HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-28 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes� oraeq
° Town of Reading "R'ECE'IVED
Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK
REEDING, td A.
'IyC00.o P -JL
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2022 JUL 12 AH 6: 27
Community Planning and Development Commission
Date: 2022-02-28 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom
Address: Session:
Purpose: Remote Meeting Version:
Attendees: Members: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Nick Safina,
Heather Clish, John Weston, Catrina Meyer, Tony D'Arezzo - Associate
Members - Not Present:
Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner
Andrew MacNichol, Saverio Fulciniti, Rob Paccione, Jill Mayberry, Art Triglione, Dave
Talbot, Jonathan Eames, Josh Latham, Jamie Gerrity, Jeff Olinger, Patrick McCarty,
Bryan Vassar, Valerie , Bob Holmes, Nancy Castine, Steve Knight, Liz Whitelam,
Barry_, Chris Latham, Jeremy Donovan, Kevin Vendt, Lynne Port, Gregg Johnson,
Anders, Sarah Brukilacchio, Neal McCush, Chris Senna
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol
Topics of Discussion:
MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM
Ms. Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
Lot Release Request- 135-1498 Howard Street 6-Lot Subdivision
Joy Lane
Mr. MacNichol stated that the Applicant is requesting a Form L be endorsed by the CPDC to
release the 6-lots of the Howard Street subdivision for building permit. Mr. MacNichol
continued that the Applicant has met all conditions prior to lot release within the 2020
decision of the project. The CPDC endorsed the plans in 2020 and also approved the
covenant and surety in 2022.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if lot release is common this early or if it should be requested upon
completion of construction. Mr. MacNichol stated it is needed before any building permits
can be issued. This applies to all approved subdivisions. He continued that a Certificate of
Completion would be acted upon when the project is finished. While lots can be released
individually the Applicant is requesting that all be released.
Ms. Clish made a motion to endorse the Form L Lot Release Request for the 135-
149R Howard Street 6-Lot Subdivision requesting that lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be
released. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review
6-16 Chute Street, Plimsoll Comoanv
Mr. Josh Latham, Mr. Jeff Olinger, Mr. Jamie Gerrity, and Mr. Patrick McCarty were present
for the application. Mr. Latham stated that the CPDC provided comments on project density
at the last hearing which the Applicant would like to address.
� OFR
Town of Reading
,. Meeting Minutes
� Ja; IMOR
Mr. Olinger shared the most recent plan set on-screen. Mr. Olinger opined that the project
should qualify for a density waiver as it serves as an anchor to two primary commercial
streets and is within 100'to the META commuter rail line in Reading. He shared an image
depicting areas within a five-minute walk of the project location. Those looking to walk from
residential neighborhoods to the commercial area would benefit, and those living within the
commercial district will have walkable residential neighborhoods to enjoy.
Mr. Olinger noted that the project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 2.03, or 72% of allowable FAR
under the zoning bylaw. He felt that the project will help redefine and activate the area. Due
to the building's proximity to the train station it will limit traffic congestion as well as serve
as a barrier to noise from the train itself.
Mr. Olinger stated that the cornice treatment on the Chute Street facade has been modified
to better fit the design guideline language and requirements. At the last hearing the cornice
was a mansard design and now is projecting to better match the rest of the building. A
third -Floor cornice has also been introduced to help soften the scale of the building to
residential abutters in the rear.
Mr. Olinger continued that proposed open space on the project abuts the commercial retail
spaces. The interior layout of the building was modified so that units are consistent in size
and are marketable. The materials for the project have not been changed.
Mr. Latham shared language and references from the Town bylaws and plans that applied to
the project and its location. He found that a 26' setback to residential abutters and second -
floor retail space exceeds or is uncommon in today's district. Additional street trees and
landscaping will be provided as well as private amenity space. Mr. Latham reviewed the
economic impacts and benefits of the proposed development. Town fee revenue is
approximately $230,000 and real estate tax impact are approximately $82,000 in excess of
today. Other benefits such as additional shoppers and commercial tenants being brought to
town can also be expected.
