HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-17 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6654
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: mschloth@ci.reading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: January 17, 2007
Location: Multi-purpose Room, Parker Middle School, 45 Temple Street 7:00 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Neil Sullivan (NS), and Jonathan Barnes
(JB).
Members Absent: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (RH)
Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), David Tuttle (DT), Israel Maykut
(IM), and Nicholas Safina (Nick S.).
Also Present: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth.
Mr. Ted Moore, Johnson Woods
Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Mr. George Danis
Mr. Nick Nikolaou
Mr. John Ogren, Hayes Engineering
Mr. Donald Muse, 312 Gazebo Circle
Mr. Greg Prakk, Ayoub Engineering
Mr. Jody Renouf, Motiva Enterprises
Michelle Daly, 33 High Street (for One Haven Street)
Mr. Theodore Londi,
Mr. Patel
Mr. Dan Busa
Mr. Frank Normandin,
Mr. Tim Boisvert
Mr. Mark Doherty, Dynamik Sports
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:25M.
Public Comments / Minutes
There were no minutes ready for review.
There were no comments from the public.
Question and Answers about the proposed Parking Overlay bylaw
Page 1 of 13
Before continuing with the night's business, JS paused to thank his fellow Board and
Associate Members as well as town staff for providing answers to the many questions
posed at the previous meeting about the proposed parking overlay bylaw and its
ramifications. JS asked the recording secretary to ask the Town Manager to review the
questions and answers and to please forward any technical questions to the appropriate
party to be answered (e.g "spot zoning", assessor questions). He reminded all that the
collected questions and answers are available for review online at the town's Planning
Webpage.
DT asked if Open Meeting Law permits online discussions (e.g electronic bulletin boards).
He assumed there should be no problem since the questions would be public. JS said he
was not sure but he had been told by Town Counsel to be careful with regards to online
discussions. JS said anything discussed online that is currently being deliberated by the
Board would constitute a violation of Open Meeting Law. JS said email-chains have gotten
Boards in other towns in trouble. GK said the crucial point is "online" does not necessarily
guarantee all interested parties have access to the discussion. DT pointed out it could also
be a violation of any required noticing.
Regarding the format of the questions and answers, GK said they both should be brief and
to the point and not be allowed to turn into essays or arguments of a particular point of
view. The Board agreed with this. JS said we must strive to be fair and balanced: we need
specific answers to specific questions. Policy questions will be more difficult but we have
all been involved with the Master Plan. Ultimately, the Town Manager will have the final
say on what goes up on the webpage as an answer. If there are differing opinions they will
have to be reconciled as best as we can.
It was the'consensus of the Board not to attempt to answer to the question about the Post
Office's intention with regards to the possible purchase of 16 Sanborn Street.
Zoning Workshop: Zoning Amendments
Johnson Woods PUD-R, Phase 2 Acceleration from 7 to 4 years.
Permitting Reguation; Zoning Bylaws Section 4.9.
Mr. Ted Moore, developer of Johnson Woods, and his attorney, Mr. Brad Latham, were
present.
JS opened the workshop. The Board needs to agree on the wording of this article so that the
legal notice for the article's public hearing can be posted.
JS outlined the history of the proposed amendment. The amendment has been discussed in
six or seven of the Board's meetings over the past year. Mr. Moore brought it forward
because the original reason for the seven year delay - that the parcel might be developed as
a commercial property - does not seem probable given that the adjacent Woburn
development - which was originally zoned for commercial development - has been
rezoned as residential and, in fact, the construction of residential units there is well under
way. The original bylaw also for the construction of 11 units/acre and requires 15%0 of
them be affordable. The Town Manager and Board of Selectmen are amenable to the
Page 2 of 13
acceleration but feel since the town is doing something for the developer something should
be done for the town and they are looking for an increase in the percentage of affordable
units to 25%.
JS said he agrees that if the town grants the acceleration it should receive an increase in
affordable units but he does not necessarily agree the increase should be as great as 25%.
He would prefer a tiered approach allowing density to increase as affordability increases.
