HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-11 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street
1
~
Reading, MA 01867-2683
r
Phone: 781-942-6612
. ,
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us
_ ,
Community Planning and Development m scion
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: July 11, 2005
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall
Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Neil Sullivan (NS), Richard Howard (RH), and
Jonathan Barnes (JB).
Members Absent: Susan DeMatteo
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Mr. Jim Garebedian, owner of Jimbo's Roast Beef, 454 Main Street
Mr. Jim Develis, landlord of the property at 454 Main Street
Mr. Dalelio; business partner of Mr. Develis
Selectman Ben Tafoya
Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley St.
Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission, 59 Azalea Circle
Master Plan Advisory Committee
Master Plan Advisory Committee met from 7;00 PM to 8:00 PM to review the draft of
the Master Plan.
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
Site Plan Review Waiver (continued)
Jimbo's Roast Beef and Seafood, 454 Main Street
Mr. Jim Garebedian appeared as owner of Jimbo's Roast Beef. Mr. Jim Develis appeared
as landlord of the property.
Mr. Garebedian began by going over the points brought up at the last meeting.
Dumpsters.
Mr. Garebedian had no issue with re-doing the parking lot in the back but he would rather
share one dumpster rather than provide a second. He would also like to move the
dumpster further from the rear door.
CR interrupted to say that since the last meeting he has discovered that the authority to
grant off-site parking rests with the Board of Appeals and not with the Board of
- Selectmen. He had brought this to Mr. Garebedian's attention and Mr. Garebedian said
Page 1 of 13
that he would rather not have to go before an additional Board if at all possible. In an
attempt to accommodate Mr. Garebedian's wishes, CR said that he spent staff time
working up a plan for the parking lot that might barely meet the zoning requirements. CR
said that moving the dumpsters elsewhere would take away a parking space and Mr.
Garebedian cannot afford to lose a single space.
Mr. Develis suggested sharing a single dumpster with Dunkin Donuts. That would
require less room and the dumpster could be moved to a spot away from the door. To
compensate for the extra trash in the single dumpster, he suggested scheduling more
frequent pickups of the dumpster.
CR thought that this was reasonable as long as the dumpster was in an enclosure. The
Board liked this solution too. Mr. Garebedian asked if he could use a stockade fence as an
enclosure as brick would be expensive.
CR said that the Board was mindful of the expense, but the Board has a standard that they
try to maintain. CR said that he would be willing to consider less expensive materials as
long as they are substantial. The enclosure cannot be flimsy. The dumpster abuts a
residential building.
Jimbo's Sign.
Mr. Garebedian said that he wanted to have a sign just like the Kabloom sign he would be
replacing - flat, with painted letters although the style of the letters would be more like
those on the "Action Glass" sign.
RE said that the Board was looking for a sign of the same shape and material as the
Dunkin Donuts sign. The Board prefers uniformity.
Mr. Garebedian and Mr. Develis pointed out that Dunkin Donuts uses "channel letters"
and if Jimbo's were to use the same the sign would be too long and expensive. Dunkin
Donuts is a national chain and can afford such signs.
JS asked if the site is located in Business-B? It is.
CR said that he liked the Kabloom sign and its gooseneck external lighting. He asked if
the Board would consider allowing a Kabloom-like sign using colors similar to the
Dunkin Donuts sign?
Both JS and JB said that they would like to see a rendition of the sign before approving it.
The Board decided to change the wording of the draft decision's condition #7 replacing
the first two sentences with "The wall sign(s) requires the issuance of a certificate of
appropriateness by the CPDC".
Dunkin Donuts' -Freestanding Sign.
Mr. Garebedian said that neither he nor the landlord had the authority to take down
Dunkin Donuts' sign. Dunkin Donuts is in violation not me.
Page 2 of 13
Mr. Develis, the landlord, said that Dunkin Donuts holds a lease and it would be hard to
make them take down a sign that has been there for some time. He asked if it was the
Board that had the authority to enforce the sign bylaw? CR said it was, and ultimately the
enforcement of it will come back to you as the landlord. Mr. Develis agreed that that was
a possibility and said that if that happens he will place it back in their [Dunkin Donuts']
lap.
Mr. Develis said that he did not see anyone else's sign coming down.
CR said that it became a nonconforming sign as of two Fridays ago (July 1, 2005).
Mr. Develis said that it was unfair to hold up Mr. Garebedian's application over an issue
between Dunkin Donuts' and their landlord.
