Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-09 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@ei.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: April 9, 2007 Location: Great Room, Reading Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street Time: 7:20 PM Members Present: John. Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (RH), and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Members Absent: David Tuttle (DT) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), Nicholas Safina (Nick S.) Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Steve Pizzotti Attorney Chris Coleman Attorney Ellen Doucette Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road Ms Lois Bell, 35 Washington Street Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street Ms. Lynn O'Brien, 34 Washington Street Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Mr. George Rio, 11 Estate Lane Mr. Kenneth Rossetti, 2 Haven Street, Suite 204 Ms. Janice M. Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street Mr. Larry Hodson, 26 Brande Court Mr. Jim Queeney, 28 Mt. Vernon Street Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street Selectman.Chair Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Mr. Jason Benagh, Quannapowitt Players Mr. Dale Gienapp, Gienapp Design Mr. Dan McRitchie, Hancock Associates Attorney Andrea Butler Mr. Jerry Fiore, 11 Gateway Circle Mr. Dave Dewing, 7 Gateway Circle Page 1 of 15 Mr. Geoff VanHolten, 51 Hopkins street Attorney Mark Favaloro Mr. Nick Nikolaou Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street Mr. William Childress, 105 Green Street Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. Bob Paige, Beaumont Sign Co., New Bedford MA There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:20 PM. Public Comments There were no comments from the public. Subdivision Approval Not Required 22 Whittier Street, Subdivision Approval Not Required The applicant, Mr. Steve Pizzotti, appeared. He was represented by Attorney Christopher Coleman. Mr. Coleman explained his client was looking to add a small slice of the adjacent property to give him the necessary side-yard setback for the zoning district. They have the frontage. RH moved to approve the Board's endorsement of the ANR plans for 22 Whittier Street drawn up by Sullivan Engineering and dated 3/5/2007. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board members signed the plans. JB arrives and takes his seat with the Board. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments JS explained the Board would be providing their recommendations - for or against - to Town Meeting tonight on two articles. Article 24: Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 2.2.13. Definition of "Lot Frontage" BB read the legal notice. JS said this article was originally put forward by the former Town Planner. Its intent is to eliminate certain loopholes in the frontage language of Reading's by-laws. The Board asked Town Counsel to explain the reasons behind the new language. Attorney Ellen Doucette, Reading's Town Counsel, provided background on the article. She explained this new language should make clear that a property simply having frontage is not enough. A property's frontage must also provide access to the part of that property that is buildable. Page 2 of 15 Town Counsel said the By-law Committee recommended that the tow words "presence or" be deleted from the following sentence of the definition. "The presence or existence of an access easement shall not satisfy the requirement for actual legal and physical access." RH asked if a lack of access would apply to steep grades. Town Counsel said it would apply to grades, guardrails, etc... the frontage must allow access to the property. JS asked if this was similar to ANR in which there must be some kind of safe access to the buildable lot. Town Counsel agreed the two were similar as far as requiring adequate access. JS asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. There were none RH moved to close the public hearing. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved to recommend Article 24 to Town Meeting with the provision that the words "presence or" be deleted from it. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:1. JB abstained. Article 25: Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 6.1.1.1 and elimination of "300 foot exemption". BB read the legal notice. JS said this article has been put forward by citizen petition. The CPDC must still provide their recommendation - for or against to Town Meeting. The Board asked Town Counsel to provide her opinion on the article. Town Counsel said she understood the petitioners' concern that the town may have overloaded the 300 foot exemption but she has many issues with the article: • The $20,000 impact fee is troublesome. She said she spoke with the Attorney General's office and was told such a fee must have a rational basis that can be backed up somehow. The town would. have to answer such questions as: Why $20,000? Where does that amount come from? Does the fee represent the cost per space of a parking garage? • There is a requirement that funds be immediately deposited to a fund that does not exist. • In Town Counsel's opinion, Section 6.1.1.1, the section that contains the 300 foot exemption Article 25 would eliminate, applies to all zoning districts and therefore Article 25 would create ambiguities with regards to how it would