The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-09-27 Board of Selectmen PacketTHE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 400 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Deval L. Patrick el-508-820-2 000=Fax: 508-820-2030 Kurt N. Schwartz Governor Director Website: www.mass.gov/mema Timothy P. Murray Lieutenant Governor Mary Elizabeth Heffernan Secretary t TO: Elected Municipal Officials Town/City Managers and Administrators Police Chiefs Fire Chiefs Emergency Management Directors Public Works Directors Dear Municipal Official: In a letter to you in January of 2011, I encouraged your city/town to formally adopt the Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Law (GL C. 40, §4J) that was enacted earlier in 2010. The Public Safety Mutual Aid Law provides a comprehensive multi-discipline mutual aid system for cities and towns which are impacted and overwhelmed by a public safety incident or disaster to ask for, and receive assistance from municipalities that may have resources.to share. The Commonwealth is not immune to disasters: in the past 16 months we have received Presidential Disaster or Emergency Declarations for flooding (March 2010), a massive potable water shortage resulting from a failure in the MWRA system (May 2010), a threatened hurricane (September 2010), a record breaking snowstorm (January 2011), and tornadoes (June 2011). The Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Law enables cities and towns to request and receive mutual aid from other municipalities during these types of disasters and other public safety incidents, but only if the city/town has.formally opted-in as required by the law. Since I wrote to you in January of 2011, almost 100 cities and towns across the Commonwealth have opted-in to the Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Law. (See the current list attached to this letter.) Today, these cities and towns are able to request help from municipalities across the Commonwealth: in an emergency, municipal resources including emergency management; emergency medical services; building inspectors; engineers; health agents and inspectors; water and sewer officials; transportation officials and resources; communications capabilities; highway, parks and cemetery workers and equipment, Medical Reserve Corps and Community Emergency Response Teams, and police and fire are available to help respond to, and recover from disasters and other public safety incidents. S~Z'k Region I Region II Region III / IV P.O. Box 116 P.O. Box 54 1002 Suffield Street 365 East Street 12-1 Rear Administration Road Agawam, MA 01001 'ibwksbury, MA 01876 Bridgewater, MA 02324-0054 Tel: 413-821-1500 Fax: 413-821-1599 Tel: 978-328-1500 Fax: 978-851-8218 RI: 508-427-0404 Fax: 508-697-8869 If your municipality has not opted-in to the Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Law, I urge you to do so: our comprehensive mutual aid system needs the participation of all 351 cities and towns in the. Commonwealth. I also_~!ouldlike_to introduce_y_ou-t_o_another mutual aid law: the Public Works Municipal Mutual Aid Law (GL C. 40, §4K). This mutual aid law, which also was enacted in 2010, differs from the Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Law in that it allows municipal officials to share public works resources in support of every day, non-emergency operations. Participants in the Public Works Mutual Aid Law may be able to realize efficiencies and savings by sharing public works resources across municipal boundaries. Like the Comprehensive Statewide Mutual Aid Law, the Public Works Mutual Aid Law requires a city, town or other governmental unit to affirmatively "opt-in" in order to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the law: a municipality may not ask for, or receive assistance under the law until it affirmatively acts. The Public Works Mutual Aid Law established a statewide Advisory Committee consisting of the secretary of public safety, who serves as chair of the committee and representatives of each of the following public works professional associations: the Massachusetts Highway Association; the New England Chapter of the American Public Works Association, who is a resident of the commonwealth; the New England Water Environment Association, who is a resident of the commonwealth; the Massachusetts Tree Wardens' .and Foresters' Association; the Massachusetts Water Works Association; and the Massachusetts Municipal Association. The Advisory Committee is responsible for the administration and coordination of the statewide mutual aid agreement. The advisory committee will be developing and making available to parties forms to facilitate requests for aid, including a form to track the movement of public works equipment and personnel. The Advisory Committee has reviewed the Public Works Mutual Aid Law and unanimously recommends that all cities and towns in the Commonwealth participate by affirmatively opting- in. Ultimately, my hope is that your jurisdiction will opt-in to the Public Works Mutual Aid Law by taking the required vote. With the enactment of the Public Safety and Public Works mutual aid laws, the Commonwealth has comprehensive multi-discipline mutual aid statutes that provide a mechanism, or system for cities and towns which are impacted and overwhelmed by a public safety incident or disaster to ask for, and receive assistance from municipalities that may have resources to share. In addition, the. new Public Works mutual aid law allows communities to share public works resources in support of every day, non-emergency work. Each of these mutual aid laws require a city, town or other governmental unit to affirmatively "opt-in" in order to participate in and enjoy the benefits of these mutual aid agreements. Each statute spells out the vote that a jurisdiction must take to opt-in to these mutual aid statutes. In order to maintain a central registry of cities and towns that have opted in to the mutual aid agreements, we ask that each jurisdiction notify MEMA, in writing, using the'enclosed form, once it takes the required votes to opt-in to one or all of the mutual aid agreements. 5 Opting in to either of these agreements does not require a jurisdiction to provide mutual aid if doing so is not reasonable and practicable. A jurisdiction is pennitted to withhold requested resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable protection and coverage for its own jurisdiction or if it does not wish to bear the expense. of providing mutual aid. Opting in to the Public Safety or Public Works mutual aid agreements does not affect, supersede or invalidate an-y-other-statutoa=y-or-coiitr-actual_mutual_aid-oi--assistance-agLeeme-nts. Additionally, a part y may enter into supplementary mutual aid agreements with other parties or jurisdictions. A jurisdiction may also opt out of the Public Safety and Public Works agreements at any time by providing 10 days written notice to MEMA. In closing, I urge your jurisdiction to opt-in. to these three mutual aid statutes by taking the required votes. I-Have enclosed the following documents to facilitate-yourjurisdiction's-review of the three mutual aid statutes: ® Summaries of the two mutual aid statutes (Attachment A); ® Instructions on the steps/actions your jurisdiction must take to opt-in to the mutual aid agreements (Attachment B); . ® Notification Form to complete and return to MEMA after your jurisdiction opts-in to one or more of the mutual aid agreements (Attachment C); Should you have any questions, please contact MEMA's statewide mutual aid coordinator Allen . Phillips at 508-820-1426 or at allen.phillips@state.ma.us. Very truly yours, /t fry + r2At Kurt N. Schwartz Undersecretary for Homeland Security & Emergency Management Director, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Executive Office of Public Safety & Security .50.-3 6 ATTACHMENT A Summaries of Mutual Aid Laws Chapter 40, Section 4J: Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Creates a statewide public safety mutual aid agreement. Assistance provided under the agreement includes, but is not limited to, fire service, law enforcement, emergency medical_ser_vices;-transportation,-communications,-publis_works,_engineering,_building inspection, planning and information assistance, resource support, public health, health and medical services, search and rescue assistance and any other resource, equipment or personnel that a party to the agreement may request or provide in anticipation of, or in response to, a public safety incident. Opt-in mutual aid agreement - If a city/town/governmental unit wishes to join the Agreement they must notify MEMA in writing. The city/town/governmental unit shall become a party to the agreement 30 days after MEMA's receipt of the written notification. A city/town/governmental unit that has joined the agreement may opt out of the agreement by notifying MEMA in writing of its intention to opt out. A city/town/governmental unit's removal from the agreement takes effect 10 days after MEMA's receipt of the written notification. A request by a party to receive mutual aid under this agreement shall be made, either orally or in writing, by an authorized representative of the requesting party to an authorized representative of the sending party or to MEMA. All oral requests shall be reduced to writing by the requesting party and delivered to the sending party at the earliest possible date, but not later than 72 hours after making the oral request. The requesting party shall be responsible for the overall operation, assignment and deployment of resources and personnel provided by the sending party consistent with the incident command system. Unless otherwise agreed to, the sending party shall retain direct supervision, command and control of personnel, equipment and resources provided by the sending party. Unless the requesting and sending parties agree otherwise, the sending party shall be responsible for the operation of its equipment and for any damage thereto. Unless the requesting and sending parties agree otherwise, the sending party shall pay all expenses, including salary and overtime, incurred by the sending party. A sending party shall document its costs of providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement. Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties, the requesting party shall seek reimbursement under any applicable federal and state disaster assistance programs for the cost of responding to the public safety incident. The requesting party and each sending party shall receive, 7 50-1 based on the documented costs of providing mutual aid assistance, its pro rata share of the disaster assistance reimbursement provided to the requesting party. While providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement, employees of the sending part-shall_be~fforded~l~esame_.owezs and duties, rights and privileges as they are afforded in the sending party's geographical jurisdiction or location. While in transit to, returning from and providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement, employees of a sending party shall have the same rights of defense, immunity and indemnification that they would otherwise have under the law if they were acting within the scope of their employment under the direction of their employer. A sending - party shall provide to, and maintairi for, each of its employees who provide mutual aid assistance under the agreement the same indemnification, defense, right to immunity, employee benefits, death benefits, workers' compensation or similar protection and insurance coverage that would be provided to those employees if they were performing similar services in the sending party's jurisdiction. Eachparty to the agreement shall waive all claims and causes of action against each other party to the agreement that may arise out of their activities while rendering or receiving mutual aid under the agreement. Each requesting party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each sending party from all claims by third parties for property damage and personal injury which may arise out of the activities of the sending party or its employees, including travel, while providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement. This section shall not affect, supersede or invalidate any other statutory or contractual mutual aid or assistance agreements. A party may enter into supplementary mutual aid agreements with other parties or jurisdictions. Chapter 40, Section 4K: Statewide Public Works Municipal Mutual Aid Creates a statewide public works municipal mutual aid agreement. Assistance provided under the agreement includes, but is not limited to, services related to public works, personnel, equipment, supplies and facilities to prepare for, prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from public works incidents. Participation in the agreement is also available to governmental units in states contiguous to the Commonwealth. Creates a statewide public works municipal mutual aid advisory committee to be chaired by the secretary of public safety and security or his designee. Opt-in mutual aid agreement - if a city/town/governmental unit wishes to join the Agreement they, must notify the mutual aid advisory committee in writing. The city/town/governmental unit shall become a party to the agreement 30 days after the advisory committee's receipt of the written notification. 8 s~s A city/town/governmental unit that has joined the agreement may opt out of the agreement by notifying the advisory committee in writing of its intention to opt out. A city/town/governmental unit's removal from the agreement takes effect 10 days after the advisory committee's receipt of the written notification. request by a party to receive mutual aid under this agreement shall be made, either orally or in writing, by the chief executive officer of the requesting party or one of its designated points of contact to the chief executive officer or a designated point of contact of the sending party. All oral requests shall be reduced to writing by the requesting party and delivered to the sending party at the earliest possible date, but not later than 72 hours after making the oral request. A party that receives a request for mutual aid assistance shall provide and make available, to the extent reasonable and practicable under the circumstances, the resources requested by the requesting party; provided, however, that a sending party may withhold requested resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable protection and coverage for its own jurisdiction. The requesting party shall be responsible for the overall operation, assignment and deployment of resources and personnel provided by the sending party. Unless otherwise agreed to, the sending party shall retain direct supervision, command and control of personnel, equipment and resources provided by the sending party. Unless the requesting and sending parties agree otherwise; the sending party shall be responsible for the operation of its equipment and for any damage thereto. Unless the requesting and sending parties agree otherwise, the sending party shall pay all expenses, including salary and overtime, incurred by the sending party. A sending party shall document its costs of providing mutual aid,assistance under the agreement. Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties, the requesting party shall seek reimbursement under any applicable federal and state disaster assistance programs for the cost of responding to the public works incident. The requesting party and each sending party shall receive, based on the documented costs of providing mutual aid assistance, its pro rata share of the disaster assistance reimbursement provided to the requesting party. While providing mutual aid- assistance under the agreement, employees of the sending party shall be afforded the same powers and duties, rights and privileges as they are afforded in the sending party's geographical jurisdiction or location., While providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement, employees of the sending party shall be considered similarly licensed, certified or permitted in the requesting party's jurisdiction if the employee holds a valid license, certificate or permit issued by the employee's governmental unit. While in transit to, returning from and providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement, employees of a sending party shall have the same rights of defense, immunity and indemnification that they would otherwise have under the law if they were acting within the scope of their employment under the direction of their employer. A sending 9 5.a,(D party shall provide to, and maintain for, each of its employees who provide mutual aid assistance under the agreement the same indemnification, defense, right to immunity, employee benefits, death benefits, workers' compensation or similar protection and insurance coverage that would be provided to those employees if they were performing similar services in the sending party's jurisdiction. Each party to the agreement shall waive all claims and causes of action against each other party to the agreement that may arise out of their activities while rendering or receiving mutual aid under the agreement. Each requesting party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each sending party from all claims by third parties for property damage and personal injury which may arise out of the activities of the sending party or its employees, including travel, while providing mutual aid assistance under the agreement. All equipment requested and deployed pursuant to this agreement shall be insured by the sending party. This section shall not affect, supersede or invalidate any other statutory or contractual in.utual aid or assistance agreements. A party may enter into supplementary mutual aid agreements with other parties or jurisdictions. 