Mr. Latham stated that 39 parking spaces remain for the project. Mr. Latham compared the
project to recent 40R developments in the downtown. He found that the project is the
lowest FAR of all 40R projects with affordable units. It also provides the highest percentage
of commercial space for all 40R projects with affordable units.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked to clarify the 54% lot coverage for floors 2-4. Mr. Olinger stated that the
Floor plate of the upper levels would be divided by lot area. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the
calculation is gross area or net. Mr. Olinger answered that it is based on gross floor area.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if massing was reduced in the current proposal. Mr. Olinger stated that
no major revisions were done on this plan. However, the 26' setback to residential abutters
was presented in the fourth presentation of the project. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the
massing should come down If units are lowered. Mr. Olinger replied that it was felt that the
building design was appropriate and the interior Floor plans were adjusted to reflect the unit
count.
Mr. Weston asked what the maximum height of the building is to be. He stated that with the
slope of the site and different elevations it can be difficult to determine. He found that the
height does require a waiver request and if it is a matter of Inches the cornice should be
adjusted to be in conformance. Mr. Olinger replied that the height of the cornice can be
adjusted if it is found to not be In conformance as proposed. Ms. Adrian asked if the
elevator shaft would require a waiver for height. Mr. Olinger stated that mechanical units do
not account towards the height requirement.
O� • OFR'
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
F
9 INCOP
Mr. Safina asked if the construction of the roof and parapet would work with the proposed
height. Mr. Olinger stated that insulation can be provided on the interior of the roof and
poly -iso can be applied. This is more common nowadays and also helps with energy
efficiency.
The commission further discussed the building height calculation with the applicant. The
Applicant opined that the average grade is calculated at 2.89', and the average height of the
building is at 47'6". This provides a maximum building height of 44.61', conforming to the
Bylaw requirements.
Mr. Weston found the drive aisle width calculations to be inconsistent with one another. He
stated one aisle is measured from outer column to within the parking spaces and the other
is measured from mid column to parking space. He questioned if 16' drive aisles can be
provided due to the columns. Mr. Safina agreed that this must be clarified.
Ms. Clish asked if a landscaping plan is available for the'green wall'. Mr. Gerrity stated that
a plan detail Is available which can be forwarded. The plantings will all be hardy and
maintained. Ms. Clish asked what material will be provided at the base of the green wall.
Mr. Olinger stated that a terracotta solution can be provided or a variable brick band. Ms.
Clish asked about the balcony materials as well. Mr. Olinger replied that balconies are
constructed of the same patina material on the building facade and utilize railings
constructed of bronze like material.
Ms. Clish asked if the shadow study depicting just the building impacts can be provided. Mr.
Olinger stated that he can provide such as just the general shadowing is shown within the
plan set.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if all units will account to SHI if the affordable unit calculation is rounded
down. Mr. Latham clarified that he has recently learned that it may only account if rounded
up and he must look more into it. Ms. Mercier stated that DHCD has started requiring
rounding up on such but the local bylaw does currently allow Applicants to round down. It is
likely that not all units would count to the SHI if rounded down.
Mr. Weston stated that while the proposed changes are welcoming he would prefer the
project to maintain a density of 6S units per acre or lower. The Board has found this number
to be the desired maximum based on recent public discussions. Mr. Latham stated that the
4011 district is not a one size fits all and this site may justify a bit higher density. Mr. Safina
stated project pro forma was requested to determine the feasibility of density. Mr. Latham
reviewed the projects return on cost and how such compared to previous iterations. He also
compared such to Massachusetts 40B requirements. He stated that the proposed
development is below the minimum 40B requirements.
Mr. D'Arezzo questioned land costs and what is fair value or an over payment by the owner.
Mr. Latham defined fair market value and stated such is used in the calculation.
Mr. Safina asked how an additional affordable unit can be provided without increasing the
total unit count. He found providing all units on the SHI would be a benefit if other Impacts
can be mitigated. Mr. Safina continued that the 39 -space parking count is appropriate for 29
units and if more total units are added it is less incentivizing. He asked if there is an
additional waiver or condition that the developer would require to ensure project costs if the
affordable unit count was rounded up.
Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment
o�N nrx�
0
Town of Reading
?e
Meeting Minutes
tiF�a
xconaoe
Mr. Barry Gagne of 100 Woburn Street stated that his concern is with the overall size of the
building and its massing. He stated that unit count being reduced is not enough to mitigate
the concerns of the building envelope. Mr. Olinger stated that the massing is driven by the
proposed FAR which is lower than allowed. He continued that density is driven by factors
such as unit size, type and mix.
Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio of 48 Maple Ridge Road asked to reiterate the number of units and
parking spaces. She also asked how many spaces are compact spaces. Ms. Brukilacchio also
asked the Applicant to address the resident request for more open space. Mr. Latham stated
that 29 units are proposed with 39 parking spaces for a 1.39 count. Approximately 28% of
the spaces are proposed as compact. Mr. Latham continued that open space is provided at
the retail areas, as well as private amenity space for the tenants. He stated that the
developer is open to ideas on how to activate the open space whether It be a public art
display, outdoor dining or other amenities.
Mr. Dave Talbot stated that the existing outdoor area is over 640sf. Mr. Olinger stated that
the survey showed 440sf existing. He stated that where the area becomes sidewalk is a bit
unclear but based on property lines it is the 440sf. Mr. Talbot asked how much of the space
is lost. Mr. Olinger replied approximately 80sf. Mr. Talbot questioned why the area cannot
remain as it exists. Mr. Olinger stated that the buildings relationship and functionality to the
space relates to the outdoor design.
Ms. Adrian summarized that issues to address include clarification on building height,
parking aisle dimensions, affordable unit count, and project density. Mr. Latham suggested
that discussion on affordable unit count and project density continue but the rest be
conditional. Mr. Weston stated that project affordability is a major goal of the Town and felt
that such be re -addressed by the Applicant team. He continued that a vote can be
conducted on what is presented but unit count would not be conditioned.
Mr. Safina stated that the loss of square footage at the corner be considered with respect to
quality and design of retail. Mr. Weston asked if the area under the proposed building
overhang Is accounted for in the open space calculation. Mr. Olinger replied in the
affirmative and added that an operable window is to be provided to help activate the
outdoor area and the adjacent retail space.
Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the public hearing for a 40R Plan Review at 6-
16 Chute Street to Monday March 14, 1011 at 8:30PM. Ms. Meyer seconded the
motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Sian Permit Application
643 Main Street, William Raveis
Mr. Bryan Vasser of Archer Signs was present for the application.
Mr. Safina found the sign design and lighting not appropriate for the building. He found it to
not be consistent with the existing signage or the historic elements with the building.
Mr. Weston suggested that the lettering size be consistent with the existing Latham taw
Office signage.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the business will occupy the ground Floor or the second Floor. Mr. Chris
Latham stated that the business will maintain the entirety of the right (south) portion of the
building.
Off, OrR�'
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
xcoeo°P�
Mr. Safina stated that the street tree may impede visibility of the signage.
Ms. Clish questioned if the rendering depicts true size or not. Mr. Vassar replied in the
affirmative. Ms. Clish stated that the blue banding should be maintained within the existing
sign band and not be wider. She agreed that the lettering size should also match existing
signage. Ms. Meyer agreed but added the font does not need to remain the same style.
Mr. Safina asked if the Latham wall plaque would be moved to the left side of the facade.
Mr. Vasser replied that he is unsure.
Mr. Weston questioned if the halo illumination is needed for a day time use. The abutting
business sign does not utilize any illumination. Mr. Safina added that a double lamp post
exists in front of the building. Mr. Vassar responded that the business would desire visibility
from pedestrian and vehicular traffic at night.
Ms. Clish asked if illumination is proposed again would the white lettering be opaque. Mr.
Vassar replied in the affirmative and confirmed no lighting would shine through the face or
sides. He stated that if the lettering is reduced in size the lighting style proposed may not
be feasible. He stated there are other alternatives for lighting.
Mr. Vasser replied that reducing the signs banding can be explored. He felt that illumination
would remain in some form. Mr. Safina asked to ensure lighting not be visible from the sides
and that the sign box not be lit as internally illuminated signs are not allowed. Mr. Vassar
confirmed. Ms. Clish encouraged exploring the need for lighting further. Mr. Weston agreed.
He stated while no restrictions on hours of illumination are within the Bylaw it Is considered
within the certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Vassar asked if the commission reviewed what is allowed under the bylaw or the design
of signage. Mr. Weston responded when it comes to downtown signage review they include
design review. He recommended compatibility with the existing building signage, design,
and exterior lighting.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked to confirm the sign box will not be illuminated. Mr. Vasser confirmed.
Mr. D'Arezzo suggested it may help to Flip the color scheme. Mr. Vassar stated a white box
may not be aesthetically pleasing.
