Safina said the approval does not include any lighting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 587 Main Street Your CBD Store, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Updates Review of 24 Gould Street Materials and Sample Boards Ms. Mercier said the review of 24 Gould Street materials and sample boards has been rescheduled to next month. Discussion of safety lighting at Reading Woods Ms. Mercier said she received a request from a Trustee of Reading Woods to install safety lighting because the site parking lots are dark and people have fallen. She said the intention is to install a white LED floodlight on a pilot building to see if the additional lights improve the site lighting and to see if there are potential impacts to residents in the buildings and to the abutters. Mr Tuttle asked how high the lights will be installed on the building and where the light will be aimed. He noted the elevation for Curtis Street is higher. Ms. Mercier said there is a fence located along the Curtis Street property line and said she was told the lights will be mounted low and will not impact residents. Mr. Safina suggested that information should be provided before the lights are mounted and then after they are mounted on the pilot building to see the impact. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the Commission can request the lights be removed if they do not approve them once impacts are determined. Ms. Mercier said that she will make that clear to her contact at Reading Woods. Ms. Adrian asked if similar lights are installed at another property to allow the Commission to do a site visit. Mr. Safina commented the proposed lights between the two buildings will not be seen by residents. Mr. D'Arezzo responded that the homes on South Street could be impacted. Mr. Weston said the proposal is to light up the front of the building. He said the residents at Reading Woods could be impacted. Ms. Mercier clarified that the proposal needs to be vetted so that the Commission can speak directly with the Trustee. Mr. Safina explained the Curtis Street side landscape did not thrive and a fence was installed to create a buffer. Mr. Weston asked if there is existing site lighting. Mr. Safina said he will visit the property on his way home to look at the existing lighting and provide pictures. Ms. Mercier said she will contact the Trustee to let her know that a public process will be required before the lights are approved. Page 1 6 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes Potential Zonino Bvlaw Amendments for November Town Meeting 2019 Ms. Mercier mentioned some documents she prepared since the last meeting on the potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November Town Meeting 2019. Lots in Two Districts Mr. Tuttle asked for phrasing that distinguishes overlay districts from base zoning districts. Mr. Tuttle said he was unsure an overlay district would create the same situation as a lot that expands the zoning district boundary. Ms. Mercier opined that there are two types of overlay districts - overlays based on environmental conditions such as aquifer catchment areas and Floodplain boundaries, and overlays that provide for certain uses or dimensional regulations. Mr. Tuttle asked how the zone boundary extension would apply to a property that is in the S-15 District and a portion is in AQP. Ms. Mercier explained that the boundaries of the AQP overlay are based on topography and would not be extended further onto a property. However, a lot split between two base zoning districts would be able to extend one base zoning district in order to allow use or dimensional regulations of that district on more of the property. Mr. Tuttle asked in this scenario would the AQP interfere with the S-15 District. Ms. Mercier responded that the AQP overlay would not interfere and explained how lot coverage restrictions of each district would be applied. After discussion, it was agreed residents would likely not request the AQP to be expanded on their property. Footnote 1 to the Table of Uses Mr. Safina suggested discussing Footnote 1. Ms. Mercier said that an initial report the GIS Administrator generated returned almost 900 properties that could potentially utilize Footnote 1. She qualified this by noting that the building commissioner would have to review each property in person to see if it met the criteria of Footnote 1. She said that based on feedback at the last meeting, she is not proposing to eliminate Footnote 1 but to align the language with the understood intent. She noted that one positive result could be the creation of smaller, more affordable housing units. Mr. Safina said the change to section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 would limit the amount of expansion that will be allowed to an existing structure. Ms. Mercier responded she was not sure what the amount should be, but in the past the amount of expansion allowed changed the structure considerably. Mr. Tuttle commented that the proposed changes to the bylaw are appropriate. Ms. Hitch discussed the memo from Town Counsel. Ms. Mercier noted that Town Counsel continues to recommend removing Footnote 1. She added that removing Footnote 1 could cause confusion in the future between structures converted under the Footnote and pre- existing non-conforming two-family structures. It might be hard to trace without a good record at Town Hall or at the Registry. Mr. Tuttle said the language clearly states why Footnote 1 should remain. Mr. Safina asked if structures can be converted by-right without Footnote 1. Ms. Mercier replied that Footnote 1 is necessary to allow two-family conversions in single-family districts. She said a benefit to keeping Footnote 1, if the economics work, would be smaller affordable units that would expand housing options in Town. Mr. Safina invited the public to comment. Carlo Bacci of 494 Main Street asked why the changes to Footnote 1 are being proposed. Mr. Safina responded that there are concerns that Footnote 1 is confusing and could become a legal mess. Mr. Weston added there have been developers who have presented proposals that have stretched the limits and perhaps deviated from the intent of the Footnote. He explained the intent of Footnote 1. Ms. Mercier said that currently Footnote 1 allows a by- right conversion and that a building permit can be issued by the Building Commissioner Page 1 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes once certain criteria are met. She said it has been very challenging at the counter because the language is not specific. Mr. Bacci commented on the 900 single-family structures that could be converted by-right to a two-family and questioned the impact on neighbors. Mr. Weston responded that the current wording of the Footnote 1 is unclear and could result in conversions that are not in keeping with the neighborhood. He asked if the Town should allow conversion of single- family homes at all. Mr. Safina commented that building a new structure twice the size of the existing structure could destroy neighborhood character. Mr. Bacci asked about in-law apartments. Ms. Mercier replied that in-law apartments are allowed under a different provision of the bylaw. Mr. Safina commented that people have tried to manipulate Footnote 1. Mr. Tuttle explained why Footnote 1 was created. