HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-16 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesOFN�O
Town of Reading
i
=1 Meeting Minutes = 1.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Community Planning and Development Commission
Date: 2022-05-16 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Town Hall Location: Hybrid Meeting - Zoom and Select
Board Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session:
Purpose: Remote Meeting Version:
Attendees: Members: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Nick Safina,
Heather Clish, John Weston
Members - Not Present:
Catrina Meyer, Tony D'Arezzo - Associate
Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner
Andrew MacNichol, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Jeff Olinger, Jesse Schomer,
Giovanni Fodera, Guy Manganiello, Kelly Delorey, Ted Moore, Bill Bergeron, Bred
Latham, Shan Krishna
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol
Topics of Discussion:
MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM
Ms. Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.
Public Hearing, Scenic Road Application
Walnut Street Milling and Repaving Reading DPW
Ryan Percival, Town Engineer was present on behalf of the application.
Ms. Clish read the legal notice into the record.
Mr. Percival explained the project includes milling and paving a portion of Walnut Street, up
until the first intersection with South Street.
Ms. Adrian asked how long the paving would take. Mr. Percival stated that milling takes a
day or two, and then paving should take place shortly thereafter and take another day or
two. He said it should take about 2 weeks maximum.
Mr. Safina noted that the intersection is difficult and that lots of school kids walk through
the area. He asked for ample safety precautions to be in place. Mr. Percival said there will
be Police Details in place throughout the project, with message boards out in advance
notifying people of the upcoming construction work. He said there would be hand -delivered
notification and a CodeRed message sent out.
Mr. Jon Barnes, 41 Pratt Street, member of the Historical Commission, noted that he has no
issues with the application as it does not impact any aspects of the scenic road or views. He
said his understanding is that there are no curbs on Walnut Street. Mr. Percival confirmed
this, and noted that per the Scenic Road Regulations they cannot put in any granite curb or
asphalt berm. He said they are. replacing what is there exactly as it is. No additional width.
N OrR
Town of Reading
a�,. � a' Meeting Minutes
IMCOPCOP'
Mr. Barnes noted that the Scenic Road Regulations require that the legal ad be sent to
Historical Commission, Select Board and Conservation Commission. He asked that it be
formally provided to the Historical Commission and not just sent to them via one member.
He also noted that the legal ad should have provided more detail about what was proposed.
Ms. Jennifer Harden, 55 Walnut Street, thanked the Town for paving the street which
desperately needs it. She asked for clarification of the section that will be paved. Mr.
Percival said it will go from Hopkins to Curtis and potentially longer if they have enough
funding. Ms. Harden asked when the rest would be paved. Mr. Percival said they will request
to extend the work in the following fiscal year.
The Commission reviewed the Draft Decision.
Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the milling and paving of the Walnut Street
Scenic Road. Mr. Safina seconded. The motion was approved 4-0-0.
Sian Permit Apolication. 607 Main Street
Half & Half Caf6
No one was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. MacNichol explained that it is a request for an awning with a logo that exceeds by -right
thresholds and requires a sign permit and Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ms. Adrian noted that the colors on the application clash. Ms. Clish said the sign looks okay
to her and they should put a condition in the Certificate that colors match. Mr. Safina noted
that the awnings are mostly the same on the building, and that if the intent is for them all
to be the same color, then they should replace the entire span of awning across the building
so all match. Mr. Safina said that they cannot force them to replace the existing awning.
Mr. Safina suggested that CPDC determine appropriateness and then let the applicant work
out the details regarding the awning with staff. Ms. Clish suggested we assume they are
replacing the awning, and that if they are not, then the Certificate would not be valid.
The Commission worked out wording of a finding that the awning will be replaced and that
the colors will match.
Mr. MacNichol said he would get clarification on this, and also get more detail on the vinyl
fabric material.
Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
business of Haff and Half Cafe at 607 Main Street as amended. Mr. Weston
seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0.
Sign Permit Aoolication. 484 Main Street
The Village Chiropractor
Ms. Kelly Delorey was present on behalf of the application.
Ms. Delorey explained that she is applying for a vinyl awning which will replace the awning
that is there currently for Classified Realty. Her awning will be black vinyl and will include
her logo and phone number.