CR said that the Board regularly requires conditions for things on the site and ultimately
the property owner is responsible for ensuring compliance.
Mr., Develis said that he could not recall receiving notice of noncompliance. He said that
he believes that Dunkin Donuts also has not been notified.
CR said that it was not the Board's intent to immediately go out and start handing out
fines.' We are trying to work with businesses.
Mr. Develis disagreed. He loves the town but says the he sees no benefit from the real
estate taxes he pays. He said that the Boards have to look at things from the
businessman's side too. Mr. Garebedian should not be put in this position.
CR said that we try to support a business-friendly town. We are trying to work with
people but you have a prominent non-conforming sign on your property and you are
before the commission for approval. When someone comes before us for a site review,
the commission reviews all issues with the site and addresses them. The CPDC cannot
render an approval inconsistent with the town's bylaws.
Mr. Develis said that he and Mr. Garebedian have been receptive to 90% of the Board's
conditions and requests and that shows their good faith. He said that the Board's demands
regarding the freestanding sign will put him in a delicate legal position with a tenant and
that shows him that you are not looking at this from the businessman's point of view.
JS interrupted to remind the applicant and Mr. Develis that this process, requesting a site
plan review waiver, was set up from a business perspective. JS continued: Although the
applicant requesting the waiver is only occupying a part of the site, the Board must
consider the site as a whole. Based on the issues of the site, the Board could require a
full site plan review. JS assured the applicant and Mr. Develis that a full review of this
site would also have had to address the issue of the freestanding sign. JS said that the
Board is beholden to the regulations and cannot grant a waiver to a site that is in violation
of them - existing conditions or not. JS said that Jimbo's is not the first business to come
before this committee where we had to deal with these same issues. As the Town Planner
aid, you_and your tenanthave recourse to the ZBA. You-can--go tothe ZBA and ask for -a
variance. We have gone through this waiver process with you so that we would not have
to go through an additional full-blown site plan review. But certain key issues have been
identified that need to be addressed.
Page 3 of 13
RH added that he would think that any standard lease would say that the landlord and
tenant would have to obey all laws, rules, and regulations.
Mr. Develis said that he understood the Board's position but he was fairly sure that
Dunkin Donuts has no idea that their sign is in violation of the bylaws and this situation
puts him in a delicate position with them. He added that if everyone else in the
community has to deal with this signage regulation then he would too.
RH said that it is not everyone else in the community just everyone with a
nonconforming sign. And in the Business-B district there are no freestanding signs. They
must either be wall signs or they must project from the building.
Mr. Develis asked if the car wash and Burger King were in Business B? The Board told
him that they were not.
Mr. Develis said that it's a sensitive situation and he asked to be allowed to explore the
situation before approaching Dunkin Donuts, but he didn't want the Board to think that
he was not being cooperative.
The Board understood Mr. Develis's concerns and assured him that they understood the
sensitivity of the situation but they cannot ignore the fact that the sign is in violation of
the bylaws. CR added that he believed that legally the Board cannot approve a site plan
review or review waiver of a site that has a zoning violation.
Mr. Garebedian said that the applicant is not in violation. Jimbo's Roast Beef is not in
violation. The Building Inspector said the same thing. The Inspector said that it is
between Dunkin Donuts and the town ...not Jimbo's Roast Beef. Mr. Garebedian said that
he asked the Building Inspector if he could repeat to the Board what he said and the
Building inspector said yes. The Building Inspector is the zoning enforcer and that's his
interpretation.
CR said that we can continue this and get a legal opinion on the matter.
JS said that we could ask for a legal opinion but it is the his understanding that a site plan
review would concern itself with everything in that lot including not only Jimbo's but
Dunkin Donuts too.
Mr. Develis responded to JS saying that in this situation there is no clarity. He asked the
board if the issue could be put aside as one of the conditions of the decision until it is
resolved?
CR was not sure that the Board had the authority.
RH suggested that the Board approve the decision as it is and then ask Town Counsel for
a legal opinion. If Town Counsel says-it's-the applicantand not-the-site then-we-can
modify the decision.
Page 4 of 13
Mr. Garebedian and Mr. Develis both liked this suggestion. They thought it was more
than fair.
RH said that we are going to decide tonight on the decision as it is written and
concurrently ask Town Counsel 's opinion. If Town Counsel says that it is the applicant
who is in violation and not the site then we'll modify the decision at our next meeting
(July 25, 2005).
Curb Cut.
