Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 601 Penn Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney, commissioners spar over recording of settlement in 601 Penn Street adaptive‑reuse plan
Summary
At the Jan. 27 meeting the commission directed the 601 Penn Street applicant to submit a revised plan of record and to work with staff on a narrowly tailored memorandum/executive summary of a prior settlement, rather than recording the entire settlement agreement in the chain of title — a move applicant counsel said could complicate future lending.
The Reading Planning Commission spent an extended portion of its Jan. 27 meeting on a waiver/revised‑plan process for 601 Penn Street after attorney Mark Cook told the commission the applicant was prepared to submit a revised plan of record and accompanying materials.
Cook said the applicant had assembled surveys and elevation drawings and proposed either an attached memorandum or an executive summary of the settlement agreement’s operative paragraphs be recorded with the plan, rather than placing the full settlement in the chain of title. “My concern is adding that settlement agreement in its entirety to the chain of title … It can create issues with lenders,” Cook told the commission, explaining that banks often flag full settlement documents during underwriting and that a narrowly tailored memorandum would reduce future financing friction.
Planning staff (Michelle and Jerome) and several commissioners agreed the commission needed clarity and enforcement language but favored an executive‑summary approach narrowly limited to the restrictions relevant to the plan. Commissioner Will suggested the summary be mutually agreed by applicant and city solicitor and that the full document be placed in the docket if needed for legal record‑keeping; staff said they would confirm whether the full settlement had already been recorded with the clerk of courts.
Operational issues also surfaced: Chair Wayne and staff noted the absence of a trash‑disposal plan for the reuse (previous submissions referenced use of a Penn Street garage door). Wayne asked that if the applicant intends to use that garage door, pickup times should be limited (he suggested 5–7 a.m.) to avoid prolonged truck obstruction on Penn Street. Staff emphasized that if the applicant did not accept reasonable operational conditions, a full parking study could be required to quantify parking, drop‑off and loading needs.
Jerome told the commission staff had received an objection letter from Schumann Development Group. Commissioners mandated staff to obtain the letter and related correspondence but limited the document request to the last 60 days to keep the preliminary records request manageable. The commission asked the applicant to submit the revised plan of record, a proposed memorandum/executive summary draft, and supporting materials for review at the next meeting.
Next steps: applicant counsel agreed to confirm whether the settlement is recorded with the clerk of courts and to provide the revised package; planning staff will collect the Schumann correspondence (60‑day window) and report back. The commission gave a directional consensus rather than a formal approval on the waiver request; no final decision was rendered at the Jan. 27 meeting.