This was originally proposed by the Town Planner but was not well received. At the other
end of suggestions, RH said we should make no changes except what was originally
proposed; change 7 years to 4 years, and that is all.
The consensus of the Board was a 20% increase might be more reasonable.
NS asked how many buildings have been built in the Johnson Woods development so far.
Mr. Moore said there are about 17 buildings completed out of a total of 56. NS said if you
still have another 40 buildings to go, where is the need to accelerate?
Mr. Moore said that is a good question. Mr. Moore said they suggested this acceleration
because it would be good for both him and the town to have get the buildings constructed
as soon as possible: the town could start collecting building fees and taxes sooner, the
abutters would be done with the annoyances of construction in their backyards' sooner, and
he would be able to put units on the market sooner. Mr. Moore said additional affordable
units would not make the project less profitable to him. He also said additional affordable
units would not be cost effective to the town and presented statistics to support his case.
The gist of his case is: 1) Of the units he has sold so far, the affordable units tend to be
bought by families with school-aged children and the market-value units tend to be bought
by families without school-aged children ( he called them empty-nesters). 2) Increasing the
number of affordable units would decrease the amount of taxes collected by the town (they
cost less) while increasing the cost of services to the town (more children in the school
system).
Mr. Moore said he if there must be a quid pro quo of more affordable units in return for the
accelerated development of Phase 2, he would rather this amendment not go forward and
he asked to withdraw the proposal.
Mr. Latham reminded the Board that the original decision in the Johnson Woods
Development had been reached after many long and involved discussions and the result of
those discussions was an agreement of 1 lunits/acre with 15% affordable units. He admitted
the acceleration would benefit his client but pointed out if would benefit the town as well.
He said if the percentage of affordable units was set too high then the acceleration would
not be a benefit to his client and they would rather withdraw the acceleration.
JB said the town is between a rock and a hard place: yes, affordable units may increase the
costs to the town but, on the other hand, for the town to reach its 10% affordable unit
threshold a certain number of affordable units must be built each year. It comes down to
which is more important to the town and the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen seem
to be saying reaching the threshold is more important.
Page 3 of 13
JS suggested the Board approve one of three options:
1. Present the Board of Selectmen the original proposal without changes; namely, only
change 7 years to 4 years.
2. Do not move forward with this zoning change.
3. Present the Board of Selectmen with the original proposal amended to include
language that would increase the affordable unit requirement to 20%.
JB asked, if the Board did not move forward with the article could the Board of Selectmen
proceed with it anyway? JS said the Board of Selectmen would have to provide their own
language and the CPDC would still have to schedule a public hearing for it and vote for or
against recommending it to Town Meeting.
JB said he was mindful this proposal is before the Board at the developer's request and
based both on that and on what the developer has said tonight about wanting the proposal
withdrawn, he would tend toward option #2 and not have the proposal move forward. JB
added he was against option #1 because it gives the developer what he wants and the town
gets nothing. JS said he was also against option #1 for the same reason and would support
either option #2 or #3.
The consensus of the Board was to approve the acceleration and increase the percentage of
affordable units to 20%.
JS moved to change the language in zoning bylaw 4.9.6.21 from "seven years" to. "four
years" and the language in zoning bylaw 4.9.6.10 from "fifteen percent" to "twenty
percent" and to submit the modified proposal to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion as an
article on the warrant for Town Meeting.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved 3:0:0.
The Board directed the recording secretary to present the amended language to the Board
of Selectmen and to prepare and post the legal notice for the 1/29/07 public hearing on the
amended proposal.
Zoning Workshop: Zoning Amendments
80 -100 Main Street, Expansion of PUD-B Overlay District to include 370 South Street
Attorney Brad Latham represented the owners of 80 -110 Main Street, the Tambones.
Mr. Latham said Mr. Tambone requested the proposed language be included - to allow
signage face the rear parking lot - because the town does not want parking in front of the
building.
JS read a comment from RH on the proposal: he is a big proponent of putting buildings
closer to streets and the parking spaces behind them, but he does not want to see this
language ["No parking shall be situated between the front of the building and the front lot
line in a PUD-B development"] added to the bylaws if it would restrict the Board in the
future.
