Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Maple St Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Reading Parking Authority seeks variances for 41‑space Maple Street lot

Reading Zoning Hearing Board · March 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Reading Parking Authority proposed a 41‑space paved lot on Maple Street as part of a citywide parking relief program, requesting variances for buffering, screening and driveway location; the board closed the evidentiary portion and deferred a decision to next month.

Attorney Malin Boire presented an offer of proof on behalf of the Reading Parking Authority for a proposed surface parking lot at 210 Maple Street. Boire said executive director Rafael Batista would confirm the authority owns the property and that the lot is part of a citywide parking relief program (referred to in testimony as the 'CPR' program) intended to make monthly resident parking available in neighborhoods with tight parking supply. "As designed, the parking lot will be a paved parking lot to accommodate 41 parking spaces for use by the surrounding residents," Boire said.

A McCarthy Engineering representative (identified in the record as Filenki) described the variances sought: limited front‑yard screening along Maple Street for security reasons, fencing and buffering along rear and side alleys where appropriate, and moving the driveway closer to the alley to provide a 24‑foot fire‑access lane. Filenki told the board the lot is historically fully paved and said the applicant intends to add a small grassed area to help stormwater; he signaled the applicant would contest any land‑development stormwater detention requirement because the lot was historically paved.

The board had no substantive questions recorded in the transcript. The evidentiary portion was closed and the board announced it will render a decision next month; the zoning office will send a written notice to the applicant. No members of the public testified in opposition during the recorded hearing.