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that Footnote 1 was created to allow an additional unit in an existing large historic dwelling. Mr. Weston asked if the existing language would allow an addition and then a few months later a two-family conversion in the new larger structure. Ms. Mercier said that she believes it would. The Commission discussed the language. Mr. Bacci said it is difficult to create language to make sure all scenarios are covered. Mr. Tuttle suggested allowing the two-family conversion by Special Permit. Mr. Weston agreed with changing the approval to Special Permit. Ms. Mercier said Special Permits are recorded with the Registry of Deeds which will create a record of why the conversion was allowed. Mr. Tuttle said a Special Permit will allow input from the abutters. The language on the allowed increase was discussed. Ms. Mercier repeated Town Counsel has recommended eliminating Footnote 1. Ms. Hitch said if Footnote 1 is eliminated then a single-family structure cannot be converted to a two-family structure, which could impact homeowners negatively. Mr. Weston said one way a resident could downsize is to convert a large single-family into a two-family and live in one of the units. He said he liked requiring a Special Permit. Ms. Mercier asked if the approval should be by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Community Planning Development Commission. Mr. Tuttle pointed out a few properties that have come to the Commission for approval. Mr. Safina suggested looking at the Special Permit process and creating language that would help the Commission. He questioned how the change to Footnote 1 can be explained at Town Meeting. The Commission discussed whether a two-family conversion is counted towards total housing units or affordable units. Use and Intensity Regulations in Business A Ms. Mercier brought forward changes to the Use and Intensity Regulations in Business A and provided scaled maps that show the lots and zoning along south Main Street. She summarized the discussion from the last meeting and explained her thought process on her proposal to allow feasible residential development and to expressly permit mixed-use without drastically altering the commercial corridor. Mr. Safina asked about section 6.2.4.3 and if the percentage of commercial could be waived. Ms. Mercier replied she did not know if 25% is the correct number for commercial but wanted to start somewhere. Mr. Safina said allowing residential units would be beneficial to a developer until the commercial is established. Ms. Mercier pointed out the changes to the Use Regulations, Section 5. She said if residential units are allowed then some should be required to be affordable. Mr. Safina page 1 8 Town of Reading ' Meeting Minutes agreed affordable units should be required and asked if this use would be allowed in Business C as well. Mr. Weston asked if multi-use structures are currently allowed in Business A. Ms. Mercier said the Zoning Bylaw does not expressly permit or prohibit mixed-use in Business A, and that multiple principal uses are allowed in one building. Mr. Weston clarified that any mixed- use proposal would have to comply with the most restrictive dimensional requirements. Ms. Mercier agreed and said thatthelimits on multi-family are very challenging. She questioned if that is how the Town wants to do zoning - allow but discourage what we don't want versus encouraging what we do want. Ms. Mercier said there are properties on south Main Street that could potentially be developed and questioned if the zoning should be changed to allow flexibility. Mr. Weston opined that if the Town wants more redevelopment then changes should be made to allow flexibility. Ms. Mercier said that maintaining dimensional limits on multi-family will prevent developers from proposing all housing, but that allowing mixed-use and specifying what the Town wants will give developers additional flexibility. She clarified that she added Mixed Use and defined it to include a residential component and to require a Special Permit from the Commission. This will distinguish it from what currently happens with multi-use buildings - they either get a building permit or go through Site Plan Review if the thresholds are triggered. The idea is for the Commission not to have to review every multi-use proposal within an existing building. Mr. Safina said the Commission should review the proposed changes. The Commission discussed inclusionary housing and what size project should be required to have affordable housing. The Commission explained the end result for the changes is to allow development on the properties on south Main Street that are limited by topography or size. Mr. Safina asked about a public workshop. Ms. Mercier replied that it is probably a bit too soon for a public workshop, but that they should have some in the lead up to November Town Meeting. She asked if her proposed changes are how the Commission wants to proceed. Mr. Tuttle replied the Commission needs to discuss what is proposed to ensure it will work on south Main Street. Mr. Weston said the Town absolutely needs to allow mixed- use and the Commission generally agreed the changes are going in the right direction. Mr. Praveen Limbachiya, owner of 258-262 Main Street, asked for clarification on the proposed changes to lots that are in two zoning districts. Ms. Mercier explained the proposed change and said she will forward the document to Mr. Limbachiya. She said it is also available on the Town website. Approval of CPDC Minutes of 01/14/2019 Ms. Mercier said the approval of minutes will be tabled until next month. Discussion of 40R Desion Guidelines Ms. Mercier said she has been working on the 40R Design Guidelines and will forward the document to the Commission for feedback. Ms. Mercier confirmed the Town received a District Management Grant. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a S-O-O vote. Page 1 9 Town of Reading $ X Meeting Minutes Documents ed at the f Agenda 02/11/2019 Continuance Request, 258-262 Main Street Sign Permk Application, 582 Main Street - 135-149R Howard Street, Definitive Subdivision • Definitive Subdivision Plan, dated 12/21/18 • Proof Plan, dated 1/29/19 • Existing Watershed Plan, dated 12/5/18 • Proposed! Watershed Plan, dated 12/5/18 • Drainage Report, dated 12/21/18 • Notice of Intent, dated 12/28/18 • Conservation Memo, 2/7/19 • Reading Fire Department Comments, 2/7/19 • Memo from Town Engineer, 2/7/19 • Draft Decision, 2/11/19 Zoning Bylaw Amendments 2019 • Lots in Two Districts: o Track Changes o Clean • Footnote I: o Track Changes I Clean • Use Regulations • Intensity Regulations Page 1 10