Page 4 of 13
DT said the streetscape improvement is clear and easy to support but the applicant wants to
add a residential property [370 South Street] to the PUD-B zone for parking and that could
be an explosive issue given that is very similar to what the Cooperative Bank wants to do
with 16 Sanborn Street. JS said this is a little different from 16 Sanborn Street in that the
overlay does already exist today.
Mr. Latham said they have had two or three meetings with abutters and there has been no
opposition - or not as much as with other projects - so far.
DT said Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill has expressed her strong opposition to both the 16
Sanborn Street project and what Mr. Tambone plans to do with the South Street property.
JB said there were great differences between this project and 16 Sanborn Street:
• 16 Sanborn St is exclusively about adding a parking lot - this is not.
• The PUD overlay existed beforehand.
• The enhancements this project will provide the town are significant (e.g.
streetscape).
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none.
GK had questions about the new building's F.A.R. Mr. Latham said the new building's
F.A.R. will be less so it is not an issue; they will not increase the F.A.R. that can be used.
JS expressed his agreement with RH's reservations with regard to the proposed bylaw
change restricting the Board in future applications. He recommended the Board choose one
of two options:
1. Accept the proposal as drafted
2. Delete the first part of the proposal [no parking in front] and modify the second
[signage may be placed on the wall facing the parking lot].
JB was concerned any 11 th hour deliberations on significant deletions or modifications
could create problems if the Board does not make itself clear.
JS moved to submit to the Board of Selectmen unchanged the words of both the bylaw
amendment and map change. .
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The Board directed the recording secretary to present proposed bylaw and map change
language to the Board of Selectmen; to prepare and post the legal notices for the 1/29/07
public hearing on both proposals; and to notice the abutters on the public hearing.
Zoning Workshop: Zoning Amendments
"Frontage" definition for Zoning Bylaws.
Page 5 of 13
The consensus of the Board was that since they have had no chance to properly vet this
zoning change they would not move it forward for inclusion on the warrant of the
upcoming Town Meeting. They agreed to take it up again at a meeting after Town Meeting.
Administrative Review
Danis Realty Request for Minor Modification Determination of Site Plan Review
Decision of 128 Marketplace, One General Way
Attorney Mark Favaloro represented Danis Realty. Mr. John Ogren of Hayes Engineering,
and Mr. George Danis and Mr. Nick Nikolaou of Danis Inc were also present.
Mr. Favaloro said they were seeking a determination of a Minor Modification to their site
plan. In essence, they are preparing for their final fit-up to the area in the rear of the
property. They met with the Conservation Commission on 12/13/06 and received their
approval.
Mr. Ogren said:
• They are adding a 20'x 74' addition - a loading dock.
• Trench drains have been added and tied into the originally proposed drainage.
• They have increased the size of the building and although this changes the parking
calculations they still have two extra parking spaces.
• Truck-turning radius: the revised plans show how trucks would get into out of the
docks.
JS questioned how the increased size of the building was split out: as warehouse space or
retail space? The applicant could not provide a satisfactory answer. JS said the Board had
reviewed earlier plans item by item to determine what was retail-space and what was
warehouse-space and he is uncomfortable not knowing how this new space is split out.
Mr. Danis said when they ask for the Occupancy Permit they will demonstrate the parking
meets the requirements for retail space.
JS asked the record reflect the Board's request to have the Building Inspector check the
retail/warehouse parking calculations for the site when the applicant applies for their
permit.
The Town Engineer read the DRT minutes:
• The DRT was told the building would most likely be used as a furniture store but no
specific tenant was named.
• The applicant must submit a clean set of plans that show everything approved to
date.
• The applicant said an offer on the use of land as a right-of way to Newcrossing had
been given and they were awaiting a counter-offer.
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none.
Page 6 of 13
The consensus of the Board was the applicant's modification to the site plan was minor.
JS asked if they should make it a condition of their determination to have the applicant
submit a full set of clean, up-to-date plans. The Town Engineer said that would not be
necessary.
JB moved to find as a minor modification to the site plans of One General Way the changes
reflected in plans dated 1/4/2007 ("...proposed improvements...", sheet 1 of 6) and
11/15/06 ("Truck Turning Measurements").