Mr. MacNichol noted that the logo exceeded minimum thresholds so a sign permit and
Certificate of Appropriateness was required.
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
'IgOFOO
Mr. Safina asked if the vinyl will be shiny or canvas. Ms. Delorey stated that she Is not sure.
Ms. Delorey noted that the existing wall sign has been removed and she has no plan to add
a new wall sign to replace it. She said there is no lighting proposed for her awning.
Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
business of Village Chiropractor at 484 Main Street. Mr. Weston seconded the
motion and it was approved 4-0-0.
Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review
459 Main Street. GC Fodera Contracting, Inc.
Jeff Olinger, Architect; Jesse Schomer, Attorney; Sam Gregorio, Traffic Engineer; and Guy
Manganiello were present on behalf of the Application.
Ms. Ivria Fried of Miyares & Harrington (Town Counsel) was present.
Mr. Schomer noted that his team is prepared to review the Draft Decision with CPDC and to
address a number of project metrics that were not clarified in the Decision. He recapped the
discussion topics at the April 11u CPDC meeting, which included:
-reducing visual impact to rear & side abutters
-revised detail of garage wall
-discussion of transitional area
-questions and feedback from neighbors
Mr. Schomer commented that the abutters concerns were addressed in the plans previously
submitted. He noted that his team was asked to take a look at the new 40R zoning recently
approved by Town Meeting. He said that the zoning in effect at the time of application is the
zoning that governs this project. He said the amended zoning would kill the project for a
number of reasons - setbacks, density limits, etc. He said that this project was designed
months in advance of when the project was proposed, so it is important that they go ahead
with the project as designed.
Mr. Weston clarified that no additional information has been provided. Mr. Schomer
confirmed and said they are comfortable with the plans as proposed and that they meet the
standards for transitional areas.
Ms. Clish noted that CPDC had asked for additional shadow studies, and that the length of
the wall abutting the residential home is greater than 80' in length which is not allowed in
the Design Guidelines for transitional areas. The Guidelines call for a material break for light
and views. Mr. Schomer said the building was designed with horizontal and vertical breaks,
and that the garage wall would be designed as a green wall. Ms. Clish said she was thinking
about the garage wall and noted that during the last discussion it was designed as a
concrete wall not a green wall.
Mr. Olinger, project architect, stated that Ms. Clish was correct - it was a CMU or masonry
wall, not a green wall. The green roof design was removed due to maintenance concerns
from the abutters. He said the overall length of the wall is 84' which includes the bike
parking and solar cell storage area within the garage. He said they could stop the wall short
and use a different material at the bike parking area - at which point it would be 74' long
and compliant. Ms. Clish asked for a break for light and views. Mr. Olinger said they will
work with abutters in terms of transparency and treatment. He also offered to shorten the
wall by removing portion for the utility/storage areas.
+ ° Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
xconopQ
Mr. Safina asked what would happen with the bike parking. Mr. Olinger said they could put
in a transparent fence instead of a wall behind the bikes. Mr. Safina suggested that the code
minimums should not become design maximums. Mr. Olinger said his preference is to make
the wall something beautiful for the abutters to look at. Mr. Schomer said they are willing to
accept conditions to break up the appearance of the wall, as long as CPDC members can tell
them what they want. Mr. Weston expressed dismay that CPDC would design the building
for them.
Mr. Schomer said that if there are additional plans needed to bring the hearing to a
conclusion, they are willing to provide them.
Mr. Safina noted that the bottom garage wall is blank and has no features that speak to the
features in the design above. He suggested trellises along the wall to let different plants
grow in combination with a more interesting design such as decorative CMU and not just a
massive wall of solid color. He asked If the wall would be coated metal. Mr. Olinger
confirmed. Mr. Safina said that a copper roof requires a DEP permit for runoff.
Ms. Clish asked whether plants on a green wall would be contained on the 459 Main Street
property, or whether they would encroach on the neighbor's property. Mr. Olinger noted
that an issue with having a green wall at the property line is maintenance and access. Ms.
Clish asked that all this be clarified so it's maintained over time.
Mr. Safina noted that it would need to be pulled back 3-4' for the property owner to have
access to it. Mr. Olinger noted that the ground floor retail would be diminished if they pulled
the wall back, which would be detrimental to the overall plan. He noted that the drive aisle
width could be reduced instead of the retail, but it would require a waiver. A parking space
may be lost as well.