10 s~I ATTACHMENT B MUTUAL AID "OPT-IN" INSTRUCTIONS T-he-statutory_r_equir_ements-for-jurisdictions to opt-in to the mutual aid agreement(s)' are set forth below. MGL c. 40,`§§ 4J & 4K - Public Works & Public Safety Mutual Aid Agreements If a city or town wishes to join the Public Safety or Public Works agreement(s), the mayor in the case of a city, the city manager in the case of a Plan D or Plan E city, or the town manager, town administrator or chairman of the board of selectmen with the approval by a majority of the board of selectmen, may act on behalf of the city or town to join the agreement by notifying the director of MEMA in writing. If a governmental unit that is not a city or town wishes to join the agreement(s), the chief executive officer of the govermmental unit may act on its behalf to join the agreement by notifying the director of MEMA in writing. Once a jurisdiction has properly authorized joining any or all of the above listed mutual aid agreements please complete each applicable section of the attached form. Upon completion, please return the form to: Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Attn: Allen Phillips 11 sd ATTACHMENT C MUTUAL AID "OPT-IN" FORM CITY/TOWN/ DISTRICT OF I hereby certify by my signature(s) below that the city/town/district or other governmental unit has authorized, in accordance with each of the applicable statutes, its participation in each of the mutual aid agreements indicated below (each individual section below must be completed for each agreement authorized). MGL c. 40, §4J - Statewide Public Safety Mutual Aid Agreement Signature Date of Vote/Execution Title MGL c. 40, §4K - Statewide Public Works Municipal Mutual Aid Agreement Signature Title Once each applicable section of this form is completed please return the form to: Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Attn: Allen Phillips Date of Vote/Execution 12 sal~l CITIES AND TOWNS THAT HAVE OPTED-IN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT AS OF AUGUST 17, 2011 Abington Agawam Amesbury Ashburnham Ashland Auburn Belmont Berlin Blackstone Boxborough Boylston Brewster Brookfield Carver Charlemont Charlton Chelmsford Chester Chesterfield Conway Cummington Dartmouth Egremont Essex Franklin Gill Gloucester Goshen Grafton Granville Halifax Hardwick Hardwick Holliston Hudson Huntington Kingston Lancaster Lawrence Leicester Leyden Lowell 'Ludlow Lynnfield Marlborough Melrose Merrimac Middleborough Milford Millbury Millville Montgomery Mount Washington Nahant NEMLEC (NE Law Enforcement) New Bedford New Braintree Orange Peabody Pelham Petersham Plymouth Reading Rehoboth Revere Rochester Rockland Russell Sandisfield Savoy Seekonk Sheffield Southbridge Spencer Springfield Water & Sewer Sterling Stow Sutton Tolland Townsend Truro Uxbridge Walpole Ware Wayland Wellesley West Boylston West Newbury Westhampton Whately Wilbraham Williamsburg Yarmouth a ,0 13 Reading Conservation Commission Ad Hoc Committee Report on Wetland Regulation Evaluation and Recommended Enhancements s, s i- n-at-d-€ i-ectiv I This ad hoc committee was formed at the request of the Reading Board of Selectmen (BOS) with the expressed purpose of assessing and simplifying the wetland application process. The critical element of the review process, expressed by both the BOS and the Reading Conservation Commission, which formed the ad hoc committee; was to actively solicit input, comments, and suggestions from stakeholders previously involved in the wetland application process. The mission of the ad hoc committee is: "Recommend changes to the Reading wetland protection regulations and enabling bylaws to simplify the permit application and enforcement process without compromising critical resource protection offered by the regulations." Purpose of Local Wedand Bylaws The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) is a statewide law that protects wetland resources in the Commonwealth and has associated regulations. Local wetlands bylaws protect the resource areas under the WPA to a greater degree, protect additional resource areas recognized by the Town as significant or for their additional values beyond those recognized in the WPA and impose local regulations to implement the bylaws. These regulations can impose additional standards and stricter procedures. Approximately 50% of the Towns in Massachusetts have a local bylaw. The Reading Wetland Bylaws were developed to clarify the State regulations and address local issues such as specific buffer zone set-backs and minor projects. Process The ad hoc committee sought input from stakeholders with experience and exposure to the Reading wetland permit application process through multiple avenues. We developed and distributed a questionnaire requesting information on stakeholders' experiences and suggestions for improvement. Hard copies of the questionnaire were mailed.to recent wetland permit applicants and abutters. It was also posted on the Town website with email notice of availability sent to critical stakeholders such as Town Meeting Members. More than 150 questionnaires were returned, which might well be a record rate of return in the Town. We also invited more than a dozen stakeholders who have been heavily involved in the wetland permit application process to public interviews so that we could learn from their experience and solicit suggestion to improve and simply the process. These stakeholders included engineers, attorneys, and wetland scientists who have prepared or were involved in numerous permit applications in Reading and similar towns. We also invited several residential and commercial applicants and representatives of local environmental advocacy groups. Although we had outstanding participation for the questionnaire effort, we were not as successful with responses to our invitation for interviews. Fewer than 10 stakeholders agreed to interviews, but those who did participate shared a wealth of experience and insightful suggestions. 14 S61 The ad hoc committee also provided information and original suggestions based on their experience and research. We reviewed regulations in similar towns and'communicated with other towns' conservation administrators and the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissioners. We also drew on our experience in Reading and other towns to identify issues, concerns, and areas of improvement. (All members-have_exper_i_en.ce-as-Cons_eryation-.omm.issioners_and several had worked with numerous other applicants and towns as environmental consultants). The information developed from these multiple avenues is presented in this report under the following headings: Summary of Questionnaire and Interview Results; Recommended Reading Wetland Bylaw Changes; Recommended Reading Wetland Regulation Changes; and Recommendations for Conservation Commission Policies. Summary € f Questionnaire and Interview Results The input received through the questionnaires tended to be general in nature rather than suggesting specific regulation changes (full results and a discussion of results are attached). The questionnaire responses also generally did not differentiate between the State and Town processes and identified concerns related to other town bylaws, such as those regulating the Aquifer Protection District. Even with these limitations, the results of the questionnaires gave us a very good understanding of how the citizens of Reading view the wetland application process and thus gave us excellent food for thought to recommend enhancements to the regulations and process. Although over 60% of the respondents felt the regulations at least somewhat served the Town's needs, there was much frustration with the complexity, fairness and execution of the process. Approximately half the respondents felt their experience with the Conservation Commission and the Conservation Agent was not fair or collaborative, while only a quarter of the respondents felt it was fair and collaborative. The question of fairness and collaboration generated by far the most comments and suggestions. A majority of respondents also felt the process was more cumbersome than applications for other Reading permits (e.g. building permit) and wetland permits in other towns. Similarly a majority felt the regulations were restrictive to economic development and home improvement. In general the negative comments and frustration were less for abutters than applicants or respondents without direct involvement in the process. The ad hoc committee analyzed and discussed at length the results of the questionnaires. We concluded the major concerns of a fair and cumbersome process generally could not be addressed solely by regulation and bylaw changes. We felt Conservation Commission policies should be put in place that would promote consistent and predictable action by the Commission and administrator. We also felt the Town should have develop and periodically update a simple, non-technical, one or two page combination checklist and flow chart to assist residential and nonprofessional applicants through the process. A discussion of policy development and general policy recommendations are included as the final section of this report. In contrast to the questionnaires, the interviews of professionals, applicants and environmental advocates were more focused on the Reading process and resulted in suggestions for specific regulation s"b2' 15 changes. A primary area of concern raised during the interview process was consistency with the state process unless there was a Reading specific condition to warrant a major difference. The consistency issue was particularly relevant to definitions and wetland delineation methodology. Other concerns raised in the interview process were flooding, water quality protection, areas of jurisdiction, and resource areas. Recommended Reading Wetland Bylaw Changes The Reading Wetland Bylaws are intentionally general and include a mandate to develop implementing regulations to provide the details. Thus it is not surprising that most of the concerns raised and suggestions made were related to the details in the regulations rather than the general statements in the bylaws. However, the committee identified one issue related to definitions that could be addressed by a substantive change to the bylaw and a suggested word change that could help clarify the bylaw. The ad hoc committee's recommendations to address these two concerns are presented below. ® In Section 5.7.5, a lengthy list of definitions of wetland-related terms could be deleted and replaced by a reference to the Regulations for definitions. (They are currently in both the bylaws and Regulations.) One of our goals is to make the Reading Wetland Bylaws consistent with the State regulations unless there is a specific and good reason for inconsistency. The State revises their definitions periodically based on new scientific information, review of cases, changes in the state program and similar reasons. By locking definitions into the bylaws when the State makes a change in definitions, an inconsistency can be created. We would like to have the terms defined in the Regulations only, so that if a change is necessary based on State changes, new science or technology, or other reasons, the Conservation Commission can facilitate'changes in the Regulations, in a simpler, more straightforward, and more technically based process than going before Town Meeting for a bylaw change. Thus, the ad hoc committee's recommendation is to delete the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section 5.7.5 and the entire list of definitions'and substitute: "The critical wetland-related terms used in this bylaw and regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall be defined in regulations promulgated under this bylaw" o Our other potential recommendation is much simpler. In Section 5.7.17, there is an apparent typo in the seventh line: "..after given (sic giving) written notification...". We would like to correct this typo by substituting the word giving for given. Rec€ mthended Reading Wetland Regulation. Changes The committee spent the most effort during our May through August tenure on reviewing and discussing ways to simplify and clarify the Wetland Regulations. We considered our own experience, other towns' regulations, input from questionnaires and interviews with wetland professionals. We developed an extensive list of potential changes and then discussed and voted on each one. Although we feel we have developed a comprehensive list of areas and topics that need to be changed or enhanced, there are several areas that require additional research and input provided by a public process before a specific change can be made. Therefore we have identified the areas of the regulations si-,~3 16 that warrant change, and the Conservation Commission can propose specific changes in each area and hold public hearings to finalize the changes. The recommended areas of change are presented in the table below. There were several suggested changes-that-were-discussed-at length,,-but not recommended-by the-committee-These--areas-ar-e-also presented below, .with a summary of the discussion and rationale for not making recommendations. SO 17 Recommended Reading Wetland Regulation Modifications Topic Recommended Change Areas of Delete description of submittal requirements in Regulations (particularly but not regulations which exclusively Section 5 B.2 and Section 6) for all information identical to state specify submittal submittal requirements. Keep requirements for aspects unique to Reading requirements Regulations, such as indicating set backs on drawings. Fee structure Revise fee structure for residential properties with consideration of: a cap, non per square foot calculations for some activities, and simplified calculations. Methods for Make delineation methods more consistent with the methodology specified determining under the State Regulations and Army Corps of Engineers published jurisdictional methodology. wetlands Vernal Pools Revise definition of vernal pools such that it is consistent with the State's Natural Heritage definition. Wildlife Habitat Revise wildlife habitat definition and methods to evaluate effects such that they are consistent with the State's- definition. Specific Allow exemptions for selected limited projects such as ones for hazardous waste exemption of clean-up (e.g. allow more than 5000 square feet of BVW alteration for hazardous standards and waste clean-up). limited projects Requirement for Change Reading requirement (2 to 1) to be consistent with state requirement rip rap for slopes (1.5 to 1) before riprap is needed. Maintenance in Exempt from filing for normal maintenance in developed or landscaped areas of developed areas the buffer zone. Isolated Wetland Explore exemption from filing if an isolated wetland outside the buffer zone is less than a specified size and is the only resource area at issue. Soil Preparation Revise requirement of timing for soil preparation in restoration areas (Section 3 C 2.g) to specify timing should be specified in individual Order of Conditions where necessary. Land Subject to Remove restriction to one lot and 10% (Section 3 E 1) because they are arbitrary Flooding and flood protection is provided elsevyhere. RDA Add RDA for allowed extension of time (Section 7 E 1). sbs 18 The following areas of the regulations were considered but not recommended for change by the ad hoc committee: • The current regulations extend the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission beyond the 10 foot buffer if there is likelihood of an alteration of the resource area. Consideration was given to eliminating potential forjurisdiction beyond the buffer zone or.specifying a condition warranting expanded jurisdiction (e.g. significant adverse effect on the resource area). This change was not recommended because the current language is consistent with the state's regulations. Adding language to describe a specific condition would be more likely to add confusion and misinterpretation than leaving the existing language that has already been subject to scrutiny and interpretation under the state's regulations. The committee did feel that this issue should be addressed by Conservation Commission policy such that an explicit majority vote by the commission should be required to enforce jurisdiction beyond the buffer zone. • The current regulations specify a minimum no-structure zone of 35 feet and no disturb zone of 25 feet from a resource area. The committee discussed, changing these to a specific (rather than minimum) set back distances. The committee felt there could be unusual circumstances that might require greater setbacks so no change was recommended. As was the case with jurisdiction beyond the buffer zone, the committee did recommend that the Conservation Commission should develop a policy requiring an explicit majority vote by the Commission before requiring a greater setback. • There was a discussion of developing a consistent and technically justified treatment of surfaces designed to be pervious in the regulations. However since definition of pervious surfaces is a factor in other regulations (e.g., aquifer protection) and by other town entities (e.g., building department) this issue could best be dealt with through policy rather than regulation. • There was a suggestion to require notification of abutters for any continuance of a hearing as well as the original hearing. This suggestion was rejected' because notification is an onerous and expensive process for the applicant necessitating return receipt requested mailings. The ad hoc committee felt that notification of a continuance announced at the original hearing and posted on the Town website was adequate. • There was also a suggestion that the requirement be changed to be 100 feet rather than 300 feet from proposed action for abutter notification of public hearing. However Reading's requirement for abutter notification for all public hearings is 300 feet so the regulations were not changed so consistency with Town requirements could be maintained • A suggestion was made to add a statute of limitations on violations occurring before a specified time in the past. The ad hoc committee felt that if a violation was sufficiently grievous, the Conservation Commission should have the option of issuing a notice of violation and enforcement order. If it was a minor infraction, the commission should have enforcement flexibility, which could be implemented by policy. • There was a comment that there should be a term limit for Conservation Commission members. Although there was some support on the ad hoc committee for this suggestion, the terms of commissioners are not within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. • The current regulations specify that a variance to performance standards can only be granted if it is in the public interest (Section 2 E 1.c). There was a suggestion to add consideration of private interest in granting a variance to performance standards. This suggestion was rejected S b (a 19 by the ad hoc committee because the primary purpose and intent of the wetland bylaws and regulations are to protect public rather than private interests. Granting a variance for private interest would be inconsistent with the intent of the regulations and the state wetland laws. ® The ad hoc committee felt that the new stormwater regulations and permit were, a better venue than the-wetland-regulations to-addr-e--ss the-suggestion-far-add.itio_na.l_water-q_ua.l.ity_pmlectio-n Recommendations for Conservation Commission Policies As discussed above, there are stakeholder, issues that cannot be addressed by either bylaw or regulation changes. In many of these cases, the concerns can be partially addressed by developing a consistent and documented policy. The ad hoc committee did not attempt to identify every potential topic for policy development. The Conservation Commission should develop the policies and review and revise periodically as need necessitates. However, as listed below, we did uncover a few areas where clarity and simplification could be achieved through established Conservation Commission policies. ® Publicized procedure for minor and frequent activities in or near resource areas such as tree cutting ® Procedures to enforce jurisdiction beyond 100-foot setback or require setbacks beyond specified minimums ® Procedure and requirements for degree of imperviousness of a surface as related to stormwater and infiltration issues ® Definition of responsibility of overlapping issues with other town entities, such as stormwater regulation ® Policies for dealing with applicants to promote collaboration and fairness ® Develop a simple and non-technical flow chart and checklist for the residential development permit application process ® Make sure the Conservation Agent offers to meet with each new applicant to explain the process and provide the needed documents ® The Conservation Commission should develop and implement a citizen education program to help stakeholders understand; jurisdiction and procedures for Reading Wetland Bylaw and regulations; benefits provided by wetlands; and distinction between the state and town wetland regulations. ATTACHMENTS: A. Memorandum on Wetland Regulations Survey Results (Under Separate Cover) B. Survey Questionnaire C. An Introduction to Wetland Laws and Regulations (Explanation that accompanied the Questionnaire) s61 20 Attachment B 1. Do you feel that the Reading Wetland Bylaws and regulations are restrictive to business/economic development? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not restrictive neutral very restrictive 2. Do you feel that the Reading Wetland Bylaws and regulations are restrict ive to home improvement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not restrictive neutral very restrictive 3. Do the Reading Wetlands Bylaws and regulations serve the needs of the town? Yes No Somewhat Unsure 4. In what capacity have you been exposed to regulations? Applicant Professional providing support Abutter Through others (neighbors, relatives, friends) None Other (please specify) 5. Do you have experience applying for a Wetlands Permit? In Reading Other Massachusetts Towns Other Locations In both Reading and other communities No For the next 5 questions, Please rate the importance of wetlands and floodplains for the following: 6. Flood control? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not important neutral very important 7. Water supply protection? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not important neutral very important 8. Wildlife habitat protection? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not important neutral very important 9. Community character? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unsure not important neutral very important 10. Property values? 21 S)"q Please answer the next set of questions only if you have experience with the wetlands permitting process in Reading: 11. In what capacity have you been exposed to the Reading Permitting Process (circle all that apply)? Applicant Professional providing support Abutter Other (please specify) 12. Was your experience with Reading Conservation Commission fair and collaborative? Yes No Somewhat 13. Why/What would you like to see changed: 14. Was your experience with Reading Conservation Agent fair and collaborative? Yes No Somewhat 15. Why/What would you like to see changed: 16. How did the Reading Wetland application process compare to other Town Permits (e.g. building permit, etc.) Similar More cumbersome Simpler Other (please specify) 17. Do you have any comments on the application process? 18. Was the Reading Wetland permitting process explained adequately? In the regulations Yes No N/A By the Conservation Administrator Yes No N/A By the Conservation Commission Yes No N/A By others Yes No N/A 19. Based on your experience, what specific suggestions do you have for changes to the local wetlands laws or processes? Please answer the next set of questions only if you have experience with BOTH Reading Wetlands Permitting and other communities' wetland permitting: 20. Do the. Reading Wetland Regulations help to manage flooding when compared to other communities? Better . Worse Differently 21 Why was it better or worse? 22. Do the Reading Wetland Regulations help to manage storm water when compared to other communities? Better Worse Differently 23. Why was it better or worse? 24. Do the Reading Wetland Regulations help to manage wildlife habitat compared to other communities? Better Worse Differently 25. Why was it better or worse? 26. Do the.Reading Wetland Regulations help to manage water quality compared to other communities? Better Worse Differently 27. Why was it better or worse? 28. Please provide any additional comments or suggested changes in the bylaw, regulations or permitting process: 23 Attachment C An Introduction to Wetland Laws and Regulations e Reading Wetland Bvlaw and Regulations Review Ad Hoc Committee Reading's Conservation Commission, a volunteer seven-member board, administers and enforces the state's Wetland Protection Act, the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act, the Town of Reading's Wetlands Protection Bylaw, and additional state and local regulations. The Conservation Administrator is a town employee who assists the Commission by gathering information, helping applicants through the process, attending site visits, lending special expertise in wetland science and law, issuing minor project permits and performing numerous additional duties. Wetlands are complex ecosystems protected by law due to their natural propensity to protect the water supply and lessen storm damage while providing fish and wildlife habitat. Wetlands help prevent flooding and storm damage by holding water, then releasing it slowly to keep streams and ponds flowing. Wetlands also filter pollutants out of our groundwater and are vital as shelter, breeding, and migratory wildlife habitat. The loss and degradation of wetlands contribute to increases in flood damage, drought damage, and declining populations of rare species. Under state and local law, a wetland is defined as saturated soils that support 50 percent or more of wetland indicator plants. Such areas include swamps, rivers and land subject to flooding. Reading's local bylaw also includes intermittent ponds and isolated freshwater wetlands in. the definition of wetlands. The purpose of wetland laws and regulations is to protect floodplains and wetlands by controlling development that would negatively impact the functions and values of the wetlands. Under, state and local laws, permits are required for activities that would alter wetlands, floodplains, riverfront areas, or land within 100 feet of wetlands. Permits are required for projects ranging from tree cutting to new subdivisions; the triggering factor for involvement by the Conservation Commission is the project's proximity to wetlands. The process for applying for a permit is the same under both the state and local wetlands laws. Applicants submit documentation of the proposed action and how the action relates to nearby wetlands. One application form is completed, one hearing held, and one permit issued under both state and local law. The local bylaw, however, allows minor project permits to be issued without public hearings for some small projects (such as fences, decks, and patios) provided minimum setback standards are met. Decisions under the state law can be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, while local bylaw decisions can be appealed directly to Superior Court. For further information, please see the Town's website and Frequently Asked Questions site (http•//www.ci.reading.ma.us/Pages/ReadingMA Conservation/docs/FAQ/FAQ) or visit Town Hall for copies of the General Bylaws, the Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations and an application packet with forms and instructions for completing the permit process. 56It 24 SurveyMagik :Results Surveys > Results Conservation Permitting Questionnaire - Summer 2011 Show All Show; Options Download Spreadsheet Download PDF ( CSV By Taker I Display by Taker ( Manage Labels I Print 1. Do you feel that the Reading Wetland Bylaws and regulations are restrictive to businessleconomic activity? (answered 228 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 19.30% (44) 7.46% (17) 5.26% (12) 0.88% (2) 12.72% (29) 3.07% (7) 6.58% (15) 10.96% (25) 7.46% (17) 26.32% (60) 6.00 2. Do you feel that the Reading Wetland Bylaws and regulations are restrictive to home improvement? (answered 243 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 14.40% (35) 7.009/. (17) 3.29% (8) 2.88% (7) 4.94% (12) 3.29% (8) 4.53% (11) 9.05% (22) 10.70% (26) 39.92% (97) 6.94 3. Do the Reading Wetlands Bylaws and regulations serve the needs of the town? Answered: 261 Skipped: 0 Yes (72) No (62) Somewhat (89) Unsure (38) 15% 2L% 4. In what capacity have you been exposed to the Reading Wetlands Bylaws and regulations? Answered: 261 Skipped: 0 Applicant (90) Professional providing support (16) Abutter (95) Through others (neighbors, relatives, friends) (107) No exposure (33) Other (26) http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ lb2lbOdl c2Ob... 11: y 5. Do you have experience applying for a Wetlands permit? Answered: 261 Skipped: 0 Yes - in Reading (84) Yes - in other communities (18) Yes - in Reading and other communities (21) No experience (138) 32'. ~ b 25 1 of 18 9/21/20117:30 AN SurveyMagik :Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownball.net/results/sid/lb2 lbOdl c20b... For the next five questions, please rate the importance of wetlands and floodplains for the following: 6. Flood control (answered 250 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 2.40% (6) 2.80% (7) 3.20%a (8) 1.20% (3) 12.00% (30) 3.20% (8) 4.40% (11) 12.80% (32) 13.20% (33) 44.80% (112) 8.02 7. Water supply protection (answered 249 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 8-84%(~2) 4 $2° 12) 4:02oT(10) X41 10:040/(25) 4-82%(12)- 62%('14) 9.6-4%(24)-6:83%(1-7) 42:97%('1-07)-7.27 8. Wildlife habitat protection (answered 250 times) 1 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 5.20% (13) 4.00% (10) 6.00% (15) 5.60% (14) 12.80% (32) 7.60% (19) 10.80% (27) 11.60% (29) 7.20% (18) 29.20% (73) 6.88 9. Community character (answered 247 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 10 Avg 12.96% (32) 8.10% (20) 4.05% (10) 2.02% (5) 14.98%a (37) 5.67% (14) 9.72% (24) 10.53% (26) 5.26% (13) 26.72% (66) 6.25 10. Property values (answered 250 times) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 13.20% (33) 4.40% (11) 3.60% (9) 2.80% (7) 13.20% (33) 5.20% (13) 6.40% (16) 10.80% (27) 6.80% (17) 33.60% (84) 6.70 For the next set of questions, please respond ONLY if you have experience with the wetlands permitting process in Reading:, 11. In what capacity have you been exposed to the Reading permitting process? Answered: 150 Skipped: 111 Applicant (93) Professional providing support (13) Abutter (55) y Other (32) ats-;> 12. Was your experience with the Reading Conservation Commission fair and collaborative? Answered: 142 Skipped: 119 Yes (47) No (54) Somewhat (41) 29'„ 2a'%, 13. Why or why not? What would you like to see changed? Answered: 95 Skipped: 166 • Very tedious for simple home improvement project. • There was no "reasonable factor"! The decision was made by the CC without any consultation! Reading is infamous for having brutally strict conservation reuues and regulations. That alone makes people want to take their chances and not go through the process. There were extra steps but ultimately I received fair treatment. • Its Fran's way or the highway • Lengthy process. Too many meetings and extensions by board. Board was rude at times in stating that the conservation property was of more importance than our personal property. Flags were placed and no one came back to remove after one project. • The former Administrator was irrational, aggressive and untruthful at times. The Commission was difficult to work with, applying fee amounts and tree #'s/sizes arbitrarily. • The CC Com has a history of imposing excessive requirements on residents which translates to enormous expense burdens • More inspectional services Sb ~3 26 2 of 18 9/21/20117:30 AN SurveyMagik::Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ 1b21bOd1 c20b... • They did not listen to the professional reasonign as to why somethign needed to be done for safety reasons. Everything was about "protecting the wetlands." What about protecting my children and property from dead trees failing. • Very un-helpful. Only interested in enforcing the wetlands bylaw, not in conservation (i.e., if it's not in the wetlands area, it's not our job - even a hazmat spill that threatens wetlands!). • Fran Fink said one thing at the site and changed her mind at the meeting leaving us totally out in left field. She was a true 2 face costing us over $200K Yes $200K The guidelines by the town are too restrictive. We complied with state but she wanted more which was ridiculous. • Do not mirnimize economic activity and home improvement for issues like habitat protection, this is not the everglades, no species here is goint extinct. ® Common sense along with the bylaws and its interpretation. If only a small % of one's property falls on the (for example) aquaphor protection district, there should be some adjustment for that in terms of pervious vs. impervious cover. Additionally, Reading needs to be more up-to-date and amendable to current advances in products and materials that ARE considered to be pervious and enable homeowner's to use such materials and not count against their impervious allowance. • too restrictive, beyond the state and federal regulations • N/A • very unfair in dealing with myself and professionals who had pictures and documentation of concerns reused by board. • I thought the meeting was not conducted efficiently • I believe they are working in the best interest of Reading, their citizens and habitat. I called once and they were very, very helpful. • Wetlands protection is really over rated. • Overall I felt that the commission (in recent years) has been fair. The extreme restrictions, however, in the Aquifer protection district are exceedingly unfair. The financial burden that is being placed, particularly on homeowners, is incredible. • The Conservation Commission was very careful to get both sides presented, and made every effort to make a fair and balanced assessment, following the letter and spirit of the law but also responding to the questions and concerns of the abutters and the applicant. • A little less time taken to get the job done • Businesses taking water from the Aberjona. (Polinski tree)The man told me he could take 100,000 gallons a'day. From a dry creek? (During a hot and dry period.) • too much paperwork.. too involved, approval seems to be arbitrary with no common sense used • Very strict and unwilling to listen to proposed plans - my wetlands are more or less 1+ acres and 5% of it is used for water run off from street (where rry usable yard abuts) - pipes could easily be extended to allow for homeowner yard plans to be allowed and possibly extend to enter existing large concrete structure used for Main St run off. Allow some common sense to better living for all. State wetland lines differ from town plans. • The process seems somewhat slow - it holds up work needed at home, very slow • Too restrictive for changes does not account for town drainage. • The board is great, Fran Fink's behavior is disgusting. I almost moved because of her. She has no idea what she is doing and you have to challenge her answers to prove her wrong. She is unreasonable and if she had it her way she would not let anyone improve their property. I have never met an a person as unpleasant as her in my life! • There is a double standard for town use or public use and private use. We have a cematary o Charles St that filled in a wet land. We have a medical building built in a swamp ...a low income house built on town land with a little brook behind it,yet you can't put a porch on a private home or even a deck if there arewet lands in the. rear or the lot. • It not only was time consuming and cumbersome but it was ridiculously and unneccessarily expensive. The Committee and the Administrator (who should have been fired for fraud, bullying and lying long before she retired)were horrific to work with and I felt attacked and unsafe every time I had to interact with them. • The town administrator and some members of the committee clearly have an agenda of their own and act to discourage applicants from doing anything - either by making the process as painful as possible or by adding costs to the project through fees and the need for costly plans and experts, forced'planting of trees or other requirements. They should be looking at how they can help people get their projects done, not stopping them from doing them, especially on private property. • It is a very long and tedious process which requires people to come back multiple times and spend money needlessly. • Attempt to resolve issues during first visit rahter than being required to return repeatedly.Some of the members were very fair and willing to work for a solution that worked for everyone. Others were focused on their own agenda rather than the overall balance of the issues. • Aquifer District bulding restrictions above and beyond any state regs. need to be abolished. They are completely outdated because of MWRA and absurd compared to the treatment of other wetlands in Town, • Too restrictive; No logic due to new water supply (mass, not Reading). Against all new technologies and materials: Abuse of power as there is no logical reasoning or fair compromise in every single decision. • We were pretty much told what to do in order to comply. No give and take. A very weird feeling to have to give up your land that you're paying taxes on. • The idea of "if we make a change for you, we'd have to do it for everybody." In rry opinion, each case is different, and should not be bound by that theory. • To strict and made process extrmely difficult = delays More responsive and better communication with homeowners and neighbors • More variances and less regulation • Most of teh Commission members are reasonable, but they did not seem to have the ability to be flexible and use common sense. • On two occassion in the past year, I worked iwth the Conservation Administrator. I would not change anything. In one case, 3 of 18 27 6)q. 9/21/20117:30 AN SurveyMagik::Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ 1b21bOdl c20b... she was able to informally review our request with the commission before hand and issue a minor prg. permit for clean up after a major storm damage. • She is ridiculously unfair. I would change the conservation administrator (Fran Fink) O She was not very helpful in aiding me with information on what could be changed, it was her way or no way It took several months to work with the conservation commission and the building inspector for a permit to improve rry property more inspectional services a some of the paperwork did not apply to our projects and some of the details needed for small projects was a nuisance. I would like to see less paperwork involved. a I observed that an atmosphere of mistrust and antagonism prvaile din almost al hearings nave sat in on or participate tlin. This included applications by private citizens, businesses, and Town personnell. There was an excessive attention to non-critical issues,extension of jurisdiction, and an overemphasis on wetland impact risk minimization as opposed to reasonable land development and land use. Too many rules that got in the way of common sense. • reduce restrictions and simplify process e commission imposed much tougher restrictions than the CC had recommended. Was very difficult to work with. Personnel'has all changed since our experience. a The committee has a hidden agenda to prevent any building, development, property improvements they can in the name of "environmental protection." They habitually overstep their responsibilies and authority. They use bullying and misrepresentation to intimidate and threaten people who do not know the rules they way they do. They need to realize their job is to make sure that permits are issued according to the law and nothing more. They are not here to expand wetlands or animal habitat, etc. The also need to give the. benefit of the doubt to the applicant rather than treat people like everyone is out to destroy the environment which just isnt true. . Too restrictive even with man-made (farm) pond/wetlands. e More stringent and time consuming o I have seen other professionals who did not do very professional work who ignored feedback given by the commission. In those cases, it is hard to be collaborative. a Frustrating and annoying for my neighbor - a The Commission is much fairer than in the past. she is ridiculously unfair. I would change the Conservation Administrator (Fran Fink) C The interaction with the RCC immediately and unnecessarily took on an adversarial tone. My issue/application was minor in nature with little disagreement regarding outcome or process, yet the commission and the application process was perceived as laborious and adversarial in nature. Through no fault of the commission, the dialog between applicants and the commission tends to be somewhat contentious by nature. Its the regulations themselves that tend to be too restrictive in nature, almost unreasonably so. everything e More collaboration e I spoke with Fran Fink and read the guidelines before appling. We made our request based on that information which I assume helped to streamline the permit. We also didnt ask to really encroach on the by laws. • Board indifference ® We pay taxes for property we cannot touch and have to pay more money to the town to make any improvements within 100' that have no adverse effects to the conservation land. a Rules are rules. Where is the room for collaboration? Cannot respond as I have not read the bylaws and do not comprehend what needs to be changed. My exposure was years ago. o More flexability ® The need for multiple surveys adds huge costs to applicants. Also the need to certified notices to abutters within 300 ft adds lots of