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
NS moved to approve the modification itself.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Summit Village Condominiums Request for PRD Special Permit Minor Modification
Determination
Mr. Donald Muse of 312 Gazebo Circle appeared for Summit Village Condominiums.
The applicant said the condominiums want to participate in the town's recycling program
and to do so they need to build an enclosure to hold the containers. The enclosure would be
on a concrete pad, be fenced in, and have a roof. It would not be free standing but would be
attached to a wall.
The Board could not tell from the plans where the enclosure would be situated on the site.
The Town Engineer could not tell either. An accurate location is necessary to determine if
the enclosure meets required setbacks.
The consensus of the Board was the enclosure is probably a minor modification but the
Board cannot determine that from the submitted plans. The applicant should come back
before the Board at a later date with more detailed plans:
• What will the enclosure look like and of what will it be made? The Board
recommended an architectural style and materials in accord with the main building.
• Where will it be located?
The Board asked the Town Engineer to review the site and report if the location of the
enclosure will meet town setbacks.
The Board suggested the applicant have their engineer meet with the Town Engineer to
discuss what the plans would need to show to meet the town's requirements.
No definite time was scheduled for the applicant to come before the Board but the Board
said the applicant should try to aim for the meeting of 2/12/07.
One Haven Street Request for Minor Modification Determination of Master Signage
Plan
Page 7 of 13
The applicant supplied the Board with a photo of the building and the signs.
The only issue here is the moving of one sign to a new location. Originally, there were to
be three signs on Green Street and one on Haven Street. The change is to move one of the
Green Street signs to Haven Street.
JS asked if the photo was an actual photo or a mock-up. The applicant said it was an actual
photo of the building.
The Board very much liked the look of the building and the signs.
JB moved to determine the change is a minor modification to the master signage plan.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
JB moved to approve the relocation of one signs on the Green Street side of the building to
the Haven Street side of the building as shown in the submitted photo.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Site Plan Review Waiver
87 Walkers Brook Drive, Motiva Enterprises, Inc
The application proposes exterior construction of a canopy over gas station pump
islands
Action Date: February 26, 2007
Mr. Greg P. of Ayoub Engineering appeared for the applicant.
The applicant provided background and described the project:
• They are proposing the construction of a new canopy over the gas pumps. The old
canopy has been hit twice by trucks.
• They are not proposing to move the gas pumps, the existing building, or any
paving.
• They propose the canopy drain into the retention basin at the front of the site. They
have already submitted an Order of Conditions to the Conservation Committee.
• Because the retention basin is located in land owned by Mass Hiway, they need
Mass Hiway's permission to drain into it. They say Mass Hiway has said there
would be no problem using the basin but they are waiting for Mass Hiway's formal,
written permission.
• In October 2006 they received a waiver from the ZBA to reduce their setback from
20 feet to 14 feet provided they remove their signage and lighting from the canopy.
• The Conservation Commission asked them to use riprap as an erosion control.
• The canopy will be 13 feet 6 inches from its bottom to the ground. It will be 16 feet
6 inches from its top to the ground.
The Town Engineer had no comments except to say he was wants any correspondence
from Mass Hiway to the applicant forwarded to him.
Page 8 of 13
JS noted there was a memo from the Conservation Administrator stating some revisions are
not included in the plans. The Town Engineer said the plans the Board received appear to
have less information on them then the plans the Conservation Committee received.
JS asked if there was a dumpster on the site. The applicant said there was and it is in an
enclosure.
JB asked if the new plans have no signage. The applicant said, yes, the new plans show
only a non-illuminated colored band around the canopy.
JS asked if there would be recessed lights on the underside of the canopy. The applicant
said there would. The Board said they would like to see the lighting plans.
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none.
The Town Engineer said the submission is not truly complete since the submitted plans are
not the latest plans. JS said the Board needs to see the lighting details and they could add a
condition that the applicant must keep the Town Engineer updated with regards to Mass
Hiway's approval or disapproval. If Mass Hiway disapproves the use of the retention basin
the applicant will have to go back to square one with both this Board and the Conservation
Committee.
