Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading TOWNEIVED CLERK 3 Meeting Minutes P, EA D hAJ,, MA �a ?k 2021 MAR 30 AM II: 04 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-01-11 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meefing Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol,Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Economic Development Director Erin Schaeffer, Giovanni Fodera, Michael Salamone,Adam Goncalves, Select Board Member Cado Bacci, Select Board Member Karen Herrick,Watt Tuvell, Michael Palmer, Lisa Egan, Liz Whitelam, Select Board Chair Mark Dockser, Jack Devir, Susan Coram, Penny Jean Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chair John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the pandemic have been. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. She explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments for any given application. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Select Board Chair Mark Dockser called the Reading Select Board to order. Public Hearing Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2021 Annual Town Meeting Outdoor Commerce Dining Programming or Storage Mr. Weston informed the public that the discussion which will ensue tonight will revolve around the CPDC's attempt to streamline and add zoning language to the Bylaw in order to allow Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage as an accessory use. This would encourage businesses to use their private land for a number of outdoor uses. He continued that the need arose from the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemlc but is expected to be viable well into the future. He noted that applications looking to utilize public land would be handled under a different process. Ms. Adrian read the notice of public hearing into the record. Ms. Mercier showed the proposed language developed so far on the screen and went through it section by section. She began by stating this is the fourth time the CPDC has discussed this proposed amendment but tonight is the opening of the official public hearing for the zoning amendment. She mentioned that changes have been made from the previous discussion the CPDC had in November 2020. 1 � OfR `+ Town of Reading r -y... Meeting Minutes Ms. Mercier stated that a holistic review of the Zoning Bylaw was done to determine which sections would need amending in order to allow Outdoor Dining, Commerce, Programming, or Storage. The proposed language requires a number of sections to be amended including 2.0 Definitions, 4.6 Site Plan Review and 5.3 Table of Uses. Ms. Mercier read the proposed definition to the public. She stated that applications for such are proposed to trigger a Minor Site Plan Review by the CPDC. Minor Site Plan Review gives both town staff and the CPDC procedural flexibility. Requirements for notification are specified and exceed the typical requirements. At a minimum, abutting tenants and businesses will be notified in addition to property owners within a 300' radius of the site. A special Minor Site Plan Review application is being created for Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage applications. Ms. Mercier stated that the Minor Site Plan Review bylaw currently contains language, in two separate sections, allowing the CPDC to waive parking and loading requirements. She noted that waivers are not by-right and are to be negotiated during discussions with the Applicant when appropriate. She stated that the intent Is to combine the two parking and loading waiver sections into one and have it apply to all business districts. Ms. Mercier explained the new Section 4.6.3.4, which contains the criteria for approval for any Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage applications. Criteria for review includes: • The duration of the use - both daily hours and seasonality of the use. Some applications may also be applicable on an annual basis. • Site circulation and access - to ensure safe access by pedestrian, vehicle and emergency visitors alike; • Availability of and Impact to parking; • Intensification of the use - to ensure what is being applied for is not intensifying the existing principal use of the site. An example was given that a restaurant could not simply double their seating count by providing both indoor and outdoor seating. • Dimensions of structures and furnishings proposed as well as methods to secure them; • Description of materials and products to be displayed at the outdoor use; • Information on additional lighting, heating or sound needed; • Measurement of the setback of structures to property line; • Measures to address visual impacts of the use (i.e. screening, landscaping, etc.); • Justification for proposed signage, if any; and • Coordination with competing uses and consideration for neighboring uses. Ms. Mercier stated that updates are also needed to Section 5 of the Zoning Bylaw. Table 5.3 requires the addition of an acronym for Minor Site Plan Review (MSPR), which is then noted within the Table of Uses for the Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage use. This would make it clear a Minor Site Plan Review is required for the use. She stated a footnote was drafted and added to Section 5.3.1 Table of Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts to clarify that this use would also be allowed for properties within the Downtown Smart Growth Zoning District. The footnote also Includes language