The Applicant agreed to revise the proposal and present such at the next CPDC hearing.
Maior Plan Changes, 40R Plan Review
531 Main Street. Reading Chronicle 40R
Ms. Clish read the legal notice into the record.
Mr. Chris Latham, Saverio Fulciniti and Robert Paccione were present on behalf of the
application.
Mr. Latham began that the modification is proposed because RMLD has found that the
approved transformer is no longer required. The approved location was along Chapin
Avenue and would have been screened from view. The building is now proposed to be
entirely electric. Due to no longer requiring gas utility the gas meters along the east facade
of the building are no longer required.
Mr. Latham summarized that the proposed changes push the buildings east facade to the
eastern lot line with a 0' setback which is allowed under zoning. He continued that the north
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
9'IKOPP P�
fagade was also expanded 5'9" in length. These reconfigurations allow for a new access
design, one additional parking space, an increase in balcony size and additional landscaping
opportunities. The garage door was shifted slightly to the east but the width of the curb cut
has not changed.
Mr. Latham shared examples of transformers and gas meter lighting from other approved
40R projects.
Mr. Latham explained changes to the interior of the building layout. Balcony doors are now
able to be sliding doors instead of projecting which also helps add natural light to the units.
There are no changes to building height or number of units. He continued that the buildings
rear parapet was extended in length to better the symmetry of the building. Lighting
fixtures along the north fagade are also able to be reduced to mitigate impacts to residential
abutters.
Mr. D'Arezzo stated that risers to the second Floor were reduced from 25 to 20. Mr. Paccione
replied that the length can be increased if needed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if trash bins were
reduced in count. Mr. Paccione replied the total number was reduced but an excess of 2 bins
per unit remains. Mr. D'Arezzo asked the size of the remaining balconies. Mr. Paccione
answered that balconies are approximately 4-5' wide.
Mr. Safina stated the concern is that the increased length in the front bump out along
Chapin Avenue appears Flat due to the amount of white coloring, He felt something must be
done to break the massing up. Mr. Paccione replied that the darker colored material could
be provided for the additional two windows. Mr. Safina found the other changes more
sustainable to tenants and moving away from fossil fuel connections is another benefit.
Mr. Weston asked to confirm that the building's east fagade is not being further expanded to
the lot line. Mr. Paccione replied in the affirmative as the 2nd and 3'd Floors were approved at
a 0' setback to the east lot line. Mr. Weston asked if access to the bike parking is provided
through the garage or only the front door. Mr. Paccione replied that tenants can access such
through the garage but it does require using a small stair case. Mr. Safina stated that the
doors being so close to each other may impede the functionality. Mr. Weston asked to
explore the access to the bike parking further.
Mr. Weston found that the eastern balconies now face residential abutters where they
previously did not. He asked if solid windowed walls were an option to mitigate noise
impacts while still allowing natural light. Mr. Safina opined balconies add to the community
feel and that single-family home owners are allowed porches facing others. Mr. Weston
suggested that fencing and screening can add security while maintaining activity in the
area.
Ms. Meyer asked to clarify that landscaping would be added in just the northeast corner. Mr.
Latham confirmed.
Ms. Adrian asked if electrical utility applied to all kitchen appliances. Mr. Latham replied in
the affirmative.
Ms. Clish asked how the units would be heated. Mr. Paccione stated that heat pumps are
within the roof and pump heat through the ventilation system of each unit. Mr. D'Arezzo
asked if there is significant change to rooftop mechanicals. Mr. Paccione replied in the
negative. Mr. Safina asked if individual splits are proposed. Mr. Paccione replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Safina found these units to be quiet when running. Mr. D'Arezzo stated the
concern is an Increase in size to each mechanical unit. Ms. Adrian asked if compressors exist
�H lacy
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
•xaoxe°P"
within the system. Mr. Paccione replied in the affirmative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the sizes
remain as approved. Mr. Paccione replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Neal McCush of Reading Square Auto Body asked if the east wall will now be a full-sized
wall. Mr. Paccione stated that the wall will extend from and be flush from the first -floor to
the third -floor. Mr. McCush asked how he would service this side of his building if needed.