Mr. Weston noted that there are other issues with the ground floor that should be wrapped
into this discussion. He noted that he was on the Parking Advisory @ Recommendations
Committee (PARC) and that there was a lot of discussion of compact spaces and their size.
He stated that his take from being on PARC and knowing the Issues with the compact
spaces in the other project garage, is that a T-6" wide compact space is not workable or
something that he is interested in approving.
Mr. Weston went further, back to comments brought up at every meeting, noting concern
with this location - which is unique and not comparable to anywhere else in Reading -
because it is at the busiest intersection in Town and has no access from a side or back road.
He said circulation has been discussed a lot and that the plan has Improved and is starting
to work, but that he is concerned with the number of parking spaces that are provided
which is a factor of the density and number of units in the project. He said that this location
does not offer potential for on -street parking for retail, and that the garage spaces allocated
to retail (manager and ADA) are not really for customers. He said PARC concerns with
customer parking are very applicable at this site because this is a tough intersection for
vehicles and pedestrians alike. He said that even though they are officially providing enough
parking, there isn't enough parking for guests/visitors or patrons of the retail spaces. He
said he's not convinced the parking will work functionally for the density on the site.
Mr. Olinger said that the 12 units require 15 parking spaces, and they are providing 19
spaces. Mr. Weston noted that 3 of those are ADA. Mr. Olinger said the ADA spaces count
towards the residential requirement and that one space could be lost so the compact spaces
can be widened.
O� Ofp '
�_ Town of Reading
'° ,�oc' Meeting Minutes
n: inaoav"'
Mr. Weston stated that there is still an issue. Mr. Schomer said the location is unique in
terms of proximity to public transit, which is the point of the 40R district. He said that the
target residents will not want to drive to stores or work and will not have as big of a parking
demand.
Mr. Weston noted that the 40R District was located downtown because every property is
proximate to transit, so this site is not special in that case, and the applicant does not get
credit for that fact. He noted that it is in fact further away from transit than the other 40R
redevelopment projects. He commented that no one on CPDC believes this project will
generate a lot of traffic, it's the peak times of the traffic that will cause problems.
Mr. Safina asked how to increase parking and reduce the building footprint to bring it away
from the abutter. He pondered if this site may be suited to a CityLiR design, which would
stack cars and reduce the building footprint. He asked where to fit commercial parking into
this program. Mr. Weston noted the availability of commercial parking near the other 40R
developments, and contrasted them to this project.
Mr. Safina noted that even if they could provide commercial parking on site, no patron
would know before they go in whether the parking would be available in the garage - so in
reality, it would not work. Mr. Safina noted the issue for him is that the retail size is minimal
and the traffic problems are worse. He commented that he likes the building design, and
that it was a missed opportunity for the Rise475 building not to have included this parcel.
Lieutenant Chris Jones of the Reading Police Department echoed Mr. Weston's comments
about the lack of parking near this property. He noted that other redevelopment projects
have more cars than allocated spaces, which has resulted in the businesses nearby asking
to modify the on -street parking regulations near their stores to increase turnover. He
commented that even with a loading zone, most of the delivery trucks will stop on Main
Street. He said that the other projects have side streets they can use for deliveries, which
would not be possible in this area. He opined that there are too many issues with this
building.
Mr. Schomer noted that they previously offered to have the traffic study peer reviewed by
Green International, who has done studies in the area. He said that adequacy of parking can
be handled by a Parking Demand Management Plan, which can be a condition of approval.
He stated that they are open to any kind of creative solutions.
Mr. Safina asked if the curb cut on Main Street would be subject to MassDOT approval. Ms.
Mercier noted that it is on the portion of Main Street owned by the Town.
Mr. Bruce Johnson, 166 Washington Street, made a number of comments and asked the
CPDC to consider this project in light of the zoning that was just passed at Town Meeting.
Mr. Weston clarified that the CPDC is required to review the project under the current
zoning not the recently approved zoning.
Mr. Schomer responded to each of Mr. Johnson's points, noting the housing crisis and MBIA
zoning, as well as a number of previous points he made.