apply to other zoning districts besides the downtown Business B. • Site Plan Reviews may be triggered where they had not been triggered before. • It is unclear what would constitute a new use vs. a different use. • There could be problems with "as of rights". Page 3 of 15 Summing up, Town Counsel said the article needed more work, was too vague, and she could not see the Attorney General approving it. JS said the $20,000 impact fee was lifted straight out of the Mixed-Use Bylaw. He asked Town Counsel why the fee is acceptable in the Mixed-Use Bylaw and not in this bylaw. Town Counsel said she pulled the notes of the previous Town Counsel's dealings with the Attorney General about the Mixed-Use Bylaw and those notes show the Attorney General was as wary then of the town using an impact fee with Mixed-Use as they are now with the same fee being proposed for this parking bylaw. The Attorney General had also cautioned the previous Town Counsel that the town would have to be prepared to defend the fee as it applied to Mixed-Use. Town Counsel also pointed out that such a fee in the context of a Mixed-Use project (which are usually larger projects) could be considered part of the cost of doing business; the parking. space fee, on the other hand, would affect established small businesses whose owners would have a hard time coming up with the money to pay for it. Regarding Town Counsel's comment that the article would cause to many ambiguities, JS said the intent of Article 25 was to specifically address the 300 foot exemption as it applies in the Downtown Business B zone. Town Counsel said that intent should be made clearer and suggested rewriting the article to single out the Downtown Business B perhaps making the clarification its own separate paragraph. RH said the Board has only two options: to support, or not support the article. JS said the Board could also vote to support with changes. Town Counsel agreed but added the article would need a lot of work. JS said they only have another 45 minutes before the Board must address another public hearing and tonight is the Board's last scheduled meeting before Town Meeting opens on 4/23. Public Comments Attorney Brad Latham, 643 Main Street Mr. Latham, speaking as resident and property owner, said Article 25 is a solution worse than the problem. $20,000 is too high for small businesses. The article would make a large number of properties non-conforming. This means the properties would lose all "as of rights. Owners would be forced to go before the ZBA. Any change of use, any expansion, internal or external, could trigger the impact fee. The article would have a devastating effect on the value of downtown property. Mr. Latham read a letter from Messrs. John and Brian Crosby of J & B Crosby & Co, -175 Haven Street. The Crosbys wrote they would be adversely affected by the article and strongly recommended the Board not recommend Article 25 to Town Meeting. Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road, Chairman of Reading's Economic Development Committee (EDC) Mr. Graham said the EDC voted 4-0 at their March meeting to recommend Article 25 not be approved. Mr. Graham agreed the 300 foot exemption needs to be reviewed; he also Page 4 of 15 agreed the town should look into how to raise funds for a parking structure; but he said these items should be considered separately before linking them as Article 25 would. Mr. Graham said developers would support structured parking but not as a mandate or as part of a process they would be shut out of. Mr. Graham asked the Board to continue to consider other options. He believes a solution can be found if residents and businesses work together. Ms. Lois Bell, 35 Washington Street. Ms. Bell expressed her displeasure with the 300 foot exemption. She said it displaces commuters' cars to residential areas. On any given day there will be up to three cars parked on the street before her house while many leased spaces and spaces in the municipal lot are empty. Ms. Julie Thurlow, 180 Haven Street, President of Reading Cooperative Bank Ms. Thurlow's biggest concern is how Article 25 would adversely affect property values by making non-conforming properties. She said the business community is currently working on alternative solutions but needs time to consider all options. GK had two questions: 1. Are there non-financial reasons why the town cannot implement a dynamic leasing program? Today, business owners may bite the bullet and lease or buy a space just in case they might need one, but if it is not used it remains vacant. The town needs a dynamic system. 2. Are any conditions put on the business owners who actually do lease parking spaces? JS said those are questions others committees, the Parking Task Force for instance, have been considering. Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya said he could speak to these questions but he did not think they have a direct bearing on Article 25. The Board agreed and JS said they would let others speak first. Ms. Lynn O'Brien, 34 Washington Street Ms. O'Brien said she supposed the petitioners have not put this article forward with the intention to stop businesses from making changes but rather to address parking problems raised by such projects as 2 Haven Street and 16 Sanborn Street. JS said the Board cannot speak for the petitioners. Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive, President of the Reading/N. Reading Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Giacalone said Reading's businesses recognize there is a parking problem but Article 25 will cause damage to Reading businesses. In short, businesses will leave town. Mr. Giacalone said he did not want to see Article 25 tabled, rather, he recommends it be rejected outright. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street. Mr. Shaffer said it is not the intention of the petitioners to pit the parking issue against Reading's businesses, or to create non-conforming properties, or to cause small businesses Page 5 of 15 pain, but a solution to Reading's parking problem is long overdue. Mr. Latham says the creation of non-conforming properties will lower values, but if cars are parked in front of our homes our properties will lose value too. The intent of the article is to protect small. businesses and residents from the devastating effect the parking exemption has on the town. . Mr. Shaffer said it would be great if the CPDC could find the time before Town Meeting opens to refashion the article to allow small businesses to use the parking exemption. Mr. George Rio, 11 State Lane, Owner of "Children's Shop" Mr. Rio said the article as currently written is economically destructive to small businesses. He presented his own business as an example. He said the existing parking regulations require one parking space per 300 sq. ft. His business is roughly 2400 sq ft so that requires 8 parking spaces. Article 25 drops that requirement by 50% to 4 spaces. The impact fee for 4 spaces comes to $80,000. That is too much. Mr. Ken Rossetti 2 Haven Street Mr. Rosetti both lives and works in Reading and he too opposes Article 25. Regarding leased parking spaces, Mr. Rossetti said the use of these spaces fluctuates because workers in and owners of small businesses are always in and out of their offices. Ms Janice Jones 22 Mt Vernon Street Ms. Jones said there are at least three projects in the downtown area - the Charles building, 2 Haven Street, and the burned-out Woburn Street building - that are near a municipal lot and can make use of the 300 foot exemption. She said she did not understand the legal ins and outs of Article 25 but she thinks its intent is to impress on the town's boards and committees that serious thought is needed on where the cars from these projects will park. Ms Jones added, maybe this article is not what should be passed, but something needs to be done. Mr. Larry Hodson, 26 Brande Courte [parking lot behind Atlantic Supermarket] Mr. Hodson said his business has been located in the Brande Courte lot for 44 years and empty spaces could always be found there. He said he also owns 2 Linden Street and if he was not made exempt from Article 25 he would end up paying more than he originally paid for the property. Mr. Jim Queeney, 28 Mt. Vernon Street. Mr. Queeney said when 2 Haven Street was reviewed by the town we were told the town could not require 2 Haven to provide parking spaces because the law said 2 Haven was exempt. Nothing was done then or in the meantime to change the law so he applauds [those who brought forward] Article 25 for finally doing something. Mr. Queeney asked the Board, if they don't like the article as is, to please provide something better in its place. Mr. Dave Talbot of 75 Linden Street asked if anybody could or had proposed any edits to the article. JS said no one had. Ms Janice Jones 22 Mt Vernon Street Page 6of15 Ms. Jones said she had read in the paper that the town had received a grant for $50,000 to study the downtown overlay zone. The Board explained that the grant in question is specifically for looking into developing zoning language to allow 40R (Smart Growth) in the downtown. It relates more to the town's housing plan than to thee town's parking problem. JS added that within the Smart Growth district parking would have to be addressed. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street. Mr. Shaffer said it is important for all concerned to know the discussions on the parking problems will not end tonight with a thumbs-up or down on this article but rather discussions will continue to progress towards a solution. JS said the CPDC's primary purpose tonight is to address Article 25. The Board of Selectmen appointed the Downtown Parking Task Force to investigate solutions to the parking problem and the CPDC hopes they do come up with solutions but he cannot speak for other committees. JS added that if there was 'a way to improve the article with edits he is not sure they could do justice to any changes tonight in this forum. BB said the petitioners had done well to bring the issue to the forefront. The next step would be to schedule a Zoning Workshop to craft appropriate language. Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street. Selectman Tafoya said the underlying assumption of the article is wrong: zoning changes will not fix the problem. There are already many institutions in Reading that enjoy exemptions for one reason or another: Town Hall, churches. etc.... The Selectman said the parking problem will be solved by a mixture of solutions not least of which is to come up with ways to increase the number of parking spaces, but no solution should be done at the expense of business vibrancy. We need to begin a new discussion of the parking problem that does not start with the assumption zoning changes will fix it. The Selectman recommended defeating of the article and then, when the CPDC has time to review the parking issue, the Board of Selectmen and other committees will join them. We are all awaiting the Task Force's final report. The Task Force has already recommended Reading construct a parking structure and the town is taking aggressive steps towards determining where and how soon such a structure could be built and how much it would cost. He appreciated how frustrated people are by the parking problem, but he felt putting this article forward now is not helpful. It is not a good solution and has taken up the town's time and cost the town money for Town Counsel's review. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Mr. Shaffer said changing the zoning is not a solution - it is just one of the components to a solution. Changing the 300 foot exemption is needed to stop large developments from using up all of the parking spaces. Mr. Dave Talbot of 75 Linden Street. Page 7 of 15 Mr. Talbot said it was amazing to hear Selectman Tafoya say there was a no room for a zoning amendment in the solution. Mr. Talbot said if a fee-in-lieu was in place in the zoning code the town would have something to use today. Mr. Talbot agreed Article 25 is flawed but it contains a specific request to close the 300 foot exemption which is itself a problem in the zoning code. Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street. Selectman Tafoya said people were upset with the 16 Sanborn Street project because it created a parking lot downtown but if you eliminate the 300 foot exemption more parking lots will be required - or businesses will leave town which would also solve the problem. A large developer is not going to do anything downtown unless a parking solution is in place. Mr. Mawn [owner of the Charles Bldg.] has said the parking problem needs to be solved before he can do anything with the Charles Building. A multi-pronged approach is necessary. Zoning changes will not solve the problem. Someone said the impact fee sounded like a special tax on downtown businesses. He said if this affects the town as a whole then the whole town should shoulder the burden. Ms Janice Jones 22 Mt Vernon Street Ms, Jones took exception to Selectman Tafoya statement that this article was a waste of time and money to the town. RH moved to close the public hearing. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RE said this article continued the momentum started by the discussions of the 16 Sanborn Street project and has generated lots of ideas. Unfortunately, the article has unintended consequences - to small businesses in particular - and it would reduce parking demand rather than increase parking supply; it could be modified by, for example, reducing the radius of the exemption from 300 ft to 200 ft, or by exempting small businesses, or by reducing the fee. But these changes would require a lot of work. RH said he would vote against recommending Article 25 to Town Meeting. JB said he agreed with RH and added the article does not address the parking issue and, as written, is not the bylaw that should be passed. He felt the 300 foot exemption needs to be reviewed but this should be done in a Zoning Workshop. Tonight the only question is whether to endorse Article 25 or not. JB said he cannot endorse Article 25. BB said he cannot support Article 25. JS said he cannot support Article 25. He said the Board supports the continued effort towards finding a solution to the parking problem but this article is not it. He thanked the public and business community for their comments and asked everyone to please keep this issue alive. RH moved to recommend to Town Meeting that the CPDC is in favor of Article 25. Page 8 of 15 JB seconded. Voted Approved: 0:4:0 - ALL OPPOSED. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 55 Hopkins Street, Quannapowitt Players, Inc. The applicant proposes to add an addition to the existing building and make general site improvements. Action date: June 25, 2007 JS opened the Site Plan Review. BB read the public notice. JS gave an overview of the procedure - applicant would speak, then town staff, then the Board, and the public would be allowed to comment. JS said that the review would most likely be continued. Jason Benagh, a member of the Quannapowitt Players (QP) Board of Directors provided background and introduced the other members of the team. QP has been active for 69 years. They have about 600 subscribers and 150 patrons. There is no production staff but they do have about 100 volunteers. The structure was originally a schoolhouse built at a location two blocks away. It was moved to its current location in the late 1800s where it continued as a schoolhouse. In 1950, QP took it over. They have a variance to use the building as a theater. This project will be the building's first renovation. They are looking to add handicapped toilets and improve access. They are not required to add handicapped toilets but fell it should be done. Mr. Gale Gienapp of Gienapp Design is the architect. Hancock Associates are the engineers. Ms. Andrea Butler is their attorney. Mr. Dale Gienapp described what was proposed. • The current structure is a rectangular box and they plan on wrapping an L-shaped addition along the parking lot side and the rear. The purpose of this addition is to provide the building with a lobby (today the public must enter into a tiny area), and more easily accessible toilets (currently the toilets are in the basement). • They are not proposing to increase the capacity