Mr. Garebedian next wanted to discuss the draft decision's condition #8 which requires
the closing of the curb cut in front of his business and closest to the intersection of
Washington and Main.
Mr. Garebedian said that he thinks that closing that curb cut would create chaos. Mr.
Develis said that closing it would make it difficult for the handicapped to back out of the
lot. CR said that he has looked at the site and in his opinion there would be enough room
for a handicap van to drive in and back out if the cut was closed. CR added that there is
no way that that curb cut should be used to back out of the lot. CR said that it is a poor
site situation and needs to be rectified. He called the curb cut the "poster child of why we
hold site plan reviews".
Mr. Develis said that he had already modified this area once. In the past he had given the
town some land at that corner to help rectify the situation. He said that the land was given
freely without any pressure from the town. Mr. Develis then said, "sites that are very
sensitive to accidents have less accidents because people have a greater awareness of
those sites".
RH said that he knows the site very well and he parks in the back. Mr. Develis said that is
why Mr. Garebedian is adding a rear entrance for his customers. People uncomfortable
with using the front lot can use the rear lot. Mr. Garebedian added that the rear entrance
would relieve some of the traffic problems in the front lot.
JB said that the question is this: is the site better served or worse served by opening or
closing the curb? Mr. Develis said that we won't know if closing the cut would be better
or worse until it is closed and then it can't be undone. Mr. Develis asked if anyone had
submitted any documentation on correcting that corner?
CR said that the Town Engineer had told him that the town wanted to close that cut. CR
said that it's an obvious liability on that site.
Mr. Develis said that this again is a case of the town hurting a landlord who has had no
input on the decision.
CR said that we keep repeating the same information. He said that Site Plan Review
requires_that the commission review the use of the site. That isin the bylaws. He said that
the CPDC must look at all aspects of the site that will be impacted by your [Mr.
Develis's] tenants' use. The curb cut is clearly another element that will be impacted by
his tenants' use. Customers will be coming and going through it.
Page 5 of 13
CR said that the Town Engineer told him that this has been looked at. He said that the
town had Chapter 90 money that it wanted to use to close this curb cut and for whatever
reason it was voted down in Town Meeting. That was a political decision. You have
come before this commission and the commission has to consider the curb cut. That cut
creates a lot of circulation problems. People leaving through that cut into traffic when
people are turning left onto Washington Street create a hazard. The location is
constrained as it is. CR said he thought that the circulation would work better if the cut
was closed and people used the cut further from the intersection. He said that closing the
cut was consistent with every traffic engineering design standard there is and that's why
the Town Engineer recommended that Chapter 90 money be used to close the cut.
CR said that he understood Mr. Garebedian's and Mr. Develis's concerns, but it seemed
to him that there would be enough room for a handicap van to back up and exit through
the other curb cut. The width of the other curb cut is half the frontage of the site.
Mr. Garebedian asked to make a suggestion. He said that when he applied for approval to
put a drive-thru in his restaurant in Burlington it was decided by Burlington's Planning
Board to leave the decision to the experts. He asked if Reading has a Safety Officer?
CR said Reading does, but that generally speaking the Town Engineer makes
recommendations to Boards and Commissions about safe access to a site.
Mr. Garebedian said that in his opinion if the cut is closed there will be a lot of
congestion in the parking lot and he suggested that the Board might ask Reading's Safety
Officer for his opinion on whether it is a safety issue or not.
JS said again that we are here tonight to discuss a request for a waiver. JS said that
Mr.Garebedian's suggestion to get more information is a good one, but, given that this is
a request for a waiver, the Board is limited in the information it has at hand on which to
reach a decision. That being the case, the Board relies on our experts from the town to
guide us as well as our own experiences with past reviews and the Town Engineer has
said that the curb cut should be blocked.
Mr. Garebedian asked if there have been a lot of accidents there?
JS said that once again you are asking questions that we would normally ask in a site plan
review. The alternative to this waiver process is to require a full site plan review and
submit all the issues we've discussed tonight to greater scrutiny in a more open forum.
That would entail public hearings, a traffic study, and meetings of the Design Review
Team. Given your circumstances, we have tried to avoid all that. JS added that the
problem as he sees it is how far should the Board push the site plan waiver process before
deciding to ask for a full site plan review?
CR said that he was trying to think of a way to block the curb cut that would not require
the expense of actually constructing the curb. Hesaid that the Board-could-require-that - the applicant somehow physically block the curb cut during peak hours.
Page 6 of 13
Mr. Develis introduced his partner Mr. Dalelio. Mr. Develis said that Mr. Dalelio has
worked at the site for years.