prohibiting Home Occupations, which itself is an accessory use, from applying for Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage uses. It Is unclear if there can be an accessory use to an existing accessory use. A similar footnote was added for Section 5.3.2 Table of Uses in Residence Districts which states that primary commercial uses in residential districts could apply for Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage uses but again restricted Home Occupations from applying for such. Mr. D'Arezzo stated the proposed language in Section 4.6.3.2 asks for printed copies of the application. He asked if an electronic version should be required. Ms. Mercier replied that 2 R Town of Reading Meeting Minutes there is language asking for electronic submissions in addition to the hard copy requirements. Mr. Weston added that hard copies are required for the Town Hall file. Mr. D'Arezzo stated the language of'may be required to return to CPDC' within Section 4.6.3.4 Criteria for Approval should be amended to'shall be required'. He expressed concern about relying on complaints to force Applicants to come back to the Commission. Ms. Mercier replied that it would be preferred if Applicants can work things out at the staff level. Ms. Clish responded with language that would require the Commission to be more active and require reappearances if needed. Mr. D'Arezzo stated he would defer to the Commission majority. Mr. Safina stated explicit language should be drafted requiring the Applicants to submit proposed solutions to Town staff who will determine if they will need to revisit CPDC. Mr. D'Arezzo presented concerns of allowing the Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage use in Residence Districts, even if by Minor Site Plan Review, due to proximity of residential abutters. He gave an example of a business looking for a similar use in 2019 that was unsuccessful. Ms. Mercier replied that is a worthy discussion point, but some existing businesses are found on larger tracts of land within the residential zones. She noted Meadowbrook Golf Club as an example. Mr. Weston opined that the Commission could heavily condition any application with large Impacts to residential abutters, and he noted that most businesses within business zones also have residential abutters. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado commented that the proposed language requiring review by CPDC is beneficial to applicants due to the Commission's experience. She asked how Applicants and businesses will be able to inform the Commission of how competing uses will be Impacted. Mr. Safina clarified that the burden will not be fully on the business applicant, but that staff and Commission members will be able to provide input as well as any abutter or public attendee. Ms. Alvarado acknowledged that will be helpful to Applicants. Ms. Alvarado asked to clarify if the Town will send the notice to abutters or if they will require Applicants to do such. Ms. Mercier replied that Town staff will be responsible for mailing the notices, email notifications and additional outreach as needed. Ms. Alvarado then asked what the realistic timeline for approval is expected. Ms. Mercier responded that the process could be as short as two or three weeks. A minimum of one-week notification would be given to abutting property owners, businesses and tenants. Select Board Member Karen Herrick appreciated the summary presented. She stated allowing businesses to revisit issues with staff and/or the CPDC will result in a cooperative effort to address issues that may arise. Select Board Member Carlo Bacci asked if it was known how many businesses are within a residential zoning district. Ms. Mercier stated she could get a ballpark estimate but cannot provide a number at the moment. Mr. Bacci stated that he does not want to overly condition businesses within such zones based on a small number of complaints. Mr. Weston stated the Commission is consistently looking at impacts to residential abutters but most commercial uses, even those In residential zones, abut other commercial uses. Mr. Safina added that a complaint does not always result in a condition. Select Board Chair Mark Dockser asked if staff will work with the business applicants beforehand to gather the required materials well before the CPDC hearing. Though it will not guarantee approval it may help expedite things. Ms. Mercier agreed that this is the desired 3 r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes outcome and is also the current practice. She stated that some businesses looking to utilize this language are being coordinated with already and that any unexpected applications can be accommodated with additional meetings as needed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked whether changes to the language would be required if the Select Board delegates review of applications within public ways to the CPDC. Ms. Mercier informed Mr. D'Arezzo that the Select Board did not delegate their authority in that regard. Mr. Weston affirmed that at a recent Select Board meeting the potential for such was discussed but the Select Board decided to keep their authority. Thus, the authority was not delegated to CPDC and will remain with the Select Board. Mr. Dockser agreed. Mr. D'Arezzo appreciated the confirmation. Ms. Lisa Egan, of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce, stated she appreciated the flexibility the language allows for and that staff would be coordinating with businesses. Mr. Weston gave credit to Town staff for working heavily on the language and outreach. Ms. Egan agreed and stated that staff working with the business community Is appreciated. Ms. Mercier asked to review some amendments to the language based on tonight's discussion. Within Section 4.6.3.4 Criteria for Approval language was amended to reflect that Applicants propose solutions to negative Impacts to Town Staff who will determine if CPDC must revisit the proposal. The Commission reviewed the newly proposed language that would require Applicants to submit proposed solutions to Town Staff If complaints are filed. The Commission agreed with the amended language. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission agreed that Home Occupations should be restricted from using this accessory use. The Commission replied in the affirmative. Mr. Weston asked for clarification on next steps. Ms. Mercier informed everyone that the language will not be voted on until the April Town Meeting, which is at the end of April. Businesses looking to apply can reach out to Town Hall and staff will help coordinate the requirements for the application in the meantime. If the zoning amendment is approved, the CPDC will go ahead with some meetings In early May to get the applications In right away. She added that the CPDC can close the public hearing and have Town Counsel review the proposed language. The language can be refined based on tonight's conversation, and Town Counsel can amend it as needed. The Board agreed that closing the public hearing made sense. Ms. Adrian made a motion to close the public hearing for Proposed Zoning Amendments for April 2021 Town Meeting - Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage. Ms. Clish seconded the motion; it was approved 5-0-0. Mr. Safina made a motion to recommend that Town Meeting approve the Proposed Zoning Amendments for April 2011 Town Meeting - Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage as amended. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Mr. Bacci made a motion to adjourn the Select Board. Ms. Herrick seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. 4 FR r Town of Reading a Meeting Minutes D'INryP Continued Public Hearing 40R Plan Review 531 Main Street ACG RE Reading. LLC Mr. Weston announced that the Applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing for a 40R Plan Review to the February 8, 2021 CPDC meeting date. The hearing will be scheduled for 7:30PM on the February 8, 2021 agenda. Other Business 2021 Stormwater Bylaw Update General Bylaw Town Engineer Ryan Percival was present to summarize the proposed changes to the Stormwater Bylaw, which is found within the Town's General Bylaw, to the CPDC. He explained that this update is required under the MS4 permit requirements and the Town has worked to meet all requirements. Definition changes, requirements for additional Low Impact Development (LID), exemptions and more are all under consideration. Requirements have changed for rainfall frequencies and data used; the current process of staff review and Conservation Commission or CPDC approval will continue. If the Stormwater Bylaw changes are approved by Town Meeting, Town Counsel will provide updates to the CPDC's Stormwater Regulations as needed. A memo will be drafted by Town Counsel and provided to the CPDC explaining all changes. Mr. Weston asked about the language that will remove the exemption for projects permitted under the Wetlands Protection Act. He stated that the CPDC typically waits for Conservation Commission input In order to minimize confusion, back and forth, and plan changes. Mr. Percival stated that Town Counsel would be able to better answer the question but that the change is due to the existing language in the Wetlands Protection Act not aligning with the Massachusetts stormwater standards, which in turn do not yet reflect the MS4 permit requirements. Relying on Conservation Commission review is not technically satisfactory for the MS4 permit. Ms. Mercier noted that the current practice in Reading is that the Town Engineer and Conservation Administrator require applicants to meet the new MS4 permit requirements. Ms. Mercier asked if the exemption is needed if the Conservation Commission is already requiring the permit requirements to be met. Mr. Percival stated he will reach out to Town Counsel for a more definitive answer. Mr. Weston clarified that the concern is that Applicants may need to perform revisions/analysis twice which would result in a lengthier approval process. Mr. Percival agreed. Public Hearing 4-Lot Definitive Subdivision a Cold Spring Road Michael Salamone Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for a definitive subdivision application at the land of 4 Cold Spring Road. Ms. Mercier affinned that numerous members of the application team were present Including project engineer Giovanni Fodera, project developer Michael Salamone, project attorney Adam Goncalves and land owner Penny lean. Mr. Weston asked if the applicants would provide an update from the last hearing as well as a summary of changes. Mr. Fodera introduced himself and began by sharing the plan set on screen. He stated that the proof plan has been revised and that the Town Engineer has confirmed that it conforms 5 Town of Reading 40 Meeting Minutes to the subdivision rules and regulations. He added that the stormwater report was updated to include the latest required