cost. . overly conservative o The Commission basically operates fairly, but it allows itsef to micromanage gardening projects. Inconsistancies among FAQs, bylaws and permits as to the Commissions proper role in buffer zone management is obviously a problem to be addressed. ® I have lived here for 32 years and have always maintained rrry yard. The majority of my yard, a quarter of an acre, is within 100 feet of Wetlands. However, this year an abutter issued a complaint to the CC against me for planting hemlock trees along our fence, 1 year and 8 months after we planted the hemlocks. CC ordered us to pay $50.00 for a planting plan plus provide a receipt of the work done. We did that. Shortly after that we hired an arborist to prune trees in our yard. That day Fran Finkel came to my house and asked me to stop the work going on due a complaint from the same abutter. Work stopped until a permit was issued for the work, but the pruning that we had planned along our back fence to the abutter was stopped. Ceasing the work for that amount of time cost me an additional couple thousand dollars. This abutter seems to have a personal vendetta against me. It is not fair that I am the only neighbor who has to follow this procedure when rry abutting neighbors don't. In the meantime there have been real violations against the Wetland by-laws, but no complaints have been filed. For the first time in over 32 years, I met with the Town Manager to brief him on this situation plus talk with him about notifying the police. I am afraid of this abutter. The bylaws are unfair and so far out of wack that they are usually twice as strict as the state level. These force people to try for a 40B just to get a permit when all options have been exhausted. Most originally wanted to build nice homes, but instead were forced to file for a 40B just to build and now you have tons of condos with 40B residents who only bring down the home values and bring in a lower class of people. Why do you think ReadingaA®s quota for 40B permits is always filled every year? I have heard stories of the committee members just driving by pulling over and walking onto a persona®As private property to 28 '.5 4 of 18 9/21/20117:30 Al SurveyMagik::Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtowr)hall.net/results/sid/ 1b2lbOdl c20b... inspect it without the owners®®s knowing. I am pretty sure unless you area police officer that is illegal. They also move the flags on the property which has already been professionally done, which I have not ever heard of being done in the other two towns I have lived in. They also demand evidence for issues that do not concern the wetlands committee. These people are not here to help the town; they are environmental extremists that I equate to the people who protest at military funerals. They have gone past the point of ethical and fair many years ago. The man on the committee who goes around in search of vernal pools should be terminated along with all of the committee members. Reading has the most certified vernal pools in this area. He needs to be stopped. He is only hurting the towns®®s potential. Every lawyer and environmentalist I have dealt with had the same ion when I said I wanted to build in reading. First they say Reading is the worst and toughest town around for any wetlands permit and even try to talk me out of it before I show them the property. That is your town809s reputation. • Homeowner usually has a better understanding of the properly than the commitee members • No flexibility, with rules oppressive. • Cost of permitting process - wait time to excessinve • Not aware of where it has failed ® Conservation commission took it upon themselves to overrule the professional botanist and move their flags to determine wetlands. They are not qualified or certified to do so, • Fran Fink is completely unreasonable and extremely difficult to work with! • I was just TOLD that my requests would not be approved before my application was even submitted • They were very professional and responsive to rry questions/concerns. • Over protective... only added on to my deck and had to "give back" to feet of my property had to add "native plants" that were promptly eaten by "native" deer. Costly and confusing and not user friendly. • The Conservation Committee showed up at n-y house, en masse, unannounced, one evening to view some downed trees on my property, and then gave me 48 hrs notice of their intention to discuss the process of disposing of said trees upon my property. I did not appreciate this surpise visit or the lack of timing for the discussion. Poor at best. Vernal pool designation on rry property done by Town Employee while performing job as educator (I was not aware that the Town paid this individual for performing this function), not conservation job. Designation done without prior homeowners approval or proper understanding of area, resulting in unecessary and unfair restrictions on use of said property. Common sense should override blindly following rigid regulations. We looked to install an above ground pool, and it required Conservation Committee approval and letters mailed to abutters within 300 feet of rry property line requiring 50 plus letters, sent to people as much as two streets away and residing in a condo/apartment building. Needless to say we are at a stopping point with tis as well as a possible addition to our home. When I tell people about this they can not believe that it is not a simple process as it would seem to be easy to istall an above ground pool on your property, especially when you have a significantly larger than average lot size. The whole process is ridiculous and far too restrictive. I applied for an Application of Determination. The meeting was somewhat collaborative in that there was a forum for us to speak and suggest resolutions. • It was too rigid, not allowing for any discussion or individual case by case consideration. • Thet are too restrictive on minor home modifications. A new residential roof should not require a wetlands permit. • Issues not really effecting Wetlands need to be reviewed with common sense. • Volunteer members are overworked and this can delay approvals. Also they seem to have little power when dealing with town projects that impact abutters (e.g. Barrows addition increasing neighborhood flooding) • Too time consuming, needless and constant delays. • As an abutter I would like to cut down a few trees & clear some brush. After paying a $50.00 fee, I was told I could do neither. • After con corn visited my house I had no say in the outcome. My project never had any impact in wetlands. all they wanted was me to spend thousands of dollars and postponed rry project. in the end was ordered to do what I had proposed in the beginning. • commission provides comments and feedback, not always directive. • Manner in which decisions are administered. Fear and intimidation should not be part of the equation. • The excessive conservativeness of the Commission's by-laws. I would like a more standardized approach, i.e. the use of State Codes. • did not have to go in front of them ...no place to put n/a • Admin/Conserv. Commis. acted in a clear,fair timely manner 14. Was your experience with the Reading Conservation Agent fair and collaborative? Answered: 139 Skipped: 122 Yes (46) No (53) Somewhat (40) 15. Why or why not? What would you like to see changed? CJ Answered: 91 Skipped: 170 5b► b 29 5 of 18 9/21/20117:30 Ab SurveyMagil :Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtowDhall.net/resiflts/sid/ lb21 b0d1 c20b... • The opportunity to voice your need. • Not very understanding of the homeowner. In this position, there has to be a fair assessment. YOu cannot just think about the wetlands. YOu have to understand that people need to improve their lives and their families lives and that the owenership of their land means something. But again, in the end I was treated fairly. I just would have preferred that treatment from the start. • See above comments • Again, Ms. Fink, while clearly hard working, was the most difficult individual I've ever had the misfortune to have to interact with. She has left quite a stain on the Town's reputation. . • Greatly reduce the power of the CC Com, and institute an appellate process to mitigate the excessive requirements. • Less paper work • Less intrusive bylaws that allowed people to improve their porperty, and thus improve the value of their property. • Conservation agent was arbitrary in her interpretation, and kept making up new restrictions, rules, and measures (at the cost of the Town for three public projects). Did not confine her levying of requirements on conservation-affected parts of the property - delved into traffic engineering, landscape design, and similar areas that are the responsibility of others. Could not provide a definitive checklist (do these six things and I will sign oft). Rampant, arbitrary 'opinion' that she thought had the force of law. • As i stated she was 2 faced. Said oh no problems here then threw us to the wolves before the cpdc so of course we were unprepared and lost. • same • The head of the department (I assume that is who you are referring to) was very black and white, there was/is no middle area and it seems largely unfair to smaller home owners who want to do something (addition) to their current home in taste and within reason, when there are so many enormous homes in Reading that clearly have bent the rules, etc. Like to see changed is a more collaborative Agent and Commission. We appreciate the hard work this board does, and that the goal is to protect the environment, but there should be some wiggle-room for the average homeowner. • She was too much of a naa and not felexible at all • N/A • I think that the agent should be much less combative and aggressive. There was no followup • They were very helpful and understanding. • When I called the office for an explanation of the situation, since I received an abutters letter, they were veryhelpful • Homeowners should have the right to their property to improve their life. • Face to face meetings start out extremely open and favorable. However, by the time the narrative is distributed at the public hearing, items appear that have never been discussed nor seem appropriate. The financial costs seem exorbitant in many circumstances. • Fran is excellent and skilled. Why on earth the town felt it appropriate to cut back on the hours for the position and subsequently to post the position at half time is beyond me - it is a full time job clearly, and Fran was doing it very well. • A little mor ehelp with applicant • explanations were straight forward loosen up a little for homeoweners. Big business can take over a wetland area but homeowners dont have a chance - town revenue is important from big business but lets be equal • Again, very slow but we understand it's needs, but again it discourages homeowners. • Allow simple changes.ie footpath across swamp. • see above- She is a nasty person! • Some of the laws are rediculous.... • Response to public cease me works • See comment to #4. 1 hope the Town hires someone who does not have a personal agenda and has a fair and balanced approach to their job instead of the irrational bully Fran Fink. • If you disagree with the Administrator or question her in any way, you are going to pay. She inflames nearly every situation if she doesn't get her way and some of the Commission members back her up and encourage her to be the bully. You want to take down one tree next to your foundation and she wants you to plant 10 replacements. We need someone who can protect residents with the same passion they protect the wetlands with. She is not fair or reasonable unless you see it her way. • There was absolutely no flexibility or partnership. • FRan Fink was difficult to deal with. She often mischaracterized statements, snet letters whhc were inconsistent wiht the Board's findings, reflected her personal view point and had no respect for the cost and delay. It was clear that she was not paying for engineers and lawyers. Her goal seesm to be to thwart any development whether it is good for the town or not. • See # 3 • No discussion possible. Not open to new technologies and materials that can solve problems. Incensitive to financial consequences for residents of outdated bylaws. Need q modern and realistic view of the issues. • see above, it just didn't feel right having to sign off on the contingencies. • In my case, a change was made to rry lot AFTER I purchased it...made it almost impossible to sell. As a result of no change, in my opinion, a building was built that really adds nothing to the landscape of Reading, when in fact a better building could have been built, adding to the character of the town. • Less strict • Staff (now retired) was too strident and unflexible, even to the point of disagreeing and arguing with the Conservation Commission. No understanding of the cost of requests on the property owner. • Change nothing. Agent issued a minor project permit with little fuss and bother, for installation of a shed. The process has simple and fair, and she communicated it well. • The commision was somewhat fair but the adminstrator has a huge influence on their decision. 6:66 • see above 30 6of18 9/21/20117:30 Ali Sin veyMagik:Results http://readingma-survey.vhtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ 1b21bOdl c20b... • I was belittled for cutting down a willow tree prior to the conservation commission viewing the property for the permit. The tree was completely hollow and infested with carpenter ants. After the work was completed, the cons. comm. called me in mid Feb. to see if I replanted grass in my backyard it was under a foot of snow. • less paperwork • I felt that the agent we dealth with felt she had complete control over every square inch of our property, though we are the owners. Especially having to attend a hearing for small projects, large projects I can see. • There is a belief on many Applicants minds that the wetland bylaw is being used to control land development within the Town. The bylaw is too inflexible or not scientific in places; has fees that are inappropriate;and provides such latitude in its implementation by the RCC t---hat ifis use in some cases to c ange,s op or unnecessarily constran projects.-As the onl recourse to an Applicant is either acquiscence to the Commission's demands or appeal to Superior Court, the process can be abused. The bylaw implementation has had a much greater negative impact on land use in Reading than in most of the balance of the 175 to 200 towns we have done business in. • too much quoting regulations • unrealistic requirement imposed. The process needs a reality check • see above • Terrible, just terrible. Unfair, bully, no common sense at all, disrespectful, intimidating, liar. Always looking for problems rather than solutions. We need someone who helps people not tries to hurt them to advance their personal agenda of environmental protection. • Very stringent and time consuming - application of regs was overkill for proposed DPW project • The conservation agent's job is to protect the functions and values of the wetlands. From that perspective, the agent was fair. • For my neighbor • Information/Concerns of the Agent were not always given to the applicant early enough to respond timely. Agent comments were not restricted to wetlands bylaw. • I was simply replacing a prefab shed with another prfab shed. I dont know why I needed a %50 minor permit. That said the conservation office was courteous and prompt in addressing rry inquiry. • Tha commission was somewhat fair; but the administrator has a huge influence on their decision. • Through no fault of the agent, the dialog between applicants and the commission tends to be somewhat contentious by nature. It's the regulations, themselves that tend to be too restrictive in nature, almost unreasonably so. • this whole prosess is driven by personal agenda.The main purpose is to take control of someone else property • I assume helped to streamline the permit. We also didnt ask to really encroach on the by laws. • Sometimes common sense should prevail • Frances Fink (retired) was nice to work with. Very professional. • Question is unclear. He was pleasant but since I had few options, there was no reason to be difficult. • Fran may have been tough but she is fair to work with. There are times some of the small nits could be eliminated... they just hinder the process and do not result in huge impacts to wetlands. • use more common sense • I found the Conservatin Agent overly conservative in her interpretation of "likely to alter an area subject to protection". She required permits for pruning and planting (retroactively) of trees when clearly no wetland alterations within the buffer zone could ever be caused to these activities. • I should not have to follow a different set of rules than my neighbors. • Not only was the Reading conservation committee unfair they were overstepping their bounds left and right. My worst experience was as a 20 year old applicant trying to build a small home on a half acre of land. All I have ever wanted was my own house and I always said l would do it before I was 21 and. saved all rry teenage years for a chance. I thought I found it in reading with a lovely piece of property. The land was surrounded by homes on all sides and to the right was the high school. I was the only lot left in the entire neighborhood not built upon. Little did I know I didna®®t have a shot in hell. I felt the conservation committee had made their decision even before I came to my first meeting. Not only did they move the flags on rrry lot they routinely put me through the ringer about zoning and other issues that had nothing to do with wetlands. They were trying to shut me down with whatever they could do even if it meant by illegal means and using their status to bring up issues that were meant for the zoning board and the building inspector. The flags on the property were put thereby a environmentalist who I paid for and went to college for this knowledge. The flags were moved by some town locals on a committee without testing or evidence to move the flags. Fran Fink who I am pretty sure does not have a college education or the man on the committee who I later found out was a truck driver moved rrry flags. How is that fair or just? A truck driver has the right to move my flags that I paid a professional thousands of dollars to mark out? Then they brought up the right of way on the property which is a zoning issue with no bearing on the wetlands issue. I being a college kid with her head on straight I went to the Cambridge registry of deeds and dug up the right of way document from 100 years ago and brought it back for what was probably my 5th meeting with the conservation. Not only abusing their power but killing a kidsOOs dream and taking rry entire life savings to pay for lawyers and environmentalists. Not to. mention the astronomical fee which was thousands of dollars just to attempt to file for a permission to build. If you went out to the property you would see it was not a long shot it was a logical place to build a home in a nice already established neighborhood. I have all the paper work to back this up from almost 10 years ago and will provide it for proof. These people set me back 5 years in rrry life financially and I was not only unethical but a prime example of people on a power trip not helping the community. I think this commifte is the biggest example why the towns property values are so low and have been even before the recession. Wakefield, Lynnfield, and North Reading all hold their value better than Reading. People I talk to do not want to live in reading because it is a hassle to even plant bushes in your own yard yet they tax you through the nose. The bylaws were created so nobody gets a permit or at least has to spend so much money it is not worth the hassle. These committee people act like police with the right to walk onto private property and demand things as if they are above the law. My friend had to take down his little tree house in his back yard because Fran Fink 31 J 1 7 of 18 9/21/20117:30 AR SurveyMagik::Results http: //readingma-survey.virtualtownball.net/results/sid/ lb2l bOdl c20b... said it was unhealthy for the tree. Who scouts out a child50-0s tree house walks onto the property, and sends out notices to take them down? The wetlands committee. is a cancer in the town of reading and until it has all members have been terminated and replaced with new members who are there to serve the town and not their own agendas will this problem be rectified. • any abutter or owner of a proposed wetland/vernal pool should be notified before conservation makes a ruling about its use, and be able to refute the town's position before the land is certified. 