Mr. Dalelio said that if you close the cut you'll make driving into the lot more difficult,
and people will drive over the curbstone if you block it off.
CR said that there is only one way to resolve this and that is to have a full site plan
review with a traffic study and a traffic engineer. That's a very busy intersection and that
small curb cut contributes to a lot of the congestion problems there. CR said that he was
trying to think of ways to compromise.
RH said that he thought the compromise is either to eliminate the curb cut or to have a
full plan review with a traffic study.
JB said that if the curb cut is the only sticking point then we could have a design team
review with a traffic study on this one point instead of a full site plan review.
Mr. Garebedian suggested temporarily blocking the curb cut with cement barriers or
something similar and reviewing the matter again in three months to see if the situation
got better or worse.
CR said that suggestion sounded reasonable but he didn't want to see Jersey barriers
there. Mr. Garebedian said he was thinking of something more along the lines of parking-
space bumpers. The Board liked this idea but wanted a more conspicuous indicator that
will make drivers aware that the cut is blocked. The bumpers are not conspicuous enough
and drivers might drive over them.
The consensus of the Board was that the curb cut should be blocked for the 90 days after
Jimbo's opens and that at the end of those 90 days the Board will review the issue.
Condition #8 of the draft decision would be changed to reflect this.
RH then proposed a change to condition #2. He wanted this line added at the end of it:
"Without ZBA approval of offsite parking, the total number of seats at the site shall be
limited to 48."
CR said that there was one other procedural point. The Board needs to waive the loading
zone requirement. The Board agreed.
JB said that in the draft decision CR's parking diagram is referenced by the date of June
30 but there is no date on the diagram. He asked that the date be added to the diagram.
JS asked if there were any further comments from members of the Board?
JB apologized for being late and then said because he was late he feels that he should
abstain from voting on the decision.
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public?
There were none.
Page 7 of 13
RH moved that the Board grant the site plan review waiver request subject to the findings
and conditions set forth in the draft decision as modified tonight.
NS seconded.
Voted approved 3:0:1.
Zoning Workshop
Downtown Mixed-Use
CR said that he had included a copy of the Town of Bedford's Mixed-Use bylaws in the
members' packets. When last we left this, we were going to look into the "affordable
housing" component. CR added that we should start tailoring the language with specific
numbers and percentages of affordable housing.
RH said that before getting started he wanted to say that he doesn't like Bedford's name
for the law ("Industrial Mixed Use"). The Board agreed. JB suggested "Downtown
Mixed Use". RH suggested "Business-B Mixed Use". They decided on "Zoning District
Mixed Use".
CR said that these affordable units need to count. They need to be part of the town's
inventory. They need to be officially recognized by the state and the way to have them
recognized by the state is to require a LIP application for them. That's why Bedford has
that requirement in their bylaw.
RH pointed out that the Bedford bylaw reads: "No less than 25 percent of the total
number of units shall be affordable to households at or below 80 percent of the median
household income for the Boston Metropolitan Area...." He asked if that was typical?
CR said that was the ceiling and that you could make deeper discounts. CR added that if
you go down to 50% you only have to make 20% of the units affordable.
JB asked if 80% of the median income was the standard definition of "affordable" used in
all of our other bylaws? CR said it was and added that it is the state's definition of an
affordable unit as well.
NS asked if Longwood Farms was a PUD or a LIP?
CR said that it was a PUD-R but in order for Longwood's affordable units to count, we're
going to require the developer to submit a LIP application.
NS asked why a developer would submit a LIP for the units if the units are already
affordable?
CR said that the units are affordable in name only until the developer submits a LIP
application for them. Then you get credit for the units from the state and they go on your
inventory.
RH asked if the Board could require that the developers submit a LIP?
CR said that we already do. The Town Counsel approves the regulatory agreement.
Page 8 of 13
There was some confusion about what is involved with processing LIPS as opposed to
40Bs.
CR tried to explain. He said that if someone comes in and wants to build a new
development, like Maplewood, that was a 40B development, then that developer has to
submit an application for a new development. That's a different and more complete
process. They'd need to go to the Selectmen and then back to the state. You don't have to
do all that in the LIP process. Under the LIP process, all we're doing is petitioning the
state to make sure that those units count on our inventory.
NS said that the Selectmen had the Longwood developer go through the LIP process.