data which subsequently resulted in an increase to the drainage/infiltration system within the land. The system went from 72 chambers to 105 chambers. A drainage easement is provided within Lot 2 and Lot 3 for the total area of the system. Phosphorus removal from stormwater runoff was proven as well. Mr. Fodera also informed the Commission that trees on Town land that would need to be removed for grading purposes have been identified and labeled. He stated he is proposing Maple Trees as replacement, but the species and location will require approval from the Town Tree Warden. Mr. Fcdera added that'No Parking' signage has been added to the west side of the proposed street due to the proposed 25' paved roadway width. He continued that the applicant team will submit a'Request for Determination of Applicability' (RDA) to the Conservation Commission and opined that the project has very minimal disturbance to the buffer zone located at the rear of the site. Mr. Fodera stated that he had explored the potential of removing the access easement proposed for Lot 4. He stated that he had conducted a site walk and a large amount of ledge was found within the area in question. He found that due to the presence of the ledge the access easement provided a better access point and allowed for easier maintenance. Mr. Weston asked the Town Engineer to confirm his requests have been met. Mr. Percival confirmed that the revised proof plan does meet regulations and that the stormwater report has been updated to his satisfaction which also meets the MS4 permit requirements. Mr. Weston asked if the Conservation Commission's RDA application will result in changes to the plans. Mr. Fodera replied that changes to the Flags are not expected and disturbance will be minimal. Flow directed towards the area will be clean of pollutants. Ms. Adrian asked if the existing dwelling is accessed by the gravel road in the area. Mr. Fodera clarified that the existing house Is accessed through a driveway located on Cold Spring Road and that the portion of Grandview Road in review is currently undeveloped. Ms. Adrian then asked If the utilities will be placed underground. Mr. Fodera replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fodera then clarified that owners of Lots 2, 3 and 4 will maintain the proposed drainage easement. Ms. Mercier asked Mr. Percival if this practice Is standard. Mr. Percival responded that the subdivision can manage its own stormwater through the mentioned documents or that the Town can receive an easement for such due to the presence of the public infrastructure. Mr. Weston asked if the slope easement proposed is satisfactory to the Town. Mr. Percival stated he is unsure if the easement will require Select Board approval but added that he is okay with the proposed easement. Mr. Percival believed it will lead to a better result over a retaining wall being Installed in the area. He added trees to be removed and replaced will go through the standard procedure. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the private road will be maintained by the homeowners and If buyers will be aware of such. Mr. Fodera stated the road will remain private; management and maintenance will be addressed through a homeowner's association. Mr. Goncelves agreed and stated that covenants will be drafted for all parties. Mr. Weston asked if the adjacent roadways of Cold Spring Road and Ridge Road are private or public. Mr. Goncalves believed Cold Spring Road Is a private way but deferred to the 6 r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Town Engineer. Ms. Clish asked if Cold Spring Road is paved. Mr. Percival stated the road is private and is partially paved. He added that he will look for information on Ridge Road. Ms. Clish asked what would happen if the privately maintained road was damaged during construction. Ms. Mercier replied that typically whoever damages the roadways is responsible to fix it, but if it Is damaged due to normal wear and tear that would not be the case. Mr. Percival agreed and stated that is the practice for public ways as well. Mr. Goncalves affirmed. Mr. Safina suggested that the Applicants document the pre-existing conditions before starting work. Mr. Goncalves agreed that images should be taken and expressed appreciation for the idea. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Angelo Salamone of 45 Beacon Street commended the design of the development and opined it is superior to any previous designs. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Mr. Salamone is a part of the development team. Mr. Salamone replied In the negative and noted that his son Michael Salamone is involved in the project. Mr. Weston asked for clarification on next steps if the Applicant is applying for an RDA from the Conservation Commission. Ms. Mercier asked to clarify if the RDA Is applicable to the entire tract of land or only to Lot 1 and Lot 2. She asked if the wetland delineation is in question. Mr. Fodera stated it is only for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as they are the only lots that include land within the buffer zone. The flag locations were determined about six months ago and are still valid. Mr. Fodera Informed the Board that a Notice of Intent (NOI) will not be required. Mr. Fodera showed a proposed rendering of the development on screen. Mr. Saflna stated the rendering showed plantings over the drainage system which is not plausible. Ms. Clish asked for clarification