The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
This is an LTE that is most pertinent for Reading town meeting members (TMM), who are again tonight meeting to consider possible amendments to our 40R “smart growth” zoning overlay (the one that allows all the big new apartments and condos downtown). However, any Reading resident may have an interest.
Article 15 on the town meeting warrant proposes “some” changes to this overlay zoning, and TMM are debating whether to approve these changes as proposed, or possibly change them to be stricter (or less strict). I appreciate the work CPDC has done thus far, and Article 15 is a good start. But it is town meeting’s job to consider it carefully and, if needed, make it better. Let’s make it better tonight.
I thought I’d summarize what I’ve learned in studying the 40R regulations of other communities – I am curious about whether fellow TMM might have voted differently on the amendments proposed Monday night (e.g., lowering the cap, increasing open space, more parking, etc.) had all TMM been aware of the following:
DID YOU KNOW….
(1) OTHER 40RCOMMUNITIES HAVE LOWER DENSITY CAPS: Multiple other communities with downtown 40R overlays or commuter-rail adjacent 40R overlays – have MUCH lower density caps Natick: 27.6 units/acre; Methuen 30 units/acre; Newburyport 40 units/acre; Plymouth 20 units/acre; Middleborough20 units/acre. The state min for 40R is 20 units/acre. Reading having no cap at present, or even a proposed cap of 65 units/acre, seems to be overly generous.
(2) THE PROPOSED DENSITY CAP OF 65 UNITS/ACRE ESSENTIALLY MATCHES CURRENT AVG DENSITY OF 66.7 UNITS/ACRE. The proposed density cap in Article 15 of 65 units/acre, while better than no cap at all, will not necessarily lessen the density we have seen already, in future developments The average density of all 40rs currently approved (excluding Chapin St) is 66.7 units/acre. Do we want more of the same?
(3) OTHER 40R COMMUNITIES REQUIRE MORE OPEN SPACE: Multiple other communities with 40R overlays that are either in or near their downtowns, or near commuter rails, require MORE open space than we Brockton: 25%, Methuen: 30%, Natick: 35%, Middleboro 20%, Newburyport 20%, Littleton 20%. We now require 0%; Article 15 at most would provide for 15% (at 65 unit/acre density). And per Article 15, even balconies count as open space, so not clear if we would really see any changes.
(4) OTHER 40R COMMUNITIES REQUIRE MORE RETAIL/RESTAURANT PARKING IN DOWNTOWN 40R DEVELOPMENTS: Reading requires zero spots for restaurant/retail; Article 15 does not change this. Compare this with other 40R communities: Middleboro, 1 spot per 300 sq. ft. retail, 1 spot per 3 restaurant seats; Methuen: for places serving food or beverages, 1 space per 4 employees on maximum working shift plus 1 space per every 8 seats; Newburyport 1 spot per 6 restaurant seats; Littleton 4 spots per 1000 sq ft for all uses other than office (which is 3/1000 sq. ft. – still more than Reading).
We should not be afraid of scaring away developers by tightening up further what Article 15 proposes. Other communities with stricter requirements that benefit their communities, as listed above are still getting 40rs to come there. IMHO developers can and will work with stricter guidelines that better benefit Reading’s residents and businesses.
Marianne Downing
Heather Drive – Precinct 4