CR said that the Selectmen had nothing to do with it. RR said, yes, they did. RH
explained that Longwood went through that process for 250 homes and then came to the
CPDC for a separate process, which was approved for 160 units. Now we're talking
about taking 16 units, the 10%, and going back, after the fact, to the state with a LIP
application for those 16 units so that they'll count in our inventory.
NS asked why Longwood didn't go after a LIP from the start?
CR said that was a good question.
JS asked for clarification: Even if someone submits a 40B and as a result of that has a
requisite affordable component, you're saying that the 40B isn't truly completed until the
state certifies that the affordable units are in fact affordable. And the only way that
happens is for the developer to submit a LIP, which shows that they went through all of
- the proper processes to get those units classified as affordable?
CR: Correct.
JS asked what happens if the developers don't do that?
CR said that in that case their permit is not in compliance.
JS asked when does the developer submit the LIP?
CR said that is up to the town. The town has to require it. In the case of Longwood, it has
three phases of units coming online so we cut the developer a break.
NS asked if CHAPA shouldn't enforce this as the monitoring agent?
CR said, yes, CHAPA will enforce it because we put that in the regulatory agreement. CR
said that you have to specify the monitoring agent and CHAPA is the best. CR added that
the town just got $18,000 out of the Sumner-Chaney condos because they exceeded their
profit. CHAPA was the monitoring agent there and they did a financial analysis of
Sumner-Chaney's financial statement and caught the excess.
JS noted that the past Sunday's Boston Globe's Northwest section had an article in it that
addressed similar issues. Everyone said that they had read it. CR said that article
described a case much like what happened with Sumner-Chaney. RH said that the article
- made it clear that it is each town's responsibility to monitor the financial outcome of their - - -
housing projects.
Page 9 of 13
CR said that if the town does not enforce the permit and you allow the developer to walk
away with extra profit then that's the town's fault.
Returning to the Bedford bylaw, RH said that he was puzzled by all of the headings in
Bedford's bylaw, 15.3.4 through 15.3.12.
CR said that those are the permitted uses under their bylaw. They all fall under "15.3
Permitted Uses". Bedford broke them out into subheadings.
JS said that we would be adding only the "Multifamily Dwelling" permitted use to
Reading's bylaw. CR agreed.
RH said that the big challenge will be how we address parking. Bedford has referenced
their own parking bylaws within their multi-use bylaw. We could do the same.
JS said that our parking bylaws specify an exception to required spaces for businesses
within 300 feet of a municipal lot. We also specify minimum required parking spaces
based on square footage of businesses. If we add mixed use, we may have to review these
bylaws with reference to residential uses too.
RH said that we once discussed the idea of having developers contribute to a parking
fund - an impact fee - is that still a possibility?
CR said, absolutely.
Mr. Katsoufis suggested that basing parking requirements on the size of the housing unit
may be something interesting to consider.
JS said that we can't make assumptions on who will move into these units. He said that
he knows of two apartments downtown that each have two parking spaces. The occupants
of each were young couples and they all commuted to work and each couple had two
cars.
CR said that developers will say that they can't sell the units without parking spaces.
Mr. Katsoufis suggested modulating the parking in the some of the problem areas. Allow
street parking in some areas if we have to allow for more cars per unit. RH asked: Permit
parking from 5PM to 8AM or something like that?
CR said that is why he suggested that we need to have a joint zoning workshop on mixed
use with the Selectmen because this is another area where it comes down to the public
way.
RH agreed but also thought that the Board should come up with our own proposal. RH
said that it is easier for the Selectmen to look at a concrete proposal rather than go back
and forth talking-about concepts.
CR said that he had provided the Selectmen with the bulleted list that the Board wanted
him to put together highlighting the essential concepts of the Bedford bylaw. He said that
Page 10 of 13
he could provide it to them again and if the Board is comfortable with what we have so
far, we could begin to share it with the Selectmen. The Board found this agreeable.
RH agreed that there are still a number of issues with parking but we have some ideas for
mitigating these issues:
• An impact fee to finance public parking.
• Permit parking on the street.
RH said that the Board cannot focus on Main Street alone. We have to consider Haven
Street and elsewhere as well. He asked: what if Mr. Hall finds that no businesses want to
rent his upper stories at Haven Junction and he wants to put in condos instead.
CR said that happens to be the case.
Selectman Ben Tafoya said that what bothers him about parking in Reading is that you
can go from the Post Office to the Depot and in that short distance run into four different
parking regulations. There are good reasons for all of them, but it doesn't make sense
when you take the broader view. He said that the Selectmen would be happy to spend
time with the CPDC discussing this but before that if you could take a look at the
situation and "put a stake in the ground" it would give us someplace to start.
