Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-26 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: March 26, 2007 Location: Great Room, Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne (BB), Secretary; David Tuttle (DT) Members Absent: Richard Howard (RH), and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), Israel Maykut (IM), and Nicholas Safina (NS.). Also Present: Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Mr. Richard Batten, Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield MA Ms. Janice Bell, President of Savory Tastes Caf6, 601 Main Street Mr. Bill Brown, 28 Martin Road Mr. Juergen Dietrichson, Martins Design, 130 Sylvan Street, Danvers MA Mr. Tim Donovan, 2 Haven Street Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Assoc., 348 Park Street, North Reading MA Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Michael Linnane, 180 Haven Street Ms. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Road Mr. Nick Nikolaou, PE, Danis Properties, One General Way Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Mr. Gil Rodrigues, 97 Avalon Road Selectman Richard Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue Mr. Frederick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Mr. Gene Sullivan, PE, 31 Sheridan Road, Wilmington MA Mr. Jon-Erik Sutphin, Tambone Investment Group, 20 Wheeler Road, Burlington MA Selectman Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street Mr. Richard Tambone, Tambone Investment Group, 20 Wheeler Road, Burlington MA Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street Ms. Ann Ward, 14 Bancroft Avenue There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Page 1 of 13 JS officially recognized and welcomed as the Board's newest member, Mr. David Tuttle. Public Comments / Minutes JS asked if there were any general comments from the Public. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill of 125 Summer Avenue had three questions: 1. What is the status of the instructional motion to the Board? [Town Meeting had directed the CPDC to review the bylaws concerning Accessory Buildings and Lot Coverage.] JS said the Board's review of the bylaws in question had been temporarily interrupted by many meeting taken-up by discussions of various parking issues. The Board will address the instructional motion again after Town Meeting. 2. Has the Board had time to review the brightness of the canopy lights at the 110 Main Street gas station? JS said the Board had asked the Town Engineer to measure the brightness and to review the construction plans of the canopy to see how the lights are situated. The Town Engineer was not in attendance tonight and the Board asked the recording secretary to ask him to report on the canopy by the next meeting. 3. Is there a bylaw for pennants - in particular how far a pennant or flag must be above the sidewalk so as not to inconvenience passersby? No one on the Board had an answer to this and JS said the Board would look into the matter. There were no other public comments. No one on the Board had had time to review the minutes of the meeting of 3/12/07 and it was the consensus of the Board to review these minutes at a future meeting. Zoning Workshop Article 25: Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 6.1.1.1 and the elimination of the "300 foot exemption". This was noticed to all within and 600 feet beyond the Downtown Business B zone. Also, the petitioners were each sent an invitation from the Board to attend Zoning Workshop and next meeting's Public Hearing. JS reminded those attending that tonight would be a public discussion but not a public hearing and the public hearing for the two articles would be held on April 9, 2007, 7:30 PM at the Senior Center. JS said Article 25 was placed on the warrant for Town Meeting as a citizen petition. He invited any of the petitioners attending to provide background. Mr. Bill Brown 28 Martins Road Mr. Brown said it is his understanding the gist of Article 25 is to provide money for the construction for a parking garage and given the estimated cost of a garage and the provisions of Article 25, he figures it would require 6,000 parking spots to pay_for the garage. Mr. Brown concluded saying in 39 years of Town Meetings, Article 25 was the most ridiculous article he has ever seen. Page 2 of 13 Attorney Brad Latham, 643 Main Street Speaking as a property owner himself, Mr. Latham said Article 25 would have a disastrous effect on Reading's downtown. This article does not recognize the fact that over the last fifty years the downtown has been developed based upon the 300 foot exemption and is now close to frilly developed. The article is discouraging to property owners looking to expand or to convert to another use. Mr. Latham said his building downtown has a well-maintained front lawn but if he converted part of the second floor to office space he would have to also convert part of the front lawn into a parking lot. Mr. Latham said Article 25 would have repercussions perhaps not thought about and by way of example quoted part of Zoning Bylaw 6.3.13 "Nonconforming Off-Street Parking and Loading": If it is proposed to increase the net floor area of a building, whether by addition to the exterior of the building or by internal reconstruction, and the building does not have sufficient off-street parking or loading area, full compliance with the applicable parking requirements for the entire building shall be a condition of the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the increase of net floor area. Mr. Latham asked the Board not to recommend Article 25. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Mr. Shaffer introduced himself as one of the petitioners of Article 25. He said the petitioners thought it best for the town to keep the discussion going on what to do about the parking problem because, as Mr. Latham said, parking has been a 50 year problem and the downtown is now fully developed. There is no more space for parking. He said the language of Article 25 parallels that of the Mixed-Use Zoning Bylaw. So far, nothing has been done with Mixed-Use. Mr. Shaffer said he feels Reading is unable to say "no" to large developers and "yes" to new ideas. It is time to change the way we do business in Reading and he feels Article 25 will help to move large developments to Main Street and help spur Mixed-Use. Mr. Shaffer used the 2 Haven Street development to illustrate his point: it was his understanding that without the 300 foot exemption 2 Haven St would have had to provide about 100 parking spaces. As it is, 2 Haven is located within 300 feet of a municipal lot so they are exempt from having to provide all those spaces. If another project like 2 Haven comes into town, then not only will residential neighborhoods be impacted, but small businesses too. The change in Article 25 will help neighborhoods and small businesses. Mr. Tim Donovan, Owner of a Business at 2 Haven Street Mr. Donovan relocated to 2 Haven Street after his previous place of business was lost to fire. He said if Article 25 was in place he would have to pay one-half of his yearly income to meet its requirements. Also, even if he was grandfathered in, his property would be Page 3 of 13 made worthless by Article 25 because no one would ever want to buy it from him since the new owner would have to pay thousands for parking spaces that don't even exist. Mr. Dave Talbot 75 Linden Street Mr. Talbot said he was not one of the petitioners but he agrees something needs to be done about the 300 foot exemption. He said he has heard both the CPDC and the Parking Task Force express concern over the 300 foot exemption too and he asked the Board what they suggest should be done if not what Article 25 proposes. Mr. Talbot asked the Board if the town should keep unchanged a zoning bylaw that essentially gives developers a blank-check to create a demand for parking spaces without having to provide a supply. Mr. Talbot said parking has been a problem in Reading for some time but suddenly in 2006 all the businesses are saying now it is a huge problem and we need to put up parking lots in residential zones; but if parking is such the big problem everyone says it is - and he agrees it is - then why not fix the problem, the 300 foot exemption, which allows developers to create a great demand for parking without providing a compensating supply? Mr. Talbot said the intent of the article is not to hurt small businesses. He wished this discussion was not about Article 25 but he is glad the article has been proposed because it has spurred continued discussion of the parking problem and he expressed the hope that tonight's discussion would be productive in that regard. Ms Janice Bell, president of Savory Tastes Cafe 601 Main St Ms. Bell said she might have to move out of Reading if Article 25 passed because Savory Tastes does not create the kind of profits to pay for the fees Article 25 would demand. She agreed something needs to be done to improve parking in Reading but Article 25 is not the solution. Ms. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Road Ms. McGonagle called Article 25 a nightmare for small businesses and urged the Board to vote against it. Mr. Michael Giacalone 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Giacalone is the President of the Reading - North Reading Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Giacalone said Article 25 would be devastating to small businesses. He said it may be a solution to the parking problem, but only in that it would cause businesses to leave town. He said Article 25 is not the way to address the parking problem and the Chamber of Commerce does not approve of it. JS paused the public discussion to poll the Board Members for their thoughts and discuss how to proceed. Page 4 of 13 JS said part of the rationale for this workshop is to maintain the momentum generated by previous discussions of the parking problem towards finding solutions to the problem. He agreed with Mr. Talbot sentiment that tonight's discussion would be productive in helping to reach a solution. JS noted that although they still await the Parking Task Force's final report, the Task Force recently presented some ideas to the Board of Selectmen. JS reminded those attending that Article 25 was not brought forward