Mr. Safina asked how many affordable units are proposed. Mr. Schomer replied that no
affordable units are proposed or required for a 40R project this size.
Mr. Johnson commented that the Rise475 property has come up as precedent, and noted
that every Floor of that building is significantly setback or stepped back from the property
line. He noted that the developer promised to provide a shadow study at the last meeting.
I
Town of Reading
^e�a Meeting Minutes
�a'IXf OPo��`a
Mr. Schomer pointed out that the Johnsons have or are using their property for a business.
Mr. Safina told the abutters not to respond.
Ms. Lisa Johnson, 166 Washington Street, reiterated some of her past comments about
setbacks, noting that the developer is not treating them as residential. She said that her
understanding is that her property can be treated as residential, and asked for Town
Counsel to weigh in. Ms. Mercier noted that the zone boundary is actually what matters in
this case, and that it is entirely on their lot, which means the project lot is adjacent to a
Business 8/40R lot. Ms. Clish noted that the zoning parameters refer to zone boundaries
and that the Design Guidelines talk about transitional areas, which refer to single, 2 -family
and 3 -family uses. Town Counsel confirmed what was said.
Ms. Johnson clarified what she heard, which is that the building wall can be up against their
property line. She then read from the Design Guidelines, Section 6.
Stormwater and post -development runoff were discussed. Mr. Schomer noted that runoff
spills unmanaged onto the Johnson's property now, and that the Applicant must control it all
and go through the DEP for review of their proposal.
Ms. Johnson opined that a waiver for the drive aisle in an area that is already tight does not
sound like a good Idea. She noted that the CPDC asked for shadow studies showing her
house. She asked about the plan for trash removal and whether it has moved from a prior
location.
Ms. Johnson asked how the Construction Management Plan will work. Ms. Mercier replied
that a pre -construction meeting is held with the Applicant, their future contractor and a
variety of staff departments. The Plan will be reviewed to ensure standards are met and the
development must comply with it during the duration of construction.
Mr. Weston noted that it is unfair for CPDC to continue discussing the project without any
new information.
Mr. Bob Kaminer, 37 Warren Avenue, reiterated the concerns about traffic at that
intersection. He said he loves all the redevelopment projects that have gone up and
replaced old eyesore buildings.
Mr. Weston said he understands they have to look at this based on the zoning in place right
now, because they submitted a Preliminary Subdivision Plan to freeze the zoning. He asked
what other impacts the zoning freeze has regarding the way CPDC has to look at this. He
asked whether CPDC has to approve the subdivision first, noting that there are statutory
requirements associated with it.
Ms. Fried noted that she spoke with Mr. Schomer at length, saying that because 40R is so
new and there are not many court cases, there is ambiguity about what zoning applies to
this project. The submission of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan puts that to rest, and does
not result in CPDC reviewing the 40R application any differently. She clarified that this is a
common tactic used to freeze zoning.
Ms. Mercier asked Ms. Fried to clarify what has to happen with the Preliminary Subdivision
Plan, noting that typically CPDC will have a hearing process and not just wait the 7 months
for a Definitive Plan to be submitted. Ms. Fried said that she will review the Town's
Subdivision Regulations but that a Preliminary Plan hearing is not a statutory requirement.
N Ork
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
a'IN[OP
She believes the zoning freeze remains in place whether a Definitive Plan is submitted or
not.
Mr. Weston asked the Commission to clarify very specifically what is being requested of the
applicant. Ms. Clish reiterated the request for a shadow study showing Impacts to the east
side - the Johnson's property.
Ms. Clish asked the applicant to clarify whether they will come back to the next hearing with
additional Information.
Mr. Schomer said they are looking to bring the project to a close, ideally at the next
meeting. He noted that they are several weeks beyond the 120 period for a decision and
that have not filed for a constructive approval.
Mr. Weston asked for the following:
-revised plan that reworks the compact parking spaces
-roof plan with details
-response and information requested by Town Engineer
-wall maintenance and design improvements
-shadow study showing impacts to residential abutter
-details on construction management
-traffic plan
-how building interacts with residential property abutting
-how does circulation work for retail
Mr. Weston said he is expecting a different plan that addresses these issues.
Ms. Clish asked if they are willing to continue the hearing. Mr. Schomer said they are, and
they are hoping to work with the CPDC towards an approval.
Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the hearing for 40R Plan Review at 459 Main
Street to Monday, June fad' at 8:30 PM. Mr. Safina seconded the motion and it was
approved 4-0-0.
Ms. Mercier asked for new and revised information to be submitted by June 15'.
Minor Amendment to Approved PUD -R
Johnson Woods Development
Bill Bergeron, Ted Moore, and Attorney Brad Latham were present on behalf of the
application.
Mr. Bergeron explained that they got a building permit for Building #1, which is in a
different orientation than originally approved due to the location of the sewer line. They
poured the foundation and started construction and were then issued a cease & desist
order.
Mr. Weston asked about the cease and desist order. Ms. Mercier explained that the abutters
asked about the change, and that when staff reviewed the plans again they realized that an
error was made in signing off on the building permit.
Mr. Safina asked about the impact to neighbors. Mr. Bergeron stated that it meets the
setbacks for the PUD -R. Mr. Safina noted that if it had come to CPDC in this configuration,
meeting setbacks, they likely would not have rejected it.
Town of Reading
a�
Meeting Minutes
a
'INCOPPOPPt
Mr. Brendan Gray, 28 Johnson Woods Drive, noted he is one of five trustees at Johnson
Woods and that he was briefed by Ted Moore on the change, and that the Board of Trustees
is fine with all of the proposed changes.
Ms. Lisa , 51 Enos Circle, noted that her neighbors have a building abutting their rear
yards, and that they understand it was built closer to their property line than originally
approved. She asked whether it moved closer to Enos Circle. Mr. Safina explained that the
building was rotated so the corner is closer to the property line, but the building as a whole
is not any closer than the closest setback approved, and that the building meets the
minimum setbacks within the Johnson Woods PUD -R.
Mr. Latham pointed out that the building has rotated, and is about the same distance from
the lot line as before, and that it still exceeds setbacks required for a single-family lot, and
is also now further from Building 3 than before.
Mr. Safina asked about landscaping and the rear yard treatment. Mr. MacNichol noted that
the PUD -R bylaw requires the 20' rear setback be landscaped. He showed a street view of a
stand of trees that is not expected to be impacted.
Mr. Weston said, looking at this change holistically, that allowing for longer driveways allows
for more car storage at Johnson Woods, which is a benefit considering all the prior concerns
expressed about parking.
Ms. Joanne Fitzgerald asked why construction started before the change was approved. She
noted that the drainage in the area is not very good, with water piling up in her backyard
and feeding out into conservation land. Mr. Bergeron said that the drainage was all
approved as part of the original PUD -R. He explained that no construction started without a
valid building permit.
Mr. Bergeron explained the changes to Buildings 12A and 12B, which have foundations in
place and an active building permit. He explained the distances from Green Meadow Drive
and the end of Enos Circle.
Ms. Patty Dalton, 10 Green Meadow Drive, asked what this change does to the length of the
driveways, noting that parking is a nightmare. Mr. Safina asked whether the driveway for
Building 12A would result in the loss of an on -street visitor parking space. He said he has no
objection to the change as long as street parking is not lost. Mr. Bergeron said they may
lose one one -street space but can relocate it back between the two new driveways. Mr.
Moore suggested they add it on the side of the property near Enos Circle.
Mr. Bergeron explained the changes to Building 29, which are the result of a transformer on
the corner of Johnson Woods Drive and Kelch Road. The building was approved as a duplex
and will stay that way. The Commission had no objections to this change.
Ms. Kelly Condon, Green Meadow Drive, asked if the parking space could be moved forward
instead of backward, so it's not right across from her house. Mr. Moore clarified the
locations and orientation of the space for her.
Ms. Lisa _, owner of a unit right near Enos Circle, asked how parking spaces would fit on
that stretch of road, especially since it is used as an emergency access. Mr. Moore clarified
that the road would not be narrowed, but that they would create a bump out in the grassy
area for the parking spaces.
or•rgo
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
oev°P�
Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Minor Amendment to the Johnson Woods
PUD -R for Buildings 1, 12A, 12B and 29 as presented. Mr. Safina seconded the
motion and it was approved 4-0-0.