The Town Engineer said it is not just the lighting plans the applicant must provide an
updated set of, but the entire set of plans. The Board agreed: the applicant must submit a
full set of updated plans. The lighting plan need not show the lumens but it should show all
lighting locations, shielding, wattage, and whether or not the under-canopy lights are flush
with the bottom of the canopy or not.
JB moved to continue the site plan review waiver for 87 Walkers Brook Drive to the
meeting of 1/29/07 at 10:30 PM.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Site Plan Review Waiver
214 Main Street, Londi's Pizza and Roast Beef
The application seeks a change of use from retail to restaurant
Action Date: February 26, 2007
Both the owner of the building, Mr. Patel, and the owner of Londi's Pizza, Mr. Thodori
Londi, were in attendance.
The building on the site now contains two businesses: X Market and Light & Leisure.
Light & Leisure is out of business and its space is to be divided in two. Londi's Pizza
would occupy the end space furthest from X Market. The middle space has not yet been
rented.
Page 9 of 13
Mr. Londi said he was proposing an interior change to a restaurant. The business would be
take-out primarily but there would be four tables too.
JS asked if there was a dumpster. Mr. Patel said there was and it would be shared by all
tenants. JS said the Board requires dumpsters be enclosed.
Change of Use
JS noted the Building Inspector has raised the Change of Use issue with this site but the
Board had granted waivers in the past for similar changes of use - for example, Twin
Seafood - by allowing the waiver as long as the new use was within the same Use
Category broadly defined.
JB agreed this site is consistent with how the Board currently interprets change of use but
he noted he was uncomfortable with this interpretation. JS said it may be time to for the
Board to schedule a review of its waiver procedures.
Parkin
There was much discussion on whether or not the site met parking requirements.
DT said the site would need 23 spaces:
• 9 for X Market (one a loading space)
• 10 for Londi's Pizza
• 4 for whoever moves into the middle space.
JS said ten-space requirement for restaurants only applies if there is no seating. The
applicant says there will be seating - four tables - and at one parking space per table that
works out to four spaces for customer seating. JS asked Mr. Londi what the greatest
number of employees would be. Mr. Londi said three: himself, his wife, and one part-time
employee. JS said each employee must have a parking space so that brings the total spaces
for the restaurant to 7 not 10; and the total number of spaces needed on the site from 23 to
20.
The Board noted the site appeared to have enough spaces but it was difficult to tell from
the submitted site plan. There was still a question as to the location of the handicapped
parking spaces and if a loading space would be needed.
JS said the Board either has to waive the requirement of a loading space, or one needs to be
added. The consensus of the Board was they might be willing to waive the loading space
but they would prefer an existing space be identified as a loading space.
JB pointed out that with the change in the number of tenants (from two to three) and given
that one of the tenants - Mr. Londi - will be a fast-food business, there could be more
traffic on the site than in the past.
Ligg
A canopy (roof overhang) extends the length of the building over a walkway. Mr. Patel
said there are lights in the canopy illuminating the walkway.
Page 10 of 13
The Board was concerned the parking lot may not be adequately lit. JB said the plans show
one light in the southern corner of the lot. There is another light on the opposite side of the
lot but it is difficult to tell from the plans if it illuminates this site or the site next door.
Landscaping
The Board asked if there would be any landscaping improvements.
Mr. Patel said the Town Planner had told him he needed to add landscaping. Mr. Patel said
adding the landscaping is his responsibility. He added he would be losing a parking space
to landscaping.
Abutters Notice
The recording secretary said he had neglected to get the abutters list to the applicant in time
to have the envelopes ready to mail notice of tonight's meeting to the abutters.
The Consensus of the Board was the abutters would have to be noticed before the Board
could reach a decision. The Board decided to continue the site plan review of 214 Main St
to the meeting of 1/29/07 at 11:00 PM. The Board directed the recording secretary to see to
it the abutters were noticed for this meeting.