0 on site inspections timely and on time with appointments made • Inflexible. • Trees need trimming etc, cost to excessive - to many rules • Not aware of where it has failed • Lied, misleading, overstepped her authority and badgered the state DEP when their decision was appealed • Too close minded and rigid • Same reasons. when asking about paving, tree removal or any building project I was told by the agent that none of the improvements to my property would be considered. mostly due to the inappropriate actions of the previous owner • They were very professional and responsive to rry questions/concerns. • Over manage land that doesn't belong to them and you get the feeling you have to "beg" to add on to your property or even just improve it. • The Conservation agent was a very nice lady who explained the process in detail. She was undertstanding of our frustration with the process and suggested we go through the process and offer some mitigation to help it get through. We have decided to hold off on any improvements to our proerty at this time and re-assess our situation and look at other alternative options for potentially minimizing these issues. • The agent came to our houe and wrote a letter regarding the "resolution" The letter was arbitrary in the determination of resolution to our situation • I would like to see some discussion & consideratin instead of just insisting on a meeting before the board & putting a hold on all construction • Too one sided. Her way or the highway. Not friendly. • see item 3 • Rules too stringent. Its a problem when I cannot cut down trees or trim trees to grow grass. • onsite inpecting timely and on time with appointment made. . • In-the end I was made to get new plot plans,file forms with the state hired private reprisentive and when the meeting came was passed with minimal discussion. all could have been handled without what felt like criminal court. • Agent seemed to be trying to be very careful in what she said rather than being really clear. Make it clearer what protections are needed. • same as question 3 • There is no real discussion. The by-law superceeds all decisions and does not allow for practical & reasonable allowances. • Francis Fink(retired) was nice to work with. Very professional. • Communications were NOT held in confidence making it unlikely that we would ever report any suspected violations of wet land regulations • 'it seemed a bit arbitrary although we had a positive outcome. happened timely. • IT WENT WELL THE ONLY REAL ISSUE WAS THAT IT TOOK A LONG TIME. • see above #3 16. How did the Reading Wetland application process compare to other Town permits (e.g. Building permit, etc..)? Answered: 101 Skipped: 160 Similar (22) More cumbersome (76)--~ Simpler (3) f ~.`yt ~y u 17. Do you have any comments on the application process? Answered: 69 Skipped: 192 • VERY confusing and not a great deal of guidance. • Simplify and decrease the length of time and extensions due to inability of members to meet, tour, read papers. • It is a very lengthy process, with numerous continuances, visits, meetings and unpleasant interactions. All of which created significant anxiety for me and rry family. • Needs to be simplified • Fran is great • Sticking with the State's conservation regs would make the process simpler, less subject to interpretation, and better understood by contractors (who deal with all communities in the area). • I think that once a site review is made the reviewer should let the applicant know then and there what their opinion is and not waiver from it,The fact that comcom has to review before bldg can issue a pernit is also inhibiting. This becomes quite timely 32 8 of 18 9/21/2011 730 AN Survey Magik Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/1b21b0d1c20b... and costly. We must keep in mind that bldg permits take 2 weeks which is yet a nother issue. Everyone does not know that and many times are left with a job ready to be odne and a two week gap thus loosing the contractor,. • Make it less restrictive • N/A • The process dragged on for over 2 years and this was even with constant contact and proof forwarded in person to board. • I have not applied personally, but have spoken to a family member who works for the Conservation Dept of another town. I was told that Reading was not as strict. • Maker simpler. • In other towns I have helped owners through the permitting process, the application, ,>he site visits, the e p u ness of-the agent, etc., was far less cumbersome and much more informative. We ourselves did not file the application; we were abutters. At every hearing we have attended, the committee and its staff person have made extra efforts to explain the process. • To slow • Don't know, never apply for other permits myself • I have no experience with other towns • Too difficult! • Half of the application does not apply • expensive... • no • our issue in building a front porch was whether it was the required 35 feet from weland. it was about 50-60 feet. we had to hire a surveyor and our total cost was over $2,000.00 for the permitting process. • Even when you are organized and ready and paid professional botanists, engineers and arborists to assist and provide counsel it takes weeks and weeks if not months with unneccessary continuances and the Administrator undoing all the effort by the paid experts. • Its so painful, and expensive to try to do anything in Reading. It's like the town looks at permit fees as a fundraising tool • The commission in Reading does tend to visit all sites in question as a matter of policy - but this should be made a requirement especially when the applicant is required to provide a very expensive wetlands survey. • too long, too restrictive • If some of the old laws were to be reconsidered, perhaps fewer applications would need to be filed in the first place. • Do not know • Any process for local permitting that has such long and extensive orders of conditions or approvals is broken. • The process was so lengthly and painful that I almost left this town because of it. • It should not be so difficult to get a permit for home improvement. The cons. comm. acted like I was at their mercy-and I was! • Fran is great • Less paperwork & fees. • I have insufficient experience with other town permits. • Simplify process reduce paper work an related expenses • Eliminate all the local fees that the commission tacks on to almost every project. • No esxperience with others re question 6. • Our issue in building a front porch was whether it was the required 35 ft. from the wetland. It was about 50-60 ft. We had to hire a surveyor & our total cost was over $2,000 for the permitting process. • Generally more effort required • It could be streamlined with better guidance • Don't know Fee calculation can be complicated. • Building permit process also courteous and prompt • Tha process was so lengthly and painful that I almost left this town bwecause of it • Our issue in building a front porch was where it was the required 35 feet from the wetland. it was about 50-60 feet. we had to hire a surveyor and our total cost was over $2,000 for the permitting process. • My builder did the applying on rry behalf so I have no personal experience on this particular part of it... • Reading is my experiance • Much too compicated • It is fairly straigh forward. • duplication of building permit process - why not one process form? • Any application process in this town has appeared to me, in my observations, cumbersome and frustrating to many parties . requesting a timely decision. • Need to make it more simple. Some written guidelines may be helpful. The burden of leaving cash deposits to guarantee projects is costly. Also the recording of huge documents is a real pain. Could eliminate one of the surveys as well. Just adds cost to people who are struggling to get by. • no • No • Permitting for a swimming pool in 1995 required a hearing. • Every department is helpful and fair except for the conservation department. I have spoken to the building department and the town clerk and both were friendly and helpful. Fran Fink was always unhelpful and rude. She never answered my questions just pushed them off and told me to fill this or that or I needed to pay this amount. She never ever acted interested in helping the residents of this community. She treated me like the enemy. It took years and more money than should ever be necessary to 33 9of18 2'° ,-56 9/21/20117:30 Al SurveyMagilL : Results http://readingrna-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ l b21 b0d1 c20b... only be denied by the committee. The whole process is just one big expensive set up designed for you to be denied. • yes • No • The conservation commission should be helpful in the process not just negative especially to homeowners who do not have the funds to hire engineers and lawyers for a long battle with the Town of Reading. The commission is there to help the people of Reading not hurt. • Deal more fairly and accomodate homeowners with homes that abut wetlands. The homes were permitted and built and we need the flexibility to maintain our homes and eradicate safety hazards (IE, large dead trees) more simply and fairly. • Overly burdensome • Far too cumbersome. Neighbors went through an exhaustive process to replace and improve an existing raised deck with a slight increase in square footage. Took over a month just to get through conservation because'they were within the wetlands area. Common sense and site visit should have had this resolved within a week, tops. • Vague in terms of what documents or drawings are needed. At first seemed like we needed a lot of drawings but then we found out we could get them off the town website. • N/A If the town of reading has money to spend on power hungry officials they should be able and willing to help with the process not hinder or let all applications go directly to the state and disban the local committee. • No. • duplication of building permit process- why not one process form? • NO • Fair and accessible 18. Was the Reading Wetland application process explained adequately? Yes No Not applicable a. In the regulations? 51%35%14% b. By the Conservation Administrator? 59%30%12% c. By the Conservation Commission? 41%33%26% d. By others? 28%26%47% 19. Based on your experience, what specific suggestions do you have for changes to the local wetlands laws or processes? Answered: 82 Skipped: 179 • Why not simply use the states guidelines? THey are very fair and protect the wetlands. Most towns default to them. • The local bylaws are unnecessary given our State laws. If a local bylaw needs to exist it should be carefully redesigned to be balanced and appropriate to aid homeowners/businesses while protecting the environment as appropriate rather than used as a revenue source and a tool to use private property for flood control. • Again, simplify the process and place minimal value on trees. In addition, reduce the surface wetlands so as to reduce potential health risks. • If it is the person's property, let them do what they want, as long as it is reasonable and within simple, clear town laws. • Abolish the local bylaw and revert to the state conservation regs, as most Towns in Mass do. There is no reason for the added layer of burdensome regulation. The state regs protect other towns just fine. • There is no need to have environmental flagging done as much as has been required. I know someone who had to have their property flagged ( even though there was no conservation on their property) just to spread grass seed. • Minimize the process, don't slow things down, look what we missed out on at Addison Wessley • Same as #3 = Two recommendations are namely: a more common sense approach and adjustments allowed depending upon amount of land that is part of the conservation land (for instance) Allow for new materials to be used that are recommended to be pervious. (Answer #3 Common sense along with the bylaws and its interpretation. If only a small % of one's property falls on the (for example) aquaphor protection district, there should be some adjustment for that in terms of pervious vs. impervious cover. Additionally, Reading needs to be more up-to-date and amendable to current advances in products and materials that ARE considered to be pervious and enable homeowner's to use such materials and not count against their impervious allowance.) • Get rid of it. State of•Mas has one of the most restrictive rules and regulations in the country. • N/A • To treat each situation differently depending on needs and certain intentions of home owners. Home owners should have some leeway on compliance. ' • none • I do not have much experience - only conversations. I appreciate the wetland laws greatly and am glad we have them here in Reading. • The Conservation Agent needs to be more available and willing to guide the applicants through the process. MORE hours that the agent is available to meet with applicants along with knowledgeable support staff is critical, not LESS!!!! In many surrounding towns (i.e. Burlington, Wilmington, etc.) the agent will come to the homeowners property and establish the wetlands line. In Reading, the owner has to hire a botanist, have it surveyed and pay several thousands of dollars for this service only to be told by the agent and the commission at the public hearing that they (the commission and agent) have decided not to agree 10 of 18 34 Sb -,7~ 9/21/20117:30 A SurveyMagik:: Results http-.Hreadingma-survey.virtualtownball.net/results/sid/ 1b2lbOdl c20b... with the botanist and establish the line in a more restrictive location. • Please add a step notifying abutters of continuations of hearings if possible. • A lot of money to ake out on my land • mustallow for "normal" activity of homeowners that would have little impact on wetlands- tree removal, shed installation, fencing..anything major, pools etc would be a seperate issue • more leniency for homeowners to use their wetlands that they pay taxes on while still preserving wildlife habitat and flood control. • Don't selle land if you want connuin rights of management • Fran Fink was the Conservation agent we ea with. she was very good & thorough-I~as-sorryto hem she-left-Reading. • Reduce requirements • Get rid of the local laws • We need more wetlands • Be reasonable... • Easement cave in not fixed • Use the State guidelines as much as possible: Stop making up fees (I can assure you this is absolutely done) that people can't afford and provide the group with some customer service training. • why does Reading need all the additional rules on top of what the state already has. They are just used to beat up people trying to improve their property especially by the administrator and a few members of the commission. Other members are more reasonable. • I feel the State By-laws are more than sufficent and having town by-laws in addition is needless. • THey should be in line with the States. The veneral pools should be reevaluated. • Remove aquifer district building restrictions in excess of normal state wetlands guidelines. • A new board should be established to create guidelines that are more realistic. Not saying to eliminate EVERYTHING, but rather come up with ideas that work for the home owner AND the town. • I think homeowners should be able to make improvements to their properties more easily with less restrictions • Get rid of the thirtyfive foot setback • Keep our wetlands. Do not remove to make way for larger yards, decks, sports courts, play equipment. Keep strict restrictions to protect our existing wetlands • Make it all simpler. Delegate more to teh staff, and hire reasonable staff. Have the Commission give staff direction in terms of customer service and flexibility. See what other communities do to make this process simpler. • We have not tried to anything major - we like the wetlands and want to protect them • Have less restrictions and work better with the home owners and the community. Rather than creating obsticles for them. • I feel the process has to be less or more of a process based on the scale of the project. (ex. adding an addition vs. taking down a tree) • There-appears to be no need for a local bylaw to provide adequate protection of wetlands within the Town of Reading. The local bylaw appears to be an instrument for local control of development and is administered to some degree without a balance approach to reasonable land use and wetland protection. • Simplify process reduce paper work an related expenses • It would be helpful if there were one person to guide the process to let you know the process and what to expect. • The regs are too burdensome on the property owners there is no balance. • Eliminate the local laws. They are just used to baffle, confuse and intimidate people. The state should be all we need to protect Reading. • Single fam!ly homes should have an easier time with work within the 200 ft boundry. • For our situation the paperwork was over whe!ming, • Need to consider impacts of each application and apply regs/process appropriately; avoid excess with no merit • Streamlining them and providing more background on the functions and values of wetlands might assist in coming to better designs and protections. • Jurisdiction of activities outside the buffer zone is subjective and could include most any project. • Needs to be less bureaucratic for small projects (cutting dead trees,limbs, shed replacements, fences) Projects that do not truly impact wetlands • HAve less restrictions and work better with the home owners & the common Rather than creating obsticles for them • For our situation the paperwork was overwhelming. • The spirit of wetlands regulations is to preserve natural areas for the benefit of nature and wildlife and the character of a town by limiting overdevelopment. In the case of Reading, I firmly believe that this has been taken too far in that the smallest little patches of land are declared wetlands even if there is a history of them *not* being wetlands and even if the area itself is too small and devoid of natural and wild life to be significant one way or another. This has served the sole purpose of irritating homeowners who find themselves having to preserve a tiny, isolated corner of their lot, or builders who cannot build and thus deprive the town of potential property tax income. I am not referring to situations in which homeowners are abutting wooded areas or true always-wet wetlands. Rather I'm referring to the situations where something is declared a wetland because the proverbial toad or blade of wetland grass is identified there even though there are no trees and the area tends to be bone-dry 99% of the time. This is simply taking the regulations beyond their spirit and truly making an embarrassment out of our town when people joke about our overly "militant" conservation commission. Common sense needs to begin to prevail here. If there is a true wetland / forested area, by all means let's preserve it. If there is a small patch of grass in an otherwise barren lot, let's allow the homeowners to do with their lots as they please! • Only people that own socalled wetland should be on the commission • Don't remember. Have exceptions for situations that don't fall under the main focus. 