of the theater itself. They have recently received from the ZBA a setback variance so not to disturb the on-site parking. They are trying to take as little space from the parking lot as possible. • They are trying not to make the building look any larger from the street. They are aware of the building's historic significance and they want to keep its schoolhouse- look as historically accurate as possible. • The addition will be one story high but the rear portion will have a basement and a gabled roof to give the impression of a ,smaller building from the rear. On three sides of the site [all but the front] is a retaining wall. At one time it was higher in the rear but the wall became unstable in the 1950s and part of it was removed and replaced by a safety-fence (chain link) that runs along the top. • The original building had no basement; it was scooped out of the fill later. They cannot build on fill so they will have to excavate it. The retaining wall is in poor condition and could not stand up to the excavation so a section of it behind the building will be removed. • They will add a new basement under the new rear section of the addition. The rear of the structure will be no higher than it is today, but with the retaining wall gone Page 9 of 15 more of the lower portion [basement] will be seen. They propose adding a privacy fence to help hide the exposed lower portion. Next, Mr. Dan McRitchie of Hancock Associates addressed drainage issues. Mr. McRitchie said it was not a complicated system and they are meeting all current standards. They propose infiltrating runoff from one-half of the existing roof and the addition's entire roof. The parking lot will not change. The Town Engineer read the minutes from the DRT meeting held 3/19/2007. • Parking: the applicant was asked to provide a layout both of how they fit cars in the lot today and how they would fit them after construction and they have done so. The applicant says they have a contract with Harrows Restaurant to allow actors, stage hands, etc... to park in their lot on performance nights. They were asked to provide a copy of this agreement to the town. • Drainage: soil testing will have to be done while witnessed by a member of town staff. This is scheduled for later this week. • Historical Commission: they expressed concern over changing the roofline and noted that if a demolition permit is pulled it could trigger a Demo Delay. Mr. Gienapp said they are meeting with the Historical Commission tomorrow night. • Health: The Health Administrator is an abutter so she excused herself from the DRT meeting but the Chair of the Board of Health submitted comments on trash pickup, ventilation, and the permitting and inspection of sanitary conditions and food storage and vending. • Landscaping: The Town Manager and Town Engineer would like to see some improvements but they don't want to make it a requirement. JS noted there is also a memo from the Conservation Administrator. He suggested the applicant meet with her. Mr. Gienapp provided additional information on the parking lot: • Functionally parking is "self-valet" with 4 or 5 volunteers directing drivers to parking spaces. • They believe that under a variance from 1974 the site's parking is approved. They are looking for a continuation of the 1974 variance. • There will be no change in the frequency of the use of the site or in the number of seats in the theater. • Although the parking plan shows room for 48 9' x 18' parking spaces they actually can fit about 65 cars in the lot. BB asked if some of-the spaces were behind the building. Mr. Gienapp said some were sometimes the Stage Manager would park there - and they will be lost with the construction of the addition. They feel they can still get the same number of cars on the lot by removing a few trees elsewhere. Public Comments Page 10 of 15 Mr. Jerry Fiore, II Gateway Circle. • Mr. Fiore is a resident of 35 years and lives diagonally behind QP. His biggest issue is that the removal of the retaining wall will expose more of the building making it appear much larger. The rear view from the public way will no longer be of a two- story building but of a three-story building. • He agreed the retaining wall is in poor shape but feels it should be replaced. • He asked the Board to understand that behind the building is a residential neighborhood and the proposed addition will change the character of this neighborhood by creating a structure that will dominate the view from the private way. • He expressed concern with increased runoff and noted a running brook is located only 50 feet from the property line. • The neighborhood puts up with lighting and noise from the theater today, but what is being proposed will move both closer to the abutters. • The existing building has an historical significance and charm. Mr. Dave Dewing, 7 Gateway Circle Mr. Dewing said he is right behind the theater and only recently moved in (1/18/2007). He agreed with Mr. Fiore's points but his chief concern is with how the proposed changes will affect the brook. It runs right through his yard and he is concerned the removal of the retaining wall and the other changes will increase runoff into the brook. Increased and closer lighting is also a concern. Today, the lights from the theater shine into his back bedroom. Mr. Dewing asked if the variance granted by the ZBA on the rear setback addresses the issue of whether of not the retaining wall needs to be replaced. The