The consensus of the Board was they were comfortable the request for a waiver would be
granted provided no other issues with the site are found. With that in mind, the Board
directed the Town Engineer to review the site plan before the next meeting. It was
suggested the applicants meet with the Town Engineer to discuss outstanding issues of the
site plan (parking spaces, lighting...).
The Board directed the applicant:
• To provide more details of the proposed landscaping.
• To enclose the dumpster.
• To address any construction issues in the rear of the lot with the Building Inspector
immediately. The Board said they could make this a condition of the waiver if need
be.
• To show the parking calculations (each tenant's allotted spaces) on the site plans.
• The applicant must designate a loading space or request a waiver.
JM moved to continue the site plan review waiver of 214 Main Street to 11:00 PM on
1/29/07.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0,
Site Plan Review Waiver
345 Main Street, Sherwin Williams
The application seeks a change of use from service to retail.
Action Date: February 01, 2007
Mr. Dan Busa, Mr. Frank Normandin, and Mr. Tim Boisvert appeared for Sherwin
Williams.
Page 11 of 13
The applicants explained their proposal. The existing structure will be refitted - all interior
work - to a Sherwin Williams paint store. They noted the address is actually 349 Main
Street. It would be located in the plaza that contains: Casa Bakery, Plaster Fun Time...
The consensus of the Board was the proposal was not a change of use.
JS asked if there would be a dumpster. Mr. Normandin said there would be a separate
dumpster for Sherwin Williams. JS said the dumpster would have to be enclosed: screened
and locked. This will be made a condition.
The Town Engineer said the applicant had met with him and the Town Manager already
and they had discussed adding trees to the site: about three along Main and Ash Streets and
one internal to the lot.
JS asked about signage. Although the site is not in the downtown Business B zone (it is in
Business A), signage is still part of the site review.
Mr. Normandin said there would be one sign above the business. JB said the Board needs
to see the sign. JS suggested the applicant submit a picture of what the sign would look
like on the building also showing all dimensions and illumination.
Nick S said he thought the cost of the trees may be better spent on fixing the site's entrance
off of Main Street. He pointed out the curb-cut was very narrow. The Town Engineer said
that entrance - near Burger King is on the abutting property. This site's true entrance is
on the right-hand side [if standing with your back to Main Street].
JS asked if the Ash Street entrance was on the applicant's property. Mr. Busa said, no, that
was an easement. Mr. Busa clarified: there are three entrances to the plaza: two are off an
easement [Ash St and near Burger King] and one is off of Main Street. The Town Engineer
said the applicant has control over the Main Street entrance only.
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none.
JS moved to approve the Site Plan Review of 349 Main Street, Sherwin Williams, with the
following conditions.
1. A total of eight (8) trees shall be planted on-site along Main Street, Ash Street, and
on the interior landscape island. The species and locations of the trees shall be
subject to the approval of the Tree Warden and Town Engineer.
2. The dumpster shall be enclosed consistent with the specifications found in previous
waivers.
3. All signage materials, including images of the signs as well as the specification of
all dimensions and lighting, shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for his review
and approval.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Page 12 of 13
Site Plan Review Waiver (continued)
163 Main Street, Dynamik Sports
The application seeks to change fagade of store by bricking in windows.
Action Date: February 26, 2007
Mr. Mark Doherty appeared for Dynamik Sports.
JS noted that the primary reason for the applicant to come back before us tonight was to
allow for notices to be sent to abutters so that they may have a chance to comment on the
project. The recording secretary said the notices had been mailed.
JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none
JS said there was a question raised last time about whether or not the site's dumpster was
on applicant's property or the property next door. Mr. Mark Doherty, owner of Dynamik
Sports, said it was on the adjacent property and he showed the Board a photograph proving
his point.
JS moved to approve the Site Plan Review Waiver for 163 Main Street, Dynamik Sports,
subject to the following conditions.
1. Infill CMU blocks shall be used for the existing glass storefront on either side of the
central entrance.
2. The split-face CMU blocks shall be of a darker color to compliment the fagade.
NS seconded
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
JS moved to adjourn.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The meeting ended at 12:40 AM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on May 14,
2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on May 14, 2007.
Signed as approved,
David Tuttle, Secretary Date
Page 13 of 13