by this Board but this Board has an obligation to hold public hearings on all bylaws brought before Town Meeting. He said he would not be asking for a vote by the Board tonight but he would like ideas on how to proceed. BB pointed out that Article 25 is a citizen petition and so will be on the warrant no matter what. JS agreed but said the Board still can vote to recommend it, to not recommend it, or to recommend it with changes. DT said he thought Article 25 was an overreaction to a real problem and although the town may have overcommitted existing spaces through the 300 foot exemption the article's proposed amendment to the exemption as written will have catastrophic results. JS asked the recording secretary to contact Town Counsel for her opinion on Article 25 and to present it to the Board before the next meeting. Selectman Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Road Selectman Tafoya said he has heard how everyone hates parking lots and yet Article 25 will require the creation of more downtown parking lots. Article 25 will only serve to encourage developers to look for locations nearer highways and businesses to move to malls. In his two years as a Selectman he has tried to reach out to the business community and counter the claim that Reading is anti-business. Regarding 2 Haven Street, he said someone will have to prove to him this development has caused a parking problem. The building still has vacancies. Only recently, the Selectmen received an early report from the Parking Task Force. The bottom line was Reading needs to increase its supply of parking spaces and recommended a parking garage. This will require cooperation from the same businesses Article 25 will hurt. Selectman Tafoya said the Board of Selectmen will take responsibility for the discussion of this issue but the parking problem is not something that can be solved overnight. A top priority of the Board of Selectmen is to secure a grant to study the feasibility of structured parking in Reading. Page 5 of 13 Selectman Tafoya concluded saying Article 25 will trigger the law of unintended consequences. Ms. Ann Ward 14 Bancroft Avenue. Ms. Ward had questions about how the 300 foot exemption applied to residences in general and apartments in particular. She asked if an apartment was built on a lot within 300 feet of a municipal lot would parking have to be provided. She felt residential properties should not be allowed the exemption either. JS said the Board would take that as a question to research. Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street Ms. Thurlow is President of the Reading Cooperative Bank. Ms. Thurlow said Article 25 would have a direct and negative impact on the marketability of downtown properties. This would lead to a devaluation of the downtown which would not serve the abutting residents. Mr. George Katsoufis, CPDC Associate and member of the Parking Task Force. GK said the Board should not expect too much more from the Parking Task Force by way of a solution to the parking problem. The Task Force's term is one year and it is up in June. They have come up with 8 or 10 solutions of a general nature one of which is the previously mentioned parking garage. GK said the heart of the parking problem is the lumping together of employees and customers. The spaces were not meant to be occupied 9-to-5 by one car. Reading's bylaws do not allow any flexibility when it comes to considering parking options. GK said Article 25 may have some value to some developers. He did not elaborate except to note some businesses might be grandfathered and Article 25 itself could be amended. GIB said the town needs to consider what will happen when the Task Force's term is up in three months. How will the town take the Task Force's ideas to the next level? JS said when the Master Plan Committee met to discuss Action Items it was recognized that the CPDC could not pursue the review of all action items simultaneously so committees were created to help. It was the expectation that out of these committees there would come ideas and suggestions that would require implementation and the thought was the CPDC would be involved with these implementations. As the Board of Selectmen set the town's priorities, he feels it would be a reasonable next step to schedule a joint meeting between the CPDC, the Parking Task Force, and the Board of Selectmen. The Board agreed. Mr. Bill Brown 28 Martin Road. Mr. Brown suggested the Board consult a 1978 study in the library on the feasibility of shuttle-busses in Reading. The reports states the project might break-even if a grant from the MBTA was obtained. Page 6of13 Mr. Brown noted that the City of Medford had recently torn down one of their parking garages due to a lack of maintenance. Mr. Gil Rodrigues, 97 Avalon Road Mr. Rodrigues is the Chair of the Downtown Parking Task Force. Mr. Rodrigues wanted to clarify a few things about the Parking Task Force. The Task Force consists of volunteers who have met once a month over the past year. Two of those meetings were absorbed by the 16 Sanborn St parking lot issue. The members are not parking experts but they do their best and he is concerned by the Board saying they are looking to the Task Force to provide a solution. The Task Force recently released a special report because they didn't see the point of waiting until the submission of their final report in June to tell everyone what they already knew, namely, Reading needs a parking garage. JS appreciated Mr. Rodrigues' position but thought it would still be worthwhile to schedule a joint meeting with them and the Board of Selectmen if only because the Task Force has spent so much more time than the CPDC investigating the parking issues and possible solutions. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Ms. O'Neill introduced herself as one of the petitioners of Article 25. She said she would not now support the article as written because she feels the $20,000 fee is too onerous. However she still feels it is important to continue the discussion and asks how the town would set a limit on over-committing existing spaces; and how would the town support an additional large development that would rely on the current 300 foot exemption? Ms. O'Neill asked two questions: 1. Has the CPDC ever considered tightening the 300 foot exemption either by reducing its radius or in restricting the number of allowed exemptions or in some other fashion? And if not, does the Board find any value in considering doing so? 2. Is the Task Force considering tightening the 300 foot exemption as part of their study? JS did not know the answer to the second question but as to the first question, whether or not the 300 foot exemption is applied, whenever a business comes before the Board for site review the Board looks at the parking requirements. As for tightening the exemption, JS did not know if that was necessarily the thing that needs to be done to Article 25 but the Board could look into it. Mr. Dave Talbot 75 Linden Street [Mr. Talbot is a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force] Mr. Talbot said the Task Force was not working on anything involving a bylaw change. Mr. Talbot said the question is: what to do about the 300 foot exemption. He has looked at the minutes of the CPDC's review of 2 Haven Street's site plan and found there many Page 7of13 people wondering where 2 Haven Street would put parking for all the cars and the CPDC responded they would not need parking because of the 300 foot exemption. Mr. Talbot said, leaving aside Article 25's flaws, the exemption as it exists needs language for some kind of fee-in-lieu. Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road. Mr. Graham is the Chair of the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Mr. Graham said the EDC has taken no action on Article 25 but may do so at the April 9 public hearing. Mr. Graham said he has met with four different developers and they are all eager to take part in the construction of a parking structure so it would be a very inopportune time to introduce this change. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Mr. Shaffer made three points: 1. As he understands Mixed-Use, parking spaces are required for both the business use and the residential use even if within the 300 foot exemption. This seems unbalanced with respect to pure business use which does not have to provide any parking spaces within the 300 foot exemption. 2. The language of Article 25 comes directly from the Mixed-Use Bylaw including its "fee in lieu" provision. Why is this fee-in-lieu reasonable when applied to Mixed- Use but not when applied to the 300 foot exemption? 3. The fear of those who proposed Article 25 is that one or more large developments will come in and suck.up all of the parking and drive small businesses away. We would much rather have developers make use of Mixed-Use and keep small businesses in Reading. The Board could not comment on Mr. Shaffer's second point concerning the validity of Article 25's fee-in-lieu. Regarding Mr. Shaffer's first point about Mixed-Use within the 300 foot exemption, he agreed the exemption would not apply but pointed out the intent of the Mixed-Use was to allow the Board and developers to work together to come up with creative solutions to both parking and housing. Selectman Rick Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue Selectman Schubert understood the petitioners' frustration with the parking situation and he agreed with Mr. Talbot's comment that it is necessary to keep the discussion moving forward. To that end he said the Board of Selectmen would commit to furthering the discussion, but, with respect to Article 25, he said it may be a good idea if the petitioners withdrew the article. Page 8of13 Selectman Schubert agreed with the Task Force that the town needs to look into building a parking structure - and shuttles and other ideas but Reading's small businesses cannot handle the cost of Article 25. Selectman Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Road Selectman Tafoya observed that Reading is now dealing with many big developers: National Developers' Addison-Wesley project; Dickenson's Stop & Shop; and others on Walkers Brook Drive. The one thing they all have in common is that they do not want to talk to us about our downtown. He said the town's challenge is to make the downtown attractive to developers and he doubted the solution is through zoning. JS said the CPDC never expected zoning to solve all problems. JS thanked everyone for their comments and reminded them the public hearing for Article 25 will also be here, the Senior Center, on April 9 at 7:30 PM. BB said the public will have an opportunity to speak then too. JS said the Board would follow-up with the Board of Selectmen and the Parking Task Force to schedule a joint meeting. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Ms. O'Neill suggested the Board might ask other towns how they have handled their parking problems. Article 24: Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 2.2.13: Definition of "Lot Frontage" JS said this was an amendment to reword the current definition to close a loophole. JS asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. The consensus of the Board was they could see no reason not to move forward with the Article 24 as written. The Board was unclear as to what prompted this article and asked the recording secretary to request Town Counsel provide background to the article in time for the public hearing on April 9, 2007. Request for Minor Modification One General Way, 128 Marketplace This item was not on the agenda but, as there was time before the next scheduled item, the Board agreed to hear Danis Properties' request to change the hours of construction in their approved site plan review decision to the hours specified in the town's recently enacted General Bylaw 5.5.8. "Construction Hours and Noise Limits". Attorney Mark Favaloro represented Danis Properties. Also appearing for Danis Properties was Mr. Nick Nikolaou. Page 9 of 13 Mr. Favaloro said they were seeking to make the Board's site plan decision consistent with the new bylaw. JS said the Board's concern is we do not recall if the hours of construction were an issue with the abutters at the time of the site plan review. Mr. Favaloro said it was an issue. JS noted the Board had been sent a memo from the Town Manager in which he states that, although he has no particular objection to the change of hours, the conditions in the decision were reached after much public discussion and he suggests the Board at least inform the abutters before deciding on the change. The consensus of the Board was they would be uncomfortable to make the change without informing abutters. They decided to schedule this request for a minor modification for 9:45 PM on April 9, 2007. The Board asked the applicant to apply for an abutters list so that the abutters may be informed of this request. Mr. Favaloro agreed. BB noted the Board reserves the right to determine if this is in fact a minor modification. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 580 Main Street, Tambone Investments The applicant proposes to re-side the existing building, submit a Master Signage Plan, and make general site improvements. JS explained this is not a formal public hearing but abutters have been noticed. The Board will hear the applicant's presentation and take any questions or comments from the public. The Board will then decide if the waiver should be approved and if any conditions should be added to the decision. A draft decision has been provided. The project engineer, Mr. Gene Sullivan, began the presentation. • This is a two story building. Each floor is roughly 9000 square feet in area. Retail space is on the first floor and office space on the second. • There are three access points to the property: two on Haven Street (one is the exit of the drive-through) and one on Ash Street. • Their proposal is essentially an exterior upgrade to the facades that face Haven and Ash Streets. They also plan to in-fill indentations on the first floor to square it off flush with the second floor. • They will be adding no new parking spaces but the parking lot will be re-striped and new handicap parking added. • They will improve the traffic flow through the parking lot. • Landscape improvements to the green areas will be made. The architect, Mr. Juergen Dietrichson, spoke next. • The current building needs improvement from both form the point of view of weather-tightness and aesthetics. They will be using a metal and concrete panel system on the facades to be upgraded. • No work will be done to the other two sides facing the rear and the VFW. Those sides show brick and will be kept as is. Page 10 of 13 • The trees will be removed and replaced with Honey Locusts. • New landscaping will tie in with the existing hedges and lawn. • There will be signage improvements. Mr. Richard Batten of batten Bros. Sign Advertising spoke next. They proposed a standard signage: a Hunter Green colored background, raised gold letters, signboard size of 2' x 16', bronze trim. Illumination will be external if at all. DT asked the applicant how they proposed to improve traffic flow. Mr. Sullivan said they plan on making the Ash Street access a one-way entrance and making both Haven Street access points one-way exits onto Haven Street. JS asked if the drive-through was staying in place. Mr. Sullivan