Town Engineer said the variance is concerned only with the setback not the wall. Mr. Fiore said he attended the ZBA meeting for the variance in question and he said he was told by the ZBA that questions about the retaining wall would be considered by this Board. JS said that is correct. Mr. Geoff VanHolten, 51 Hopkins Street Mr. VanHolten lives next door to the theater. He asked if the retaining wall on his side of the property would be removed. Mr. Gienapp said it would not. The Town Engineer said he had an issue with the site's drainage. The initial plans did not show the grading. Also, the drainage calculations only consider the site as a whole; they do not deal specifically with the drainage behind the building. He said this would be one of his comments on the site plans. JS asked if the runoff from the old and new roofs is being tied to the infiltration system. The Town Engineer said there is no information on the plans on how the runoff will be tied into the system. RH asked the applicant if they would need an easement from the abutter to perform the excavation in the rear. Mr. McRitchie said an easement would not be necessary: the Page I I of 15 excavator can sit above the area and pick away; the excavation should take no more than a couple of days given good weather and erosion controls would be used. RH asked if people will tend to mill around at the rear like they do today. Mr. Gienapp said their plan will minimize this. There should be no reason for the public to go to the basement like the do today because the plans place the bathrooms and refreshment stand in the addition at the main floor level. The Board asked for more information on lighting and signage. Mr. Gienapp said there would be no signage or advertising. He said there would be no pole. lights. They plan on adding some Colonial-style lighting fixtures to the parking-lot side of the building. Other lights would shine downward only and would probably be run off of motion detectors. Mr. Gienapp said the reality is that most of the lighting would come from headlights as cars are parked and later leave. There is a light in the rear for the emergency exit but you won't see the light source only the light shining on the building. The Board discussed various ideas on how to screen the building from the rear abutters: • If feasible, rebuild the retaining wall. It would not have to be built to the same height and landscaping could be added on top of it. • A privacy fence with additional landscaping. • A screen of landscaped trees. Mr. Gienapp said if the Board would like plantings he would propose adding only native plants as a screen and not a manicured landscape which would look out of place in the natural setting; the area in the rear is already a woods. The Board said they would want something that would grow tall. Mr. Gienapp said the building would be the same height as before. JS said the high screening is also to compensate for bringing the building closer to the rear property line. Mr. Gienapp agreed the building would be closer but pointed out the closer section is not the same height as the original building. The consensus of the Board was to continue the site plan review to the meeting of 5/14/07 at 8:00 PM. The applicant should bring more details on • Drainage: What is the outcome of proposed tests? How will roof runoff be tied into the system? What are the drainage calculations for the rear portion of the site? • Landscaping Plan. • Screening the rear of the building from abutters. RH moved to continue the site plan review for 55 Hopkins Street to 5/14/07, 8:00 PM at the Selectmen's Meeting Room. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Determination of Minor Modification One General Way, 128 Marketplace, Danis Properties Page 12 of 15 Applicant requests modification to the Board's approved site plan decision to bring its specified hours of construction in line with the town's recently adopted General Bylaw 5.5.8: Construction Hours and Noise Limits. Mr. Nick Nikolaou appeared for Danis Properties. Attorney Mark Favaloro represented Danis Properties. Attorney Favaloro put Danis's case. Section 12 of the Board's decision on the One General Way site plan (dated 10/20/2005) restricts use of heavy equipment to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. The new "Hours of Construction By-law" (5.5.8) does not have separate hours for heavy equipment and limits construction hours to 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday. Mr. Favaloro said Danis should be able to operate under the new bylaw because: • It is the new standard. • Their direct abutter, Stop & Shop, is currently operating under the new bylaw. Public Comments JS read two emails from abutters. I am writing to you regarding number 5 on tonight's agenda. We are against any additional hours being added to the construction site. We live at 4 Lakeview Avenue and have had enough noise since the Jordan's Furniture area was built up. Please accept our consideration as we cannot attend the meeting. As the spring/summer approaches, our windows and doors will be open more. Thank you, Debbie & Frederick Allen I received the letter regarding this meeting, but will not be able to attend. If the neighbors of the above property have a say in this matter, I would like to request that the earlier hour of construction not be allowed. I believe Sam should stand. I am a stay at home mom with a 4 year old daughter who sleeps until 8am. I