35 11 of 18 9/21/20117:30 Al SurveyMagilc:Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/lb2lbOdlc2Ob... • I understand the need to protect wetlands but when you own that property you cannot retreat into your own yard ( major mosquito and deer fly problems I also don't understand the issue with tree trimmings and clippings. It's all natural and decomposes into the earth. • generally agree that wetlands need to be protected and managed • The rules are somewhat arbitrary. I don't see that the concepts are applied equally to contractors and the average homeowner. • Again, the experience I had was years ago on the Higgins property at Birch Meadow. I have not read the wetlands laws or processes since. ® ELIMINATE the damn Aquifer Protection Zone. Very subjective, penalizes many. Cannot tell why, one side of a 'street is in the zone and the other side is not. Adds bureaucracy to town. People really are upset about this regulation. Adds huge costs to people who exceed the 15%. • Have admiistrators less dogmatic & with more common sense. • 1) Make instructions to the public consistant: FAQs, bylaws and permits. Ordinary homeowners need to be reached so they know clearly what is expected of them. 2) Do not require permits for ordinary lawn and garden maintenance. Reword bylaws to reflect this. Niether the Commission nor the Agent will have the time for low priority items that have negligible environmental impact. 3) Introduce reasonable time limits (statute of limitation) so that complaints cannot be brought against abutters long after a so-called infraction has occurred. 4) Ensure that the Commission and the Agent are in synch. Are there written policies that exist outside of bylaws that can help in this area? 5) Notify each Reading homeowner whose property lies within a buffer zone with a letter detailing exactly what household activities come under Conservation juristication. Make sure this is consistant with the workload Conservation can accept in coming years! • Implement a statute of limitations to complaints. A complaint registered 1 year and 9 months later Some guidelines for statue of limitations; a complaint registered 1 year and 8 months later seems quite ridiculous. All townspeople following the same rules. Consistency of by-laws, FAQ's, and permits. • Get rid of the bylaws replace all members of the committee. Make it less stressful) and inexpensive. • Simplify the process and allow for flexibility and customization. • Change permitting expense, wait time to do projects. • None • To appeal the decision of the Conservation Commission, you should not have to file with the Superior Court in addition to the State DEP. Very unfair and costly. • Deal more fairly and accomodate homeowners with homes that abut wetlands. The homes were permitted and built and we need the flexibility to maintain our homes and eradicate safety hazards (IE, large dead trees) more simply and fairly. • we should have the right to improvements of private property that has little to no impact on surrounding wetlands. the 35 ft no build and the 25ft zone for maintenance along with the tree removal issue causes property value and personal safety issues.. • Explain the process in a step by step fashion and explain all fees. 5 years after rrry project I was hit with a 150 "fee" from the state for. "compliance" that was I was never told was due...and had to go to Boston then Cambridge to comply... • Use common sense. Needed to call her not good written description. More consistent guidelines for restitution. Have. town laws consistent with state laws and not more restrictive/protective • Listen to what the homeowner has to say & hold a discussion • Dump the local regs and use the state regs. • see item 3 • As a native of Reading I have witnesed the flood control that was engineered to make the town what it is today fall into disrepair with no respect to personnel property or health. You need to walk the walk. • clarify the needs. guidance on options • I live in an acquifer zone(whatever that is) and seeing as how we are now on mwra i think there should be a lot less restrictions on additions or upgrades to my property. also why do we need restrictions on water usage in the town? we now get our water from the quabbin resevoir,so why the restrictions. • Reading Conservation By-Laws should be revisited & rewritten. There should be a fairer approach to property owners. • Gemera;;u agree that wetlands need to be protected and managed. . • ALOT IS TO LATE NOW. THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. NEED TO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NOW OWN HOUSES IN PREVIOUS WETLANDS • No suggestions For the next set of questions, please respond ONLY if you have experience with BOTH Reading wetlands permitting and other communities' wetland permitting: 20. How do the Reading wetlands regulations help to manage flooding when compared to other communities? Answered: 38 Skipped: 223 Better (6) 45,E Worse (15) Differently (17) 36 12 of 18 9/21/20117:30 AT SurveyMagik::Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtowDhall.net/results/sid/lb2lbOdlc2Ob... 21. Why is it better or worse? If you selected Differently - please explain: Answered: 26 Skipped: 235 • It takes private property and uses it for flood management so we can pay less in storm water fees to MWRA. At least be honest about that and give homeowners and business who are essentially losing square footage of their property that they pay taxes on some type of tax credit for the public service they are providing against their will. • Fraught with forms and related costs. Too much control is given to the CC Com. T-he-people weild-to-much-pawer_for_no-benefit,Jorce_y-ou o-b y_plants.trees etc. • The administrator and The Town were not realy felexible. • N/A • Far more restrictive for the homeowner. There are specific rules that need to be followed by the state yet Reading pushes it to the point of being unreasonable and expensive. Curiously, on town property, these very same restrictions are ignored. • IDK, I figure its actually the same... • Selective, does not account for street drainage. • The only flooding I know of is in basements.. Palmer Hill has a spring at the top of thehill. It used to be used to supply the steam engines ...fill swimming pools or water the grass ...now it just sits there. • We rely too much on using private property for flood control instead of taking care of our drainage systems. 1 assume it has something to do with MWRA expenses. • these questions dont make any sense. • Because Reading already has preserved so many wetlands parcels and is pretty much developed - flooding is less of an issue than other cities like Peabody. • They had different set of protocols that I cant fit all of them in this space • excessive requirements are not beneficial to managing flooding. • If I am not mistaken, Wetlands and flood plain are not the same thing. Flood plain manages flooding. Wetlands should not be used interchangeable with the flood plain or drainage - especially in residential neightborhoods. Reading uses wetlands as an excuse not to maintain drainage and sewers, putting the burden on private property owners that should be the responsibility of the Town. • About the same • Neither better or worse. Very similar to other communities with by-laws. • They had different set of protocols that I can't fit all of them in thisa space • lack of professional knowledge • I see in town tributaries to the Aberjona being blocked by branches,objects, etc. making the flow of wetlands restricted. This concerns me. 1 think a plan should be put in place to walk them and make sure they are flowing freely every year. I have seen towns who have clean up days for the wetland areas. • The alleged drainage maps and areas have not been maintained. When a flooding issue was presented to the commission and the town, my concerns were dismissed without any further investigation or discussion and the problems continue to build and worsen. s I am not sure the permitting actually improves flood plain management I have waterfront property on a lake in Maine and it is far easier to both get permitting and perform work in the watershed up there than here by a long shot. They perform a site visit (prearragned) and determine whether or not any additional processes are required. They have regulations but also realize that they are guidelines and do not fit every situation to a "t" and that there needs to be creative and outside the box thinking (yankee ingenuity) and less unecessary paperwork. They follow through with follow up site visits and work with property owners on solutions to issues, whether they be septic, building, forestry, erosion control or wildlife protection related. • see item 3 • some communities are really good at it and really work to get designs that are both protective and look good. • DID OTHER TOWNS AND CITIES GRANT BUILDING PERMITS IN ALMOST ALL THEIR WETLANDS? 22. How do the Reading wetlands regulations help to manage storm water when compared to other communities? Answered: 34 Skipped: 227 Better (5) Worse (15) Differently (14) 44 ; - A I -t. 1 S'« 23. Why is it better or worse? If you selected Differently - please explain: Answered: 21 Skipped: 240 • see above • Why don't they come to rry house and clean it up to avoid standing water and bring mosquitos to my yard • N/A 37 13 of I R 9/21/20117:30 AI' SurveyMagik:: Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ 11621bOdl c20b... • Particularly in the Aquifer Protection District outrageously restrictive. Very few properties in this district are large enough to be able to have a driveway along with their house and still meet the restrictions. • the storm water just makes South Street River instead of actually draining anywhere • Salt, road trash - not enough culvert cleaning. • All I know is we have a fee for that too. We used to have Public Works that did so much for the tax bill that we pay... Now they are mainly patchers. •.see above reading_hasnt_maintainesi sforrri ditches for vears. • duplicate. • Half of the town had well water and private sewer. So, I cant real • If the storm put the water in rry basement, why can't the storm water go into the drain? • not beneficial to managing storm water . • Same as above. Using private property to manage town responsibilities regarding storm water without paying property owners for the "service" their land is providing everyone else is wrong- • About the same - MA SW Regs generally dictate • simialr to state stormwater guidelines but includes 4 or less homes. • HAIf of the town had well water & private sewer. so I can't realy compare them. • We still get flooded • I am not sure the permitting actually improves storm water management • Communities that have stricter bylaws seem to get better functionality of the best management practices • OUR HOUSE FLOODS EVERY SPRING AND ONLY RECENTLY WAS CLAAIFIED WETLANDS GO FIGURE. 24. How do the Reading wetlands regulations help to manage wildlife habitat when compared to other communities?. Answered: 40 Skipped: 221 Better (10) Worse (19) Differently (11) K% 25% 25. Why is it better or worse? If you selected Differently - please explain: 0 Answered: 23 Skipped: 238 • Why do we value wild life habitat versus quality of life to Reading residents. • The wildlife has more rights than the homeowner. There is a home in town who's entire back of the home was rotted and molded from the trees right against it. Because it was conservation they were not allowed to take any down thus resulting in major cost of ripping out the entire back of home.After appearing before cpdc and showing pictures of damage and costs trees were allowed to come down. Fran Fink insisted they replant them. Ridiculous. The problem should not be on the homeowner but on the original builder. The town has to have some compassion for folks attempting to do the right thing. Fran insisted they be replaced even after she gave permission to take them down. • Ridiculous, again this is Reading yet it is treated as if it is Yosimete National Park or other real habitat sites. • By being very restrictive • N/A • I do know of another town that is stricter with their laws than Reading. Unfortunately, had that been the case, a clearing would not have happened and we would still have the habitat that used to live in our neighborhood. We no longer have salamanders, peepers and several species of birds... we do however now have crows. • No better and no worse. • no idea - again, why isn't there "the same" choice?? • Too selective, not pro-resident • Do They manage anything??? We have some wonder naatural wetlands... that give natural habitat to many animals ...as long as they don't wonder up to the roads... • none of the above • the mosquitos like it., • I live in aquifer and there are bluebirds, coyotes, beavers,foxes, deer hawks and lot of wildlife. No need for extra protection in this area. • There are plenty of wetlands in Reading for wildlife to habitate. • Too many deer. No one is managing it. • too much focus and emphasis on wildlife habitat. Promotes the infestation of mosquetoes. • Do we really need more animals in residential neighborhoods. Managing the habitat in the town forest makes sense. but creating wildlife habitat in residential neigborhoods by force is asking for trouble • Sarre/unsure • Better definitions of habitat and more strictive than the state.. 38 14 of 1 R 9/21/20117:30 AI SurveyMagik::Results http: //readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.neVresults/sid/ 1b21b0d1 c20b... • It is on an extremeist level. Reading is not a wildlife preserve it is a town next to two major highways with thousands of residents who depend on the town to have their town's best interest at hand. • I am not sure the permitting actually improves wildlife habitat management • while the conservation lands seem to be well managed, the stormwater controls in Reading are not particularly protective of wildlife habitat. • ALL THE SWAMPS AND WETLANDS THAT I PLAYED IN WHEN I WAS A KID ARE HOUSING DEOLPMENTS NOW. 26.-Haw-doAhe-Reading-cetLands re ulations help to manage water quality when compared to other communities? Answered: 30 Skipped: 231 Better (9) Worse (10) Differently (11) 37% 3u?~27. Why is it better or worse? If you selected Differently - please explain: Answered: 21 Skipped: 240 • no impact on water quality • I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT WETLAND FILLING. e Compared to other surrounding towns ex: Stoneham, Reading water is terrible not for consuption. I have no idea why its just awful! • Don't have anything to compare with so not sure whether it is better or worse. • Too much road salt!!! • none of the above • dont we get our water from the MWRA • Not applicable. Why is this question here? • Much more restriction in place • Don't we get our water from MWRA? why do we have to spend so much effort on water quality when we don't use the river anymore? • excessive requirements are only marginally beneficial • We get our water from the State and MWRA. It would be interesting to hear how the state fails to protect water supplies and Reading does. • Same/unsure • very sim!lar to other communities • Much more restriction in place • I am not sure the permitting actually improves water quality management • There doesn't seem to be any focus on water quality per se. There's no bioretention designed, and some of the stream bank (e.g., at Jordans,S&S/Market basket) is not conducive to water quality protection. • Since our domestic water comes from the MWRA, don't see how it is relative. • ARTISIAN WELLS ARE INDEPENDENT OF WELAND CONTROLS • No experience with other towns. Thank you for responding to this questionnaire! 28. Please provide any additional comments or suggested changes in the bylaw, regulations or permitting process: Answered: 49 Skipped: 212. • I am happy to answer any questions. • It will save the Town and all applicants time and money to abolish the local regs and bylaw, and rely on the Commonwealth conservation regs (as most Towns do now). As we regionalize our conservation program, we will create a more consistent, better-understood permitting process because it will be the same as the one for surrounding committees. Then the . Conservation Commission can focus on more general, worthwhile conservation efforts instead of obsessing on one bylaw. Become a real conservation commission, not "the committee to enforce wetlands protection"! Become an enabler, not a gatekeeper.. • The town needs to realize they are dealing with regular citizens who just want to make their home nice and are not trying to hurt nature. I am in real estate and can honestly say that some bids won't come to this town as they state it is the worse town in the state to build in. I have clients who have moved out of town becauue of unfair decisions but concom.Many a home has gone unsold or at a very reduced price because after speaking with Fran than ran and ran fast to another home or even another town. As we Realtors sell and list all over the state we experience the concoms in many towns.lt is a known fact that 99% of all Realtors who have sold here and dealt with concom state it is the worse they have ever dealt with. It seems the board feels they are above all and on a power struggle. I believe the board should be changed every 2-3 ridding the town of die hard tree huggers who care not for the real world homeowner. tS~ 39 15 of I R 9/21/20117:30 A] SurveyMagik:: Results http://readingna-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/ lb2 IbOdl c20b • Minimize the processes, power and necessity of the commission. • Thank you for being so open to feedback. We hope to hear of additional information via the Advocate or Patch going forward. If there are open forums, we'd like to be involved. Thanks again. • FRANKLY, I THINK A LOT GOES ON WITHOUT ANY PERMITTING AT ALL. • People pay very high taxes in town over past 12 years. Taxes have doubled and no real gain to tax payers. I cant move soon enoughM • I wouldn't mind seeing the town be stricter with the wetlands and habitat. We need to protect what little we have left. (I really missth~_e_peepers ) • The state now allows certain paving materials to be excluded from being considered imperviouZeading s Aquifer protection regulations do not allow this consideration. • Please do not make the bylaws less restrictive. While wetlands regulations occasionally affect residential uses, this is more the result of small lot sizes in Reading than it is from overly stringent wetlands regulation. There are few if any examples of the existing bylaws impeding otherwise economically viable commercial development in town. This may reflect the fact that most of Reading's wetlands, except for Walkers' Brook are not close to business zones. Note that the Walkers Brook area is flourishing, commercially. Given the location of most wetlands in proximity to residential areas, it is also important to the character of the town and our property values to continue to protect these wetlands. • Aberjona. (Polinski tree)The man told me he could take 100,000 gallons a day. From a dry creek? (During a hot and dry period.) I believe he claims this is a state regulation. But as someone who has the Aberjona in their backyard I think this business is irresponsible to the environment. (And is this comment irrelevant to the survey?) • Based on experiences of many friends who have applied for permits to make positive changes to their homes, we feel that the regulations are far too stringent and at times, unnecessary. People are not able to improve their homes because they encounter many challenges when working with the conservation commission. We would like to be able to make fair and reasonable improvements to our properties. We don't think many residents want to disturb the environment, but we do need more flexibility and more opportunties to make those improvements. • Improve speed of the process & more understanding pre-existing conditions • Its a brutal experience that needs to change. I hope this exercise is taken seriously and real change results from it. • make it easier • I am a 10 year town meeting member and RE/MAX Broker. The aquifer is in my district. Residents are paying too much in rechareg sustems and penalities/permits to meet the