He asked if the lot lines have been surveyed. Mr. Paccione replied the wall is off set slightly
from the lot line which was surveyed. Mr. Latham asked if access currently exists along the
east lot line. Mr. McCush replied that there is a walkway. Mr. Latham asked if his building is
located right along the lot line. Mr. McCush stated that he was not sure as he has never
conducted a survey. Mr. Latham stated that the setback is allowed and is conditioned that
no degradation occur to the abutting building. Mr. Paccione estimated about 1-2' of space to
be between the buildings. Mr. McCush stated that downspouts exist in this portion of his
building pointing to the street.
Ms. Jill Mayberry of 16 Chapin Avenue presented concerns on balcony size increasing which
may add to noise. She was also concerned of storage within the balconies which may
appear unsightly over time. Mr. Latham stated that storage can be addressed within the
property management documents to ensure proper maintenance. Ms. Adrian asked how
many people can fit within the balcony. Mr. Paccione replied if squeezing people tightly it
could fit about ten peoples but this is unlikely. Mr. Latham stated that most interested
tenants are Reading residents and `empty nesters'.
Ms. Mayberry asked if the sidewalk width was reduced due to building changes. Mr. Latham
stated that the approved sidewalk design shall not be modified.
Mr. MacNichol shared the Draft Decision on-screen. The Commission requested a condition
be placed that the Applicant submit revised renderings of the north facade that depicts the
requested changes. They also found that rewording the eastern facade setback language is
needed.
Ms. Clish made a motion to close the public hearing for a Major Plan Change to an
Approved 40R Project at 531 Main Street. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it
was approved 5-0-0.
Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the proposed Major Plan Changes to an
Approved 40R Project at 531 Main Street as amended. Mr. Weston seconded the
motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Other Business
MBTA Communities Guidance
Ms. Mercier stated that a meeting was held with both DHCD and Town Counsel to review the
CPDC's proposed amendments to the Town's 40R Bylaw. DHCD has found Reading to be the
most implemented 4011 District and applauded the work done. No major concerns were
found with the proposed amendments but some adjustments have been requested.
DHCD has stated that the multi -family definition under 4011 can be amended to three -units
which would allow compliance with the State's MBTA Communities Guidance.
DHCD requested that a standard be referenced on the language for drive aisle widths to
ensure developers know what to aim for. Ms. Mercier added language drafted with the
engineering division.
o,�n nix
Town of Reading
z Meeting Minutes
F w,ox�
DHCD found that lowering the affordable unit trigger can be allowed. CPDC has proposed
affordable units be required for projects over 8 units, while the State statute requires for
projects over 12 units. They would also allow CPDC to control waivers from the local
requirement as long as the project conformed with State requirements. Town Counsel added
language in 10.5.12 to ensure no conflicts.
DHCD has requested that criteria for plan denial language be consistent with the state
statute. Significant is proposed to change to extraordinary adverse to match such. Ms.
Mercier noted neither is defined by the State.
Ms. Mercier stated that the Select Board is reviewing the Town Meeting warrant tomorrow
night. DHCD may provide further input once all data is submitted. Ms. Clish asked what the
process is if DHCD has changes after the warrant is approved. Ms. Mercier stated that
friendly amendments can be made on the floor of town meeting or the warrant may be
amended.
Ms. Mercier reviewed the MBTA Communities Guidance. Last January the State passed new
legislation to Section 3A of the Zoning Act. The legislation requires that MBTA Communities
allow for a district of reasonable size to allow multi -family development by -right within a
certain area from MBTA stations. Additional requirements on the units are also within the
language. It was found that the 40R Plan Approval process is considered a by right process
which is a benefit to Reading.
Ms. Mercier summarized the draft language on determining reasonable size of a district and
number of units required under the legislation. Reading is currently designated as a bus
service community which requires 20% of existing housing stock to be met within the
district.
If the Town does not comply with the legislation within set timeframes they will not be
eligible for grant opportunities such as Housing Choice, MassWorks, etc.
Ms. Mercier stated that concerns and questions on the language are being drafted and will
be submitted to DHCD.
Mr. Weston stated that the Town's designation should be based on utilization. There is only
one bus line in Reading with few stops. Ms. Clish agreed and asked if every bus stop is
considered an MBTA station. Ms. Mercier stated bus stations are defined but bus stops are
not. A Reading bus line was removed due to low ridership. The definition of bus service
communities excludes municipalities with commuter rail stations which conflicts with
Reading's designation. The FAQ however, states a community with access to more than one
transit type shall be required to conform to the higher capacity requirements. Ms. Meyer
asked if require unit counts is the only additional requirement due to the designation. Ms.