Mr. Katsoufis made two points:
1. He asked if there has been any discussion about the possibility of putting
residences on the ground floors and businesses on the upper floors of buildings?
Not excluding uses of the floors may provide more flexible layouts.
2. Regarding access: it is not just about parking but clusters of parking. Perhaps we
should consider changing the setbacks to move buildings closer to the street to
free up space behind buildings?
RH responded to both points:
1. Whatever use is made of each floor, each floor should have the same use.
2. Regarding large parking areas, perhaps a land taking would be appropriate? The
town has spoken with the owners of some of the larger lots about putting those
lots to more efficient use but to no effect.
Ms. Virginia Adams made three points:
1. Has an inventory been taken of the existing businesses that would be impacted by
mixed use?
2. Will this bylaw allow one-story buildings to expand upward? If so, she foresees
many tear-downs. Are we opening a Pandora's Box?
3. The George Washington has not noticeably enlivened Reading's downtown
contrary to what mixed use is supposed to do.
NS responded to Ms. Adams second point by saying that you'd be more likely to see such
one-story buildings built-over rather than torn down.
CR said that Haven Junction is struggling because there is no market for office space.
M.F. Charles, too. There are interested parties, but they are waiting to see how the
' zoning will fall out.
Page 11 of 13
RE asked: if Haven Junction is having trouble, do we want to try to speed mixed use onto
the Fall Town Meeting's warrant? CR said that is why he brought it up.
CR said that he would work with the Bedford bylaw and try to have something ready by
the next meeting.
JS said that in the interim the Board could help CR by looking the Bedford bylaw over.
CR said that Bedford's bylaw has been in effect for about three years now. He'll check its
track record.
George K said that most towns would not do this [implement mixed-use] and risk the
increase of density and the impact on their schools.
RH had two comments:
1. Regarding tear-downs, he said that just because the law would be on the books
does not mean that existing buildings would be torn down.
2. Regarding the impact on the schools, he said that could be controlled by the size
of the units.
CR said that if you put an affordable unit provision into the bylaw you'll constrain the
developers from wanting to tear down existing buildings to put up luxury units.
JS concluded the discussion by saying that the Board will review the Bedford bylaw for
the next meeting and present additional information at the next Master Plan meeting. The
Board will also present their questions and concerns on the parking issues to the Board of
Selectmen.
Administrative Review
➢ CPDC Customer Service Survey
RH asked what was driving this survey? CR said that the Board of Selectmen is
interested in knowing what customer services the Boards provide so the CPDC should
grab the bull by the horns and put together their own customer service survey.
CR presented a draft version of such a survey. The Board liked the idea and suggested
many modifications such as:
• Drop the multiple choice rating terms like "fair" and "good" after each question
and instead use a numeric scale like this:
"Not Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Well".
• Ask more direct questions about the webpage. It is a valuable resource and the
Board should find out what the public thinks about it.
NS asked if this should be a survey of residents rather than customers?
JS replied that whoever takes the survey should have had some experience with the
CPDC.
RE had two suggestions:
1. Change the name of the survey from "Customer Service Survey" to "Customer
Opinion Survey".
Page 12 of 13
2. On the back of the survey, under "Role of the Board", we should add other topics
like "noise".
The Board agreed with these suggestions
A suggestion was made that the description of our public hearing process should be
added to the back of the survey. JS said that the process as written is specifically for Site
Plan Reviews and would not be appropriate as a general description of public hearings.
The Board can consider developing a general description of the public hearing process at
another time. The Board agreed.
➢ Town Counsel evaluation
CR said that the Town Counsel would like these in by the end of the week. The Town
Counsel's contract is reviewed annually. The consensus of the Board was that they could
not answer this evaluation, as they have no direct dealings with Town Counsel.
➢ Town Planner evaluation
CR said that this evaluation is a way you could all show your support for the way I do my
job. The Board said that they would be happy to do it.
RH asked if it would make more sense for the Board to submit a single evaluation or
should the individual Board members submit their own evaluations?
The consensus was that each individual should write an evaluation and then the
individual evaluations should be combined into a single evaluation that would be
submitted by the Board.
Public Comment/Minutes
No minutes were submitted for review.
RE moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted approved 4:0:0.
The meeting ended at 10:15.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on August
22, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on August 22, 2005.
Signed as approved,
qlldo -f -
Page 13 of 13