current regs. Change has been needed for years! I have clients saying to me that they would love to be in the Wood End school ..."could I please find them a house without wetlands?" • Need to change outdated bylaws and have an open minde regarding new material and technologies. Also.Taxs should not be the same for residents that have a house that cannot be changed due to specific bylaws that do not apply to all other residents. • We live on a creek and have found that the land is treated like "Plymouth Rock" when it is just a wet area • When people purchased their properties they were aware abou the wetlands. It is unfair to the wildlife and environment to remove theses precious parcels of land - stricter policies! • A reasonable process for protection of wetlands and habitat is important. But it has got to be made simpler and less. expensive to applicants and the community than it is. • Make them less restrict and change the administrator (Fran) • The need to comply with both State and local conservation bylaws places an unnecessary burden on homeowners and businesses. Why do we need both sets of conservation laws? I am all for protecting wetlands and flood plains that abut our rivers and streams, but do we need both sets of laws to do this efficiently? Let's give serious consideration to rolling back or abolishing the Reading conservation bylaw and enforcing only the State conservation laws. They should provide adequate protection. • My main issue is what seems to me the overly restrive regulations regarding what you can do in proximity to a wetland. The proximity rules seem too tight - e.g. minor home improvements like renovating a deck requiring a permit if within 100 feet of wetlands. I fail to understand how a deck affects wetlands at all. To me, anything 30 feet beyond edge of a wetland that is not changing drainage into the wetland should be allowable. I also think that requiring notice to abutters within 1000 feet of wetland is silly - in this town can involve people streets away. • Its been a while since we had to deal with CC. Hopefully things have improved since then. • Conservation Administrator is out of control, not to mention the Commission does whatever they like - even when it costs the Town money without adding any real benefit. The Commission is impressed with their own power and has shown over the years that they cant manage thier urge to advance their environmental agenda at the expense of the entire Town, all in the name of "protecting" the town. It's time to get this group.refocused on helping the people who have to submit applications as much as they help want to help the environment. Its not that they dont mean well, they are just too focused on their own interests. I support the Town Managers effort to eliminate the local laws and he deserves credit for taking on this issue, though it would have been better if he had better managed the Administrator years ago. • make them less restrict and change the administrator (Fran) • My land contains a drainage ditch which has not been maintain for the towns benifit. As a result water backs up on my property. This has created the socalled wetland. • My biggest question about the wetlands behind rry house on 68 Haystack Road is what qualifies them as wetlands? When I asked the question the only answer I got was that is was characterized as wetlands based on an aerial photograph. Basically the "wetlands" area in my yard is a trench which even though it is 4-5" lower than the rest of the lot doesnt actually collect any water, at least that I've seen in the 10 months We've owned the house. I was happy to have my application approved to have a fence installed and to put a small seasonal pool in thebackyard. I dont think either of those improvements in any way encroaches on the wetlands. If the trench wasot categorized as wetlands we would have filled it in and made additional landscaping improvements. 40 ~C 16 of 18 9/21/20117:30 A SurveyMagilc:Results http://readingma-survey.virtualtownhall.net/results/sid/lb21bOd1 c20b... • why is separate fee required? Seems like yet another '`sneaky town tax". Building permit contact stated my backyard was NOT a wetland area. • I think there is always room for improvement in a process, but not compromise when addressing wetland areas. If they are dedicated and passed on as wetland conservation areas, they need to be protected as such. ALL PROCESSES IN THIS TOWN NEED TO BE LESS CUMBERSOME for the applicants. That doesn't mean a quick "yes" vote, but serious review and deliberation no matter which board they stand in front of. Even a no is better than waiting, and waiting and waiting. • I think the whole "likely to alter" theme needs reexamination and quantification. A 1 % chance of moving a pebble is obviously not the same as a 90% chance of dumping oil into a drainage area. Conservation needs a "big picture" of what it can do versus what needs to be one. a nee o regu ate the oil dumping, not the pebble moving.-Goad-lock!! • I don't like being victimized by my abutting neighbor on Old Farm Road. We were warned about him when he was in the process of moving back to Old Farm Road. I have stayed away frombim as much as possible. There was an incident when he threatened to kill rry cats several years ago. There was another incidence when he cut down hemlocks on property bordering both our yards. I called the police and they came and asked him to stop. I told the police I was afraid of him. Personally I don't think the mental instability of rry neighbor should have involved the CC at all. We had not done anything wrong. • You need to get rid of the conservation bylaws. They are blantant abuse of the law preventing healthy growth in the housing community. Replace all members of the committee and regulate them so they can not abuse the power they are given. Abuse of power and the residents of Reading should never be tolerated. The town has looked the other way as this committee became enviornmental mobsters. They are the sole reason I will never own property in Reading again. My entire family used to live in Reading and all have moved away due to issues with the conservation committee. I have met so many people who are unhappy with the way the committee has acted over the years that I am surprised it has taken this long for some feedback to be taken seriously and changes being made. I hope this helps the town make productive changes. • Every effort should be made to protect our wetlands, rivers, and wildlife habitats. I am opposed to allowing encroachment on any of these. • READING HAS NUMEROUS HOMES WITH SUMP PUMPS DUE TO THE HIGH WATER TABLE. IT SEEMS VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO CHANGE THE WETLANDS IN ANY WAY THAT MIGHT MAKE THE WATER PROBLEMS WORSE. I WISH THIS TOWN WOULD: 1) PUTA STOP ON BUILDING PERMITS; 2) PRESERVE & PURCHASE MORE GREEN SPACES; 3) REPLACE ANY DAMAGED TREE IT GUTS DOWN. • I found it too restrictive when a neighbor could not ad a simple fence or cut a tree that was diseased (response was it will fall naturally!) Impact - not at all important in the grand scheme of family and the wetlands involved. • I don't think that the town should have such restrictive practices towards the care, maintenance and improvements of one's private property. I am all for REASONABLE conservation practices, but what I have experienced here borders on ridiculous. • Not being able to have a compost pile or dispose leaves in woods is ridiculous. You are created a tattle on one neighbor to another neighbor situation. • I feel like Readings natural resources need every bit of help they can get to protect them from development and over building. Property owners and businesses are already aware of the wetlands bylaw (or should be) prior to purchasing their property. The bylaws and rules should be honored as they are currently written with few or no exceptions. The open space, natural resources and undeveloped land in the town have shrunk considerably since we moved here 8 years ago. • Common sense should dictate whether or not a full blown application should be necessary. There should be a short form/process available to those whose intentions are not threatening or creating any significant impacts or impediments to the wetlands area. Also, a thorough review should be performed of any "vernal pool" designations made within the Town. There seems to be a large. number of these within Reading as compared to the rest of the State. I know that this bothered the previous homeowner (Father in law) as he was unaware of this designation of his man-made pond until much later, and when he was looking to sell and develop the property that he had lived on and maintained for over 50 plus years it Beverly impacted his ability to get a fair price. Not sure that the Town would want a Town Employee causing irreparable financial harm to a tax payer and property owner, especially with an improper designation performed with little to no due diligence, under the guise of an educator. This is very similar to the Historical Commission deeming historic sites without notifying the homeowners as was discussed at one of our recent town meetings. • Leave room for discussin instead of just insisting on putting a hold on all construction until a meeting in front of the board • Minor residential modifications or repairs shoyld automatically be approved. • see item 3 • Based on viewing meetings, there appear to be unclear and changing expectations for those requesting permits. The process seems to take far too many meeting iterations to be resolved. - How can it be beneficial to the town to require a permit before removing a tree that has fallen on a structure? - Why would Conservation be involved in project landscaping that is not near wetlands? Utilize State regulations vs. custom Reading bylaws and simplify the process. Over regulation and excess control do not necessarily provide value to the town and cause impediments to growth of town. • As a homeowner I am trying to maintain & improve my property value which I feel is impossible with the conservation committee. • Reading could improve the water quality protection aspect of the bylaws. • Never recd any notification about any of his neighbors doing construction • I did not participate in this process and am not familiar with it. • Why is seperate fee required? Seem like yet another "sneaky town tax" 29. Please enter your name if we may contact you about your response: W Answered: 67 Skipped: 194 sb~ 41 17 of 18 9/21/20117:30AI~ DRAFT - 2011 Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 2011 WARRANT OUTLINE 09/22/2011 Art. Mover/ Moderator # Article Description Sponsor Comment Notes 1 u't o; State 'of the Schools oA on IT stTmbonal ~ P 2, ~1n'str'uctlons I~.~air~l ~}f ~clc~~:lrncn -3- A! the Capital lmprovernen E3oar41 1 l e i i i P11 4 Trai1SfeMM2 0 1 n I n~ n~~ $122 0() s~ 1osVi est Street h11 esi 'p 5 Amy dmgthe FY 2012 43;d e;l l;n iid c (~el~ tiocn o ApproyePa~i~icnl'o Pri~~ ~ Yem" ~ca~cliilcn o . $ Appr.6111-latiii' the txansle1 ul fields B.o irtl e L Seleetlnen o - r6i the 40R rii,n t (irowtl 'Stabil"izatibn Ft ~iil inter ~hc :\I t'cn"cl~t'~lc IIoiisn Tie t'~urid 'T I . 42 SG1 the.T~~~ernber lxust,Fzu~c1 vr1 An~eiclingti~l~ > 3" 12, 20 1 t t S i,1 h~cq Lu I It Town !tileetrn~ Comunssioners i re Veterans Flower hunch 7 ~ w f S 4t } , i-1{ } 1 4 Y rev©~virig I~un~l Toyai Town foresi ~ 1u 10 Estabhshing ; Forest Cominltt~ L c1'''sl 'rru*t .,t -mrFn f. '3S _U r T ! .E L>< 1 Z !K f I) t N 11 Betterment for curbs - Stewart and Board of Selectmen Edgmont y.F::' ~_r c 1i_ 'l } ~ l r: y 1 ~ y t r c ~ c4 ~:~_:i ' S ~'"t ~.C~ 11.14` fS^L ~Y.._ 4 3 r' h n S J] I 1 ~ t -~'.K7( t ~ _ a LK- 12 Vacating a portion of Grant SLIect 1 o i1 d }t SLli,C1111~ 11 REIM TTansf6rrmg'"l psi cOl of land on Pearl Rl )G11 ~l ul Scl~, trn~ii Street at Allduhon '_04d to the RMrd of Selectr ul lur conveyance i 2 - t r 2~ i ss1 ! 9 M R, ?4 Discontihuin a street and authorrzisn Board 1I Sclectrn n o c y on Pearl conve ince _of the 111'Op r Kcl~rd Street '1t Mdubon _ J N 4 I _ J t ~...F ,31 +4 ] Transferriili parcel 6.1 1and on l~oar~l o1 Selcctolcn c l~ 11~1~_rn~l h_oad - h-0111 thL; ~chmll Co l~nlittec to [lie BOO 1r(l 6f:SC1&t i'h 'Cd and authorizing conveyance T ~r - ~ '11 ~r r 1 J'r} 't~ 1 v G~W~~1, IL - 2l ~'r f > ' . . . oara of be icculrvrr ui B 1() ~olItnruance oI ~ ,uiiion-) r~c (lrmd"1,C WRo~r,_. bold S'prm 1Z i1id `I uw-er Road; and l )(L]Jand Road , authoi i u1 ,he4 u m ey_anck: - l N+!~ rA ~:t~~ 'i r' } , ~ ~ ` T _ ~ J t t __~Jlt3't ~ 1_-~ e~w ~~h~~F Kam. "r n~ T~•G.~y~.~ 'IZ_ Transl~2lrin1 1<til.d o» L(nhr)p Road TIikgtnl ~)I'SeleCltnCII Rom ` the A ulcr_ Department to the Board oJ' S~acciiilcn aucJauih~nizin~~ Its cclnec~ ancc 18 Approval , of Recodrfrcatron of _h I , I ivy Cou?intttee k) Reading Gelicral~Bvlaw, p1n.,uaiit ion rt ~he`~Readil ~ihorl1c IZalc Section8 ~ . ti > Chanter T _ 1~1 li~d~ i'~i -+t~ ~ t'~~F~~•r~~ Kt X43 f ~~ff~r, ~ ~=i r tS;: r~S ~ ~,Y ~ h T . ~ 1. y: w< ~s Appr M»cudli eats . tto - ih~ 1;11 i1~~1 01' Se1CCti17c11 a ~f fable Ur ~1ilir~rlti~~ll j,~i Section 6-1 (b) of the I~,adin~ lluni~ Ru1eCh~ut~1 _ - p ~f}f.. ( y~._~1 f ,f k f ,L~~ ;.T I~yl ~n, 4 .1 .p, J+,~ ;ti ~~C 41 `r y ! 4`f J ~ { l Y . , 2 , Amending Zoning Bylaw AgtnFer Board t ~;:1cLl IIIC1i Protection zonnlg district a= Emm 11, Canstrriction 21 Arnerrd Zoning Bvlaw = EDC 43 ~G3 44 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on 2011 notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant in the following public places within the Town of Rea ing: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Precinct 2 Peter Sanborn Place, 50 Bay State Road Precinct 3 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Precinct 5 Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street Precinct 6 Austin Preparatory School, 101 Willow Street Precinct 7 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Precinct 8 Wood End School, 85 Sunset Rock Lane The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to 2011, the date set for the Local Election in this Warrant. I also caused a posting of this Warrant to be published on the Town of Reading website on 2011. Constable A true copy Attest: Laura Gemme, Town Clerk TOWN WARRANT (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 1 ~CJ"t 45 Middlesex, ss. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road, in said Reading, on Monday, November 8, 2010, at seven-thirty o'clock in the evening; at-which-time and-place-thre-following-articles-are-to-be-acted-upon-and determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading Home Rule Charter ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town Accountant, Treasurer- Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees, Community Planning & Development Commission, Town Manager and any other Official, Board or Special Committee. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of funding Town Officers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2012 - FY 2021 Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter and as previously amended, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 4 To see if the Town will vote to appropriate the sum of $55,470.89 for the purpose of funding the West Street final design project, including all engineering and design costs, and any other associated costs, and that to meet this appropriation: $7,798.08 shall be transferred from the unexpended proceeds of the town's bonds dated 4-10-08 which were issued for the construction of the Birch Meadow Tennis Courts pursuant to the vote of the town passed 11/13/07 (Article 9); $46,209.30 be transferred from the unexpended proceeds of the town's bonds dated 11-1-07 which were issued for the construction of the Turf Field Improvements pursuant to the vote of the town passed 4/26/07 (Article 22); 1$ ,341.51 be transferred from the unexpended proceeds of the town's bonds dated 4-10-08 which were issued for the purchase of a Ladder Truck pursuant to the vote of the town passed 11/13/07 (Article 10); and 1$ 22.00 be transferred from the unexpended proceeds of the town's bonds dated 8-1-09 which were issued for the purchase of a Fire Engine pursuant to the vote of the town passed 11 /10/08 (Article 11); and that the Board of Selectmen is authorized to take any other action necessary to carry out this project; provided, however that no expenditures shall be made hereunder until the Board of Selectmen determines (which determination shall be conclusive) that after the transfer of such unexpended bond proceeds, the remaining amount of unexpended bond proceeds from all of the above referenced bonds is sufficient to complete the project for which the bonds were sold, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen 2 46 ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes taken under Article 28 of the Warrant of the Annual Town Meeting of April 25, 2011; and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, as the result of any such amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other action with respect thereto. Finance Committee ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the payment during Fiscal Year 2011 of bills remaining unpaid for previous fiscal years for goods and services actually rendered to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 7 To see' if the Town will vote to rescind the remaining balances on the following authorized but unsold debt that is no longer needed for the completion of the projects: ® $140,000 for Birch Meadow Tennis Courts -April 26, 2007 Annual Town Meeting Article 21; o $275,000 for Turf Field Improvements - April 26, 2007 Annual Town Meeting Article 22; ® $65,000 for Sewer improvements Sunnyside/Fairview - April 26, 2007 Annual Town Meeting Article 23; ® $50,000 for Ladder Truck -November 13, 2007 Subsequent Town Meeting Article 10 Or take any other action with respect thereto Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 8 To see what sum the Town will vote to transfer from the Smart Growth Stabilization Fund tot the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, or take any other action with'respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 9* To see if the Town will amend the motion under Article 5 at the November 13, 2001 Subsequent Town Meeting by striking the Words "July 1, 2003" and the words "allocated 75% towards perpetual (non expendable) principal and 25% to be available (expendable)" so that the sentence shall read: "Unless otherwise directed by a subsequent donor as to the use of his or her donation made on or after January 1, 2012 shall be available for expenditure (expendable)." Or take any other action with respect thereto. Commissioners of Trust Funds ARTICLE 10 To see if the Town will vote to authorize revolving funds for certain Town Departments under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53E 1/2 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 with the receipts, as specified, credited to each fund, the purposes, as listed, for which each fund may be spent, the maximum amount that may be spent from each fund for the fiscal year, and the disposition of the balance of each fund at fiscal year end. Revolving Spending Revenue Allowed Expenditure Year End Account Authority Source Expenses Limits Balance Director of Public Works upon the Sale of recommendation of the timber; fees Planning and Town Town Forest for use of the Improvements to Forest Committee Town Forest the Town Forest $10,000 $0 or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen 3 se CAP 47 ARTICLE 11 ARTICLE 12 ARTICLE 13 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, §3, to convey all of the town's right title and interest in the parcel of land identified on the Assessors Map as-Map 28-Lot-202-containing" 1-3 925-square-feet of-land,-upon-s-uch terms-and-conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action relative thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 14 To see if the Town will vote to discontinue as a public way for all purposes a portion of Pearl Street, consisting of approximately 10,897 square feet of land along