Other Business
Form H, 103 Sanborn Lane Subdivision
Ms. Clish moved to endorse the Form H Covenant Agreement for the 3 -Lot
Subdivision at 103 Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was
approved 4-0-0.
Open Space and Recreation Plan Update
Using a presentation prepared by Horsley Witten for the Conservation Commission, Ms.
Clish gave a brief overview of the Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) Update: reasons
for it include:
• State and Federal funding;
• Process for updating every 7 years, a process a working group just went through
in Reading;
• Updating goals and objectives;
Determine action items; etc.,
Ms. Clish noted that the Action Plan matrix with the roles, responsibilities, lead entity and
timeframe still being finalized. She commented that the Conservation Committee,
Recreation Committee and Trails Committee take the lead on many of the efforts.
CPDC recommended actions include: looking for connections on private lands; creation of
pocket parks as part of redevelopment review; looking at 40R District open space
requirements; updating Subdivision Regulations and other bylaws and land development
standards and regulations to account for Low Impact Development and climate change
adaptation.
Mr. Weston noted that all the goals and objectives are ambitious within a 7 -year timeframe.
He asked what keeps the various entities on task to accomplish these things. Ms. Mercier
noted that the goals and objectives in the 2013 version were also ambitious and that a lot of
work was done. She commented that a number of action Items are tied to funding, and that
having an active plan enables us to apply for funding for these projects. Ms. Clish noted that
the working group Included a number of staff members who were very deliberately Involved
in crafting the action items. Mr. Weston noted that it would be unfortunate to see a good
plan sit on a shelf.
Ms. Clish commented that the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) can be used for
parks and trails.
Ms. Clish moved to endorse the OSRP Update and Letter of Support. Mr. Weston
seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0.
Annual Town Meeting 2022 Recap
Ms. Mercier provided a summary of floor amendments made to the 40R Bylaw at Annual
Town Meeting April 2022. Changes include:
• Further setbacks for projects directly abutting single-, two- or three-family dwelling;
• Increased parking requirements for retail/restaurant uses and increased parking
requirements for residential 2 -bedroom units and greater;
F� H
Town of Reading
0
o i
e� , Meeting Minutes
• IN[OP
Increased restrictions on compact car allotment;
A requirement for a landscape plan to be submitted;
Amendments to the local preference language for affordable unit lotteries;
➢ Language that affordable units be comparably designed to market -rate units;
Language that implementation of green infrastructure is preferred; and
Density limited to 50 units per acre.
Ms. Clish summarized the discussion on density held at Town Meeting. She commented that
density and parking language was discussed on two separate nights.
Future Zoning Amendments for Consideration
Mr. Weston found that focus should be on the upcoming Housing Production Plan update
which may lead to further zoning recommendations of need.
Meetino Minutes
Due to the late time in evening the Committee elected to review meeting minutes at a
future meeting date.
Adfournment
Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn at 11:25PM. Mr. Weston seconded and it was approved
4-0-0.
Documents Reviewed at the Meeting:
• CPDC Agenda 5/16/22
• CPDC Meeting Minutes of 11/1/21 and 12/621
• Scenic Road Application, Walnut Street re -paving
o Legal Notice, 5/1622
o Draft Decision, dated 5/1622
• Sign Permit Application, 607 Main Street
o Sign Permit Application and Sign Rendenngs/Specifcations, dated 4/1222
o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/1622
• Sign Permit Application, 484 Main Street
o Sign Permit Application and Sign Renderings/Specifications, dated 4/18/22
o Proposed Logo and Text Dimensions, received 4/2622
o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/1622
• 40R Plan Review, 459 Main Street
o Planning Update Presentation, dated 4/522
• Minor Amendment to Approved PUD -R, Johnson Woods
o Proposed Summary of Modifications
o Building 1 Context Plan and Proposed Plot Plan
o Building 12A -12B Proposed Plot Plan and Utility Plan
o Building 12A -12B Proposed Parking Area
o Building 29 Context Plan and Proposed Plot Plan
o Site Development Key Plan
o Draft Decision, dated 5/16/22
• 103 Sanbom Lane, Form H Endorsement
o Form H —Covenant Agreement for 103 Sanbom Lane 3 -Lot Definitive Subdivision
• OSRP Update 2022-23
o Open Space and Recreation Plan Update Project Slides
10