Mercier stated that it also reduces the timeframe allowed for compliance to December,
2023. This deadline does not clarify what level of approval is required by such.
Ms. Mercier stated that a build out analysis is required to determine unit count but at this
time not a lot of guidance is provided for such. Ms. Mercier shared a spreadsheet of parcel
data she has begun to gather. She added that potentially more than one district may be
utilized and both areas of the A-40 and Business -A Districts are within the 0.5 mile of the
train depot. Both districts also allow multi -family development by -right.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the required unit counts are needed to be built or not. Ms. Mercier
stated that there is no requirement to develop such but have the zoning that allows for it.
��nrq c
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
The legislation seemingly allows for a combination of existing multi -family units that were
developed by -right and potential units but more clarification Is needed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked
if each development is required to maintain minimum densities or if those less than 15 units
an acre can contribute to the count. Ms. Mercier stated if defined as multi -family they would
account. Ms. Meyer asked if the two-family properties which exceed minimum densities can
account toward the requirement. Ms. Mercier stated that she has asked for more
information on such.
Mr. D'Arezzo found that if the entire 0.5 -mile radius from the depot allowed multi -family
development needed project densities may not be so high. Ms. Mercier stated a minimum
gross density of 15 units per acre must be maintained in a district. Mr. D'Arezzo asked If
that is what must be allowed or maintained throughout the district. Ms. Mercier replied the
latter is expected.
Mr. Weston found the current path of using the DSGD, A-40 and Business -A a preferred
approach. Ms. Clish agreed it is helpful to know what may be allowed in these districts
before altering others.
Mr. Weston suggested quantifying the value of compliance. He asked if past awarded grant
numbers can be summarized. He found that changing the character of Reading may not be
worth some of these grant opportunities. Ms. Mercier agreed to do such.
Ms. Mercier stated that public comments must be submitted by March 31, 2022. The
guidelines must be presented to the Select Board which is scheduled for March 22, 2022.
Compliance will be awarded through 2022 if the Select Board brief is done and a Community
Information Form is submitted before May. Ms. Mercier expects another discussion with the
CPDC on their March 14"' agenda if time permits.
Other Business
Potential Zoning Amendments for Nov. 2022
Ms. Mercier stated a lot of work is required for 40R analysis and MBTA Community
conformance. She opined a zoning workshop may not be feasible this year but asked the
commission if they desired such. Mr. Weston found the work required for on-going projects
and goals to be enough. He stated that continuing to think of amendments to the Use Table
is needed but not possible within the next month. He found letting some of the recent
amendments to play out would be a benefit.
Other Business
Ms. Mercier stated that previously approved Outdoor Dining applicants will be reached out
to ensure compliance with their approvals.
Ms. Mercier informed the board that the State allowed an extension of remote meetings
under Open Meeting Law to July 15, 2022. She asked if the Board wished to meet in-person
going forward or if remote Is preferred until then. Ms. Adrian stated March is too soon to
meet in-person. Ms. Mercier added that it is not clear if hybrid meetings will be allowed. Mr.
Weston and Ms. Clish found hybrid meetings to be a benefit if they are possible. Ms. Mercier
stated that she will have further discussions on such. The Board elected to keep the March
14 meeting date remote.
Adfournment
Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:07 AM. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote.
� OrR
Town of Reading
i Meeting Minutes
e IM[OP��
Documents Reviewed at the Meeting:
• CPDC Agenda 2/28/22
• Lot Release Request, Howard Street Subdivision
a Form L, dated 2/28/22
• 40R Plan Review, 6-16 Chute Street
o Civil and Architectural Plan Set, dated 2/15/22
o Drawing Clarifications, dated 2/23/22
o Draft Decision, dated 1/24/22
• Sign Permit Application, 643 Main Street
o Signage rendering and specifications
o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 2/28/22
• Major Plan Change, 40R Plan Review, 531 Main Street
o Architecture[ Plan Set, dated 2/14/22
o Landscape Plan, dated 2/14/22
o Draft Decision, dated 2/2822
• MBTA Communities Guidance
o Draft Guidelines: MBTA Communities
10