said it was. JS asked if a by-pass lane for the drive-through was discussed at the DRT meeting. The recording secretary said a by-pass lane was not discussed at that meeting. JS said this could be a concern because he understood the by-laws require a by-pass lane for drive-throughs. There was a DRT meeting for this proposal on 3/19/07. The Board appreciated the applicant's application for a Master Signage plan. The Board spent some time discussing the drive-through and researching whether or not the bylaws require a by-pass lane. The Board eventually did find such a requirement but it was a requirement of PUD overlay districts and did not apply to this site. BB pointed out only one car at most - the second car in the queue would ever be trapped at the drive- through. The third car and beyond would be in the parking lot. BB asked if the drive-through is meant to be used by a bank. The applicant said it was; it is an existing situation. If they wanted to change the use of the drive-through they would come back before the Board. DT asked if they would add a handicap ramp to the parking lot. Mr. Sullivan said there is an existing ramp and they would be providing handicap spaces to make use of it. BB asked if there was a loading space. Mr. Sullivan said there was nothing designated and no loading doors but there was an entrance in the rear of the building. DT expressed concern with trying to change peoples' habit of using Haven Street as both an entrance and an exit. The applicant agreed and said they would provide appropriate directional signage including painting a big arrow on the ground. BB suggested lessening the width of the Haven Street curb-cut [not the drive-through exit curb-cut] so it would not be the width of a two-way driveway. The Board liked this suggestion. The same reduction was considered for the Ash Street curb-cut but after further discussion the Board decided the Ash Street curb-cut was narrow enough as it is. Page 11 of 13 Regarding the signage, NS said he would prefer the corner signs shifted down to the same level as the other five signs. The Board agreed. NS was concerned new glazing for the filled-in sections on the first floor may not match the rest of the building and could have a patchwork look. Mr. Sutphin said they would try to use the original glazing. NS said the Board would not want to see bronzed-glass used. It would make the building look like an office building on a highway. Mr. Sutphin said their intention is to match the existing brick. Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Made Ridge Road. Mr. Graham said this building has been the subject of much discussion in the past and the EDC is delighted with any improvement and between this, the upcoming Streetscape Project, and the improvements Mr. Mawn has planned for the Charles Building there will be a significant improvement made to Reading's downtown. Mr. Graham invited Mr. Tambone to meet with the EDC. JS said he did not see anything proposed that would necessitate a full Site Plan Review. Based on the extent of the changes the Board had the right to require one, but based on previous approved waiver requests for fagade changes to 2 Linden Street and One Haven Street, he feels this site's fagade change is not much more in comparison and he recommended approving the waiver of the 580 Main site plan review. The Board agreed. The Board proceeded to review and amend the draft decision. The applicant agreed with all parts of the draft with the exception of the condition requiring roof leaders attached to underground recharge. The Board agreed to strike that condition but added a condition in its place requiring the applicant to perform a semi-annual sweeping of the parking lot. The applicant agreed to this. The Board also added a condition to modify the Haven Street curb-cut to a width of 16 feet and to extend the adjacent landscape islands to match the new width. BB moved to approve the Site Plan Review Waiver for 580 Main Street as amended tonight. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The recording secretary asked how the Board would like to handle the Master Signage Plan. The Board decided to make the Master Signage a separate approval. JS moved to approve the Master Signage Plan with the condition that all signs are to be non-illuminated, Hunter Green in color with raised gold letters, and located as shown on the building elevations with the exception of the two (2) signs located at the corner tenant which shall be lowered to match the location of the other five signs in the sign band. Page 12 of 13 DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Other Items The review of the minutes of 3/12/07 will be postponed until the meeting of 4/9/07. JS said the Board may need to have a Planning Subcommittee meeting in April. He suggested penciling in the date of Wednesday, April IS. The Board agreed. BB moved to adjourn. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:50 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on April 9, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on April 17, 2007. Signed as approved, Brant Ballantyne, Sec ry Date Page 13 of 13