would appreciate not being awakened every morning to the sounds of construction. I have no problem with the work being extended on the weekdays until 8pm. Thank you very much, Lisa Howie 197 Washington Street Ms Ellen Childress 105 Green Street Ms. Childress said the morning hours are the problem. Construction has been ongoing for years and they have lived through vermin displacement, dust, etc... Construction in the area is already waking her up at 7:00 AM each day. She would prefer the morning start times not change. Mr. Bill Childress 105 Green Street Mr. Childress said the racket starts early and although he understands they have to put up with some noise he would prefer the hours of construction not change. Page 13 of 15 Mr. Favaloro said that in the construction business a 7:00 AM is the standard starting time. The Board noted they had gone over this same issue with construction at the Johnson Woods project. The police had trouble determining what constituted a breach of the construction hour regulations. Specifically, there was much confusion over what should and should not be considered "heavy equipment". No one knew for sure if Stop & Shop was operating under the new hours or not. The Board asked the Town Engineer to check what hours of construction were specified in the Board's site plan review decision for Stop & Shop. Mr. Favaloro said they were happy to leave the Saturday hours as is. Mr. Nikolaou said they need the new by-law's weekday hours because they want to accelerate construction to reach their target date. JS asked if the applicant expected to be done or would they be coming back for an extension. Mr. Nikolaou said he did not know if an extension would be needed. JB asked if the Board thought it would be valuable to discuss whether or not the modification is minor or major. He wasn't sure if the change was minor or major but since Danis would have four more hours to work each weekday the change was at least significant. The consensus of the Board was the change is minor. RH moved to approve as a minor modification the following changes to One General Way's Hours of Construction: • Monday through Friday the hours would be the same as Stop & Shop's • Saturday's hours would remain the same. BB seconded. RH suggested adding the following findings to the minor modification. 1. A 7:00 AM starting time is the norm in the construction trade. 2. Two other projects in the area have earlier construction hours. 3. The applicant indicates using the expanded hours they could finish their project sooner. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street supplied the Board with a copy of their decision on Stop & Shop. It showed the Board had restricted Stop & Shop's weekday construction hours to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The motion was revised to: • Monday through Friday the hours of construction are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM • Saturday's hours would remain the same [9:00 AM to NOON]. Voted Approved:4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 15 Bolton Street and 25 Haven Street, Rite Aid Rite Aid recently bought the Brooks chain and the applicant proposes to change the signage at both locations to reflect this fact. Page 14 of 15 Mr. Bob Paige represented Beaumont Sign Company of New Bedford MA. Both locations are within the Downtown Business B district. The plans Mr. Paige originally submitted specified internal illumination for both locations' wall signs. Mr. Paige was informed before tonight's meeting that internally illuminated signs are not allowed in the Downtown Business B. Mr. Paige subsequently re-submitted the plans for the wall signs with all internal illumination removed and it was those plans the Board saw. When Mr. Paige arrived in Reading for the meeting, he noticed some of the downtown Business B signs (e.g. DanversBank) were illuminated by halo lighting. He mentioned this to the Board. The Board told him they do not consider halo lighting to be internal illumination since the light does not shine through the sign. Mr. Paige asked the Board if they would consider allowing him to amend his application to give the wall signs that originally had internal illumination halo lighting instead. The Board agreed to allow the change. The Board asked if there would be any gooseneck lighting. Mr. Paige said the buildings are not set up for gooseneck lights. The Board asked why some signs at one location have blue letters and some at the other have white letters. Mr. Paige said he can request either a blue or white sign set. It depends on the sign's background. The Board said a complete set of plans showing the halo lighting and all dimensions would have to be submitted to the Building Inspector before the inspector would sign off on the sign application. RH moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Rite Aid signage at both . locations as shown in the submitted drawings provided the signs originally designated as internally illuminated are illuminated with halo lighting instead. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Other Items The Board decided to schedule a meeting of the Planning Subcommittee on Tuesday, April 17. RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:25 AM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on July 09, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on July 09, 2007. Signed as approved, 7-.i David Tuttle, Secretary Date Page 15 of 15