of the same plantings. Mr. Fodera clarified that plantings will not be installed over the drainage Infrastructure. Mr. Weston asked if the structure within the adjacent lot to the east of Lot 3 was a residence. Ms. Adrian replied In the affirmative and stated that the resident was present at the last hearing. She stated that a church is located at the front of the lot and the residence Is behind it. Mr. Weston opined that if the Conservation Administrator Is recommending an RDA process then disturbance to wetland resource areas may occur. Mr. Fodera echoed the thoughts made by the Conservatlon Administrator who felt impacts will be minor. Mr. Weston opined that the hearing be continued until the Conservation process is complete to ensure such. Ms. Mercier agreed with this procedurally. Mr. Goncalves asked if an approval could be conditioned for the Conservation approval. Mr. Weston stated that any minor changes would need to come back before the Commission, so waiting Is better than closing the hearing and voting tonight. This would avoid the requirement for a new public hearing and notification which could be time consuming. A resident of 10 Grandview Road asked if the new road would be tided as Grandview Road. Mr. Weston replied that the Applicant has proposed the name 'Penny Lane'which is subject to approval by the Town. Mr. Weston asked if the Select Board would approve such a name. Mr. Percival replied that the Engineering and Public Safety Departments will review the name, and It may also require additional approval by the Select Board. Ms. Susan Coram of 31 Ridge Road asked about the cost and documents required for the maintenance of the stormwater system. Ms. Coram acknowledged that this may have been 7 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes answered earlier with the Information that a homeowner's association will be formed. She then asked if both Cold Spring Road and Grandview Road are private ways. Mr. Percival replied that he can confirm that the entirety of both Cold Spring Road and Grandview Road are private. Mr. Weston asked If Ridge Road is public. Mr. Percival stated Ridge Road is a public way and a portion of it was paved a few years ago. Mr. Sarna made a motion to continue the public hearing for a 4-lot Derinitive Subdivision for the land located at 4 Cold Spring Road to February 8, 2021 at 8.30PM. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Other Business Potential __i_.. Bylaw Amendments for November 2021 Ms. Mercier stated that Town staff are looking for direction regarding the CPDC's priorities for November Subsequent Town Meeting or beyond. She shared a document outlining some possibilities. She noted that two instructional motions were approved at 2020 Subsequent Town Meeting: one asking the CPDC to review the 40R bylaw lot coverage and open space requirements, and another for the CPDC, Board of Health and Select Board to establish regulations for Short Term Rentals. Ms. Mercier continued that the 40R bylaw warrants a deeper and more holistic review. Ms. Adrian asked if there is a formal definition of pocket parks. Ms. Mercier stated that she is not aware of the formal definition, but that it Is typically a small open space, maybe with a bench or a tree, provided within an urban context. Mr. Weston opined the term can vary in different contexts. He provided an example of the Postmark Square development, which Included a small, landscaped area, and Elm Park located on Main Street. Ms. Mercier noted that the second instructional motion includes involvement from a number of different commissions and town departments. She noted that the CPDC may not be the leader of that conversation, but that they can be prepared with information and examples from other towns, and ideas for how Short-Term Rentals could fit and be regulated within the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Mercier stated that, prior to the pandemic, the CPDC was looking at updating the Use Table and Its associated definitions. She added that the prior work by staff revealed how complex the Issues are with the Table and Definitions, and that it was hard to find a way to make changes without an entire overhaul. She suggested that staff could revisit it and focus on changes that could help drive new economic development or find another lens through which to study and characterize the changes. She noted that while certain changes of use should be reviewed, rearranging the Use Categories may result in an increase in Site Plan Review applications, some of which may not be warranted. She said staff are trying to find the balance between being business friendly and allowing proper review and public notification for changes that could have new impacts or external hies. She suggested that staff could also look at the triggers for Site Plan Review to see If changes could be made from that angle. Ms. Mercier noted that an update to the Floodplain Bylaw is needed to bring it Into compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This has come to light within the past year. In addition to this, the Commission could also take this opportunity to revisit what uses and level of development are allowed in the floodplain. Currently, development within the floodplain is heavily restricted, and the majority of the floodplain constrains an area that is considered one of the town's major Priority Development Areas (PDA). She 8 r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes noted that these notions do not necessarily have to be at odds with one another; there are creative flood-resilient ways of engineering a site so development is above the floodplain and Is sensitive to the need for flood storage. Ms. Mercier stated that the sign bylaw could be due for an update but that she feels It is not a priority at the moment. She also noted that the parking bylaw could use a refresh, with a focus on the language that permits a business or commercial development to provide no parking if within 300'of a municipal parking lot. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how the Instructional motions will be discussed at the April 2021 Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier stated the time frames on the instructional motions are not binding but that the CPDC should probably provide an update at April Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that if the Town can receive taxes/Income on Short Term Rentals then we should not miss this opportunity while we wait to develop regulations. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that retrofits of a site should also trigger Site Plan Review at certain thresholds. Mr. Weston opined that externalities would need to be considered as the use and function are the most driving factors. If a site is remaining as the same business or use then it should not need a full Site Plan Review. Mr. D'Arezzo agreed with removing the 300'exclusion clause in the parking bylaw. Mr. Weston agreed that this should be reviewed and addressed further. Ms. Adrian opined that reviewing the 40R Bylaw would be a priority preference. Mr. Weston had concerns with the instructional motion language. He felt that the requested change and language will not result in the desire for green space discussed at Town Meeting. Ms. Clish agreed that the staff recommendation of reviewing the entire bylaw would be more beneficial. Ms. Mercier opined that the language voted on would not always result in a reduction to setbacks. Mr. Weston opined that the Short-Term Rental conversation not be at the forefront due to the amount of work that the 4011 Bylaw will take. He added that he would not want to amend the sign bylaw at this moment in time. Mr. Weston questioned if the Use Table could be reviewed again to determine if any surgical fixes are possible. Mr. Weston agreed that a time should be set to discuss any amendments to the parking bylaw and what such would entail. Mr. Weston stated that the Floodplain Bylaw was updated fairly recently. Mr. Safina agreed and stated the Floodplain maps have recently been updated. Ms. Mercier asked If they were thinking of the Aquifer Protection District, which was amended in 2014 or 2015. Mr. Weston confirmed he was talking about the Aquifer Protection District. Mr. Safina opined that updates to the Floodplain Overlay District would be a heavy workload for staff and require a lot of education. Mr. Safina questioned if our floodplain areas would be Impacted by sea level rise or not. He asked how low the elevation of the floodplain is as a 2-foot depth versus a 7-foot depth would be a mayor difference. Ms. Clish asked if this would be Informed by the MVP process or the flood insurance maps. Ms. Mercier stated that she will look to get answers to the questions raised. Mr. Weston opined that in the past Conservation Wetland Bylaw updates could compare to the Floodplain upgrades. He asked if the state regulations are ahead of where Reading 9 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes would want the Bylaw to be. He stated if so it could be a simpler process. Ms. Mercier responded that she will look into this as it would be very helpful information. Ms. Mercier reviewed what uses are currently allowed in the Floodplain. She stated the language is strong but because the area is labeled as a Priority Development Area it may warrant additional uses. Existing sites and structures have been 'stuck' in terms of how they can be expanded or redeveloped. Ms. Clish opined that the 40R Bylaw take top priority. Mr. Safina stated that the Floodplain updates could be done in the background; research can be gathered and discussed over time. Mr. Weston agreed the goal for that is not yet as clear as for some others. Minutes 9/9/20 Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the 9/9/20 minutes as amended. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. 11/2/20 Ms. Mercier asked that the 11/2/20 minutes be reviewed at a later hearing so that she could further review the language, 11/23/20 Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the 11/23/20 minutes as amended. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. 12/14/20 Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the 12/14/20 minutes as amended. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Adiournment Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11;07 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda l/11/21 CPDC Minutes of 9/920, 11/220, 11/23/20, 12/14/20 2021 Zoning Bylaw Amendments, Public Hearing o OCDPS Track Changes Document,dated 1/11/21 4 Cold Spring Road, Definitive Subdivision Application 0 Application Form 0,Waiver Requests and Supporting Information o Definitive Subdivision Plan Set,dated 12/29/20 o Stormwater Report,dated 12/16/20 o Memo from Town Engineer, dated 1/7/21 o Draft Decision,dated 12/1420 Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November 2021 o Priority Setting Document, dated 1/11/21 10