the south west of Pearl Street and extending for a distance of approximately _ feet as shown on a Plan entitled "Pearl Street Roadway Discontinued Plan" dated September 27, 2011, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk, subject to the reservation of any and all utility and drainage facility easements in said way; and to transfer the care, custody, control and management of said discontinued portion of Pearl Street from the Board of Selectmen for public way purposes, to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance, and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said discontinued way upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 15 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 15A, to transfer the care, custody and control of approximately _ square feet of land as shown on Board of Assessor's map 27 lot 405, and map 27 lot 412 from the School Department to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said property upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto School Committee ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote to discontinue as public ways for all purposes, the following; - a portion of Grandview Road, on the west side of the way southerly from the intersection of Cold Spring Road for approximately 358 feet; - a portion of Cold Spring Road, on the south side of the way westerly for approximately 115 feet from the intersection of Grandview Road and the full width of the way an additional 112 feet westerly to Oakland Road; - a portion of Oakland Road southerly from the intersection of Cold Spring Road for approximately 330 feet to Chestnut Road; and - a portion of Tower Road westerly from Grandview Road for approximately 243 feet to Oakland Road, all as shown as "the Discontinued Sections of Grandview Road, Cold Spring Road, Oakland Road and Tower Road" on a Plan entitled "Roadway Discontinuance. Plan" dated September 27, 2011, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk, subject to the reservation of any and all utility and drainage facility easements in said ways; to transfer the care, custody, control and management of said discontinued portions of Grandview Road, Cold Spring Road, Oakland Road and Tower Road from the Board of Selectmen for public way purposes to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey all of the Town's right title and interest in said discontinued ways together with all of the land shown on Board of Assessor's Map 33 Lot 19, Map 33 Lot 31, Map 27 lot 48 405, and Map 27 lot 412 upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen A11TICIE-17 o see if-the own w'il1 vote; pursuantt -M-G-L-Chapter-40-Section 1-5A-to-tr-ansfer-the care, custody and control of the. property shown on Board of Assessor's Map 9, Lot 3, consisting of 31,614 square feet of land, from the Water Department or the Board of Selectmen for water resource and protection purposes, to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of conveyance; and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §3 to convey all of the. Town's right title and interest in said parcel of land upon such terms and conditions, and for such consideration as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 18 To see if the Town will approve the recodification of the Reading General Bylaw pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto. Bylaw Committee ARTICLE 19 To see if the Town will vote to approve an amendment to the Table of Organization pursuant to Section 6-1 of the. Reading Home Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 20 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 4.8, Aquifer Protection District, of the Town of Reading Zoning By-Laws, in the following respects (note - Grew tlaFGugh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language): by amending Section 4.8.3. Definitions: as follows (new language in bold) Impervious Surface: Material or structure on, above, or below the ground that does not allow precipitation or surface water to penetrate directly into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include all roofs, decks, driveways, parking areas, roadways and walkways, regardless of the proposed surface material. Excluded from this definition are decks that are constructed with open joints between the floorboards, and where the surface underneath the deck is not impervious; by deleting Sections 4.8.6.1.9 and 4.8.6.1.10 in their entirety, and inserting in place thereof the following new sections: 4.8.6.1.9 Land uses that result in the rendering impervious of more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot or parcel, whichever is greater, unless a system of artificial recharge of precipitation is provided'; 4.8.6.1.10 When artificial recharge is required to meet the limitation established in Section 4.8.6.1.9, a system for the recharge of precipitation shall be provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Recharge plans shall comply with the DEP Stormwater Guidelines and shall be ,submitted to.the Town Engineer for review and approval; by inserting a new Section 4.8.7 as follows: 4.8.7. Nonconforming Uses and Structures 5 49 Non-conforming uses and structures which were lawfully existing, begun or in receipt of a building or special'permit, prior to the first publication of notice of public hearing for this bylaw may be continued. If such non-conforming uses and structures are changed, extended or altered, as specified in M.G.L. c. 40A, §6 and Section 6.3 of this bylaw, then the use or structure as changed, extended or altered must comply with this bylaw. by inserting a new Section 4.8.8 as follows: 4.8.8 No Variance Permitted No variances shall be granted from the provisions of this bylaw Section 4.8. by inserting a new Section 4.8.9.as follows: 4.8.9 Administration/Rules and Regulations This bylaw shall be administered by the Community Planning and Development Commission which shall also have the authority to adopt rules and regulations governing the design of infiltration systems required herein; by renumbering the current Section 4.8.7 as 4.8.10, or to take any other action with respect thereto. Community Planning and Development Commission ARTICLE 21 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 6.2 (Signs) of the Town of Reading Zoning By-Laws as follows: (note - Gross through represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language) 6.2.2. Definitions t. Temporary Construction/Redevelopment Signs - A temporary unlit free standing sign or wall sign affixed to a structure or fence identifying the project name, project team, project description or business to be conducted on the premises. 6.2.4. Exempt Signs Temporary Construction'signs shall be allowed during active construction, where a demolition or building permit has been issued and where at least site preparation work has commenced. Temporary Redevelopment signs shall be allowed for sites that have not begun construction, but have been issued a building or demolition permit or have an approved site plan. The maximum size of Temporary Construction/Redevelopment Signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in surface area or 10 feet in any dimension. Temporary Redevelopment signs may be displayed for a period of up to 1 year. Upon written request and approval of the CPDC the display period for a Temporary Redevelopment sign may be extended. Temporary Construction signs shall be removed after the construction, repair or renovation work is completed or within 7 days after the issuance of a final occupancy permit. 6.2.3. Sign s Permitted According to Zoning District Table 6 2 3 Signs Permitted According to Zoning District 6 50 Max' Max Sign Sign Setbacks:, Permit . Area Height, Front Side Maximum Type Requ.iredd (sq. ft.) (ft:) (ft.) (ft.} Nurnber- All Zoning Districts: 1. Personal Message N 4 6 N/A 20 1/lot 2. Identification (Joint and Area) N 4 8 (A) I N/A N/A 1/lot 3. Construction N 46 32 N/A N/A 20 WA 1 4. Subdivision Sales (C) 48 N/A N/A N/A 1/subdiv. 5. Subdivision (C) 24 N/A N/A N/A 1/subdiv. 6. Real Estate Sales N 8 (G) 6 N/A 20 1/lot 7. Temp Open House N 4 N/A N/A 20 1/agency er lot 8. Garage/Yard Sale N 4 N/A N/A 20 1/lot 9. Informational - Directional N 4 6 N/A N/A N/A Portable A-Frame Regulated by the Board of Selectmen - Annual Permit Required 10. Temporary y 16 N/A (See Section 6.2.6.2.h.) Business Signs or 30 Business-A, Business-C and Industrial Zoning Districts: 11. Free-Standing Y 50(D) 20 0 20(I) 1/lot 12. Wall Y 2/4E (A) N/A 10 1/business 13. Projecting / Blade Y 8 (A)(H) N/A 10 1/business Business-B Zoning Districts: 14. Free-standing Service Stations Only) Y 35(D) 14 0 20 1/lot 15. Wall Y 2(F) (A) 0 0 2/businesses 16.Projecting/ Blade Y 8 (A)(H) -4 0 1/business 17. Free-Standing SPP(J) 35 10.5 0 20 1/lot s~~o 51 (A) No portion of such sign shall extend higher than the bottom of the sills of the windows of the second floor of a building or higher than the lowest portion of the eaves or, in the case of a gabled wall, no higher than a line equal in height to the lowest portion of the lower eave of any adjoining building wall, whichever of the above is lowest. B) Aggregate sign area of all applicable signs. (C) Only as shown in Definitive Subdivision Plans as approved by the Community Planning and Development Commission consistent with Paragraph 6.2.1.1. (D) May not be larger than 75 square feet, if more than one business occupies the lot. *See Section 6.2.6.4. (E) If the minimum distance from the building wall on which the sign is mounted is less than 100 feet from the centerline of the street which the sign faces, the maximum sign area shall be equal to 2 square feet per linear foot of said wall occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates; if such distance is more than 100 feet, maximum sign area shall be equal to 4 square feet per linear foot of said wall so occupied. (F) No wall sign for any non-residential establishment shall exceed a sign area equal to 2 square feet per linear footage of length of the front wall of the building occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates. G) Real Estate Signs in the Industrial Zoning Districts are allowed one sign per business with a maximum sign area equal to 2 square feet per linear foot of said wall occupied by the establishment to which the sign relates without a sign permit. (H) Projecting/Blade Signs shall be at least eight (8) feet from the ground and may project no more than four (4) feet from the structure. (1) A Special Permit may be granted by the CPDC. See Section 6.2.9 for Special Permit Criteria. (J) Free-standing signs shall be permitted only where the principal business entrance is located more that 40 feet from the centerline of the street in front of the lot. CPDC may waive the 40' business entrance setback requirement for signs in existence as of the effective date of this amendment. See Section 6.2.9.a. for Special Permit Criteria Or take any other action with respect thereto. Community Planning and Development Commission ARTICLE 22 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Reading General Bylaw by adding a new section as follows: 8.10 Maintenance of Vacant Buildings and Land All vacant structures and vacant land within the Town of Reading shall be maintained in a safe, secure and clean condition so as not to compromise the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 8.10.1 Definitions: For purposes of this bylaw the following definitions shall apply: 8.10.1.1 Building }n 8 52 A structure enclosed within exterior walls or firewalls, built, erected, or framed of any materials, and fixed to the ground, having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter of persons, animals or property, or the storage of commercial or industrial personal property. This bylaw shall not apply to buildings or property owned or subject to the control of the Town or any of its governmental bodies. 8.10.1.2 Owner A person entity,-service company, property-manager-or-real-estate-broker,-who-alone-or- severally with others: • has legal or equitable title to any building, structure or parcel of land, vacant or otherwise; or • has care, charge or control of any building or structure, parcel of land, vacant or otherwise, in any capacity including but not limited to agent, executor, executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee or guardian of the estate of the holder of legal title; or • is a mortgagee in possession of any such property; or • is an agent trustee or other person appointed by the courts and vested with possession or control; or • i5 an officer or trustee of the association of unit owners of a condominium; each such person being bound to comply with the provisions of these minimum standards as if he were the owner; or • is a trustee who holds, owns or controls mortgage loans for mortgage backed securities transactions and has initiated a foreclosure process. 8.10.13 Vacant Buildings or property that are unoccupied for a period greater than one hundred eighty (180) days by a person or persons with legal right to occupancy thereof. 8.10.2 Minimum Maintenance Requirements. Owners of vacant properties must fulfill the following minimum adequate maintenance requirements for any such property they own: • Maintain vacant properties in accordance with all applicable local and state Sanitary Codes, Building Codes and Fire Codes. • Secure vacant properties to prevent unauthorized entry and exposure to the elements. • Maintain vacant properties in a manner that ensures their external/visible maintenance, including but not limited to the maintenance of major systems, the removal of trash and debris, and the upkeep of lawns, shrubbery, and other landscape features. • Remove graffiti, carvings or markings from all structures, signs, walls and fences. • Repair or replace broken windows or doors within thirty (30) days. Boarding up any doors or windows is prohibited except as a temporary measure for no longer than thirty (30) days. For properties vacant for six months or more, the utilities for which have been shut off, remove or cut and cap such utilities to prevent accidents. • Maintain free from the storage of any junked, wrecked, or abandoned vehicles. Compliance with this section shall not relieve the owner of any applicable obligations set forth in any other codes, regulations, covenant conditions or restrictions, and/or homeowner or condominium .association rules and regulations. 8.10.3 Notice of Failure to Maintain Property 9 53 Upon identifying a property as failing to meet the minimum maintenance requirements set out in section 8.10.2, the Building Inspector may notify the owner in writing at the owner's last known address of maintenance deficiencies. If any maintenance deficiency is not corrected within 30 days of said notice, or if a maintenance plan is not approved by the Building Department within 30 days of said notice, the Town may impose a penalty in accordance with the provisions of this bylaw. 8.10.4 Inspections The Building Department,-the Board of-Health,-the-Chief-of-the-Police-Department-and-the-C-hief-of-the Fire Department, or their designees, shall have the authority to periodically inspect any property reasonably understood to be a vacant property for compliance. The Building Department shall have the discretion to determine when and how such inspections are to be made, provided that the time and manner of such inspections are reasonably calculated to ensure that this bylaw is enforced. 8.10.5 Penalties Violations of this bylaw, including violations of any regulation promulgated hereunder, or failure to comply with a maintenance plan approved by the Building Department, shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day during which the violation continues. In addition to any other means of enforcement, the provisions of this bylaw may be enforced by non-criminal disposition in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.8 of this bylaw, and M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 21D. For the purposes of such non-criminal disposition, the "enforcing person" shall mean the Building Inspector, the Health Director, the Police Department, the Fire Department, or their designee. 8.10.6 Enforcement The Building Department or its designee, the Board of Health, Fire Department and/or the Police Department or their designees(s) shall enforce all provisions of this bylaw; including any regulation promulgated hereunder, and shall institute' all necessary administrative or legal action to assure compliance. 8.10.7 Unsafe Buildinqs If the Building Inspector determines the building to with,the State Building Code to protect public safety the powers and/or duties of municipal officials to including, without limitation, M.G.L. c.139, §1 et seq. be unsafe, he may act immediately in accordance Furthermore, nothing in this bylaw shall abrogate act pursuant to any general statutory authority and M.G.L. c.143, §6 et seq. or take any other action with respect thereto Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 23 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 7.1 of the Town of Reading General Bylaw as follows(note - Gress through represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language, and all section numbers are in accord with the proposed recodified General Bylaw): Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 7.1.4 and substitute therefore "The critical wetland-related terms used in this bylaw and regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall be defined in regulations promulgated under this bylaw" and delete Sections 7.1.4.1 through 7.1.4.11, so that Section 7.1.4 reads as follows 7.1.4 Concurrent Notice and Hearings to Meet State Law Requirements The same Notice of Intent, plans and specifications required to be filed by an applicant under M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 will be accepted as fulfilling the applicable requirements of this bylaw. The Conservation Commission may adopt and impose project review changes in accordance with regulations adopted pursuant hereto. Town projects are exempt from review fees under Section 7.1.14. 10 54 SU6 All hearings and public meetings held under M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 when it applies, and under this bylaw shall be held simultaneously, whenever possible. Definitions, time frames and procedures, not inconsistent with this bylaw or the regulations adopted pursuant hereto, set forth in said Section 40, and in the regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection, as the same may from time to time be amended, are hereby made a part of this bylaw. NetwithstandiRg any defiRitiORG set forth in said SeGtiGR , eR the different ddef'Ritions- The critical wetland-related terms used in this bylaw and regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall be defined in regulations promulgated under. this bylaw 7.1.4.1 Activity Shall alse iRGlude the !RstallatioR of any Utility Genduit system iRGII g but Rat limited te draiRage, sewage aRd 7.1.4.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetland lake, OF the bank Of aRY'Gf the PFeGeding FBSE)UFGe are as. 7.11.41.4 Buffer Zone Shall ~.'r-~ a 5 Ditch - - m ' d t h f t has n th et alter GF ed an ee Fiv k OF the pond OF lake eF stream a a Rh;; I e O renG F UFF GW a y , , , , wetland 7.1.4.6 Floodplain meus with la Sh ll b nd sul~e Gt to flooding , e syneny a - 7.1.4.7- Groundwate UG with Sh ll b Mundwa teF s l u g e GYROnYMO a 7.1.4 R- Strieaai~n i f fl d b t t M pp y. ermaReR h F t 9F int eFFnittent MG V;Rg along a hydraUliG ow ng y o Shall mean a o e, Aa e p , . 7.1.4.9 Qere Cnenie l l i t li t th re d Featen ed oF end an eFed Ghusetts Div* the Massa b an l also iRGlude these p Sha e speG s s as Fa , e g - y 7 A X10 R*ver-ftGnt Area Shall be as defined in 310 GI VIR , as amended, 11 Wetlands 7 1 4 . . . h z th t t i bl t eaF t he GUFf aGe oF the la nd is This Govereq by shallow wateF ..rpe p- .te Shall rin..R-A-M.. I.A.f. t l er wa d a e b s a oF n a sh d es GFe FiveF eks s strea - Wetla ponds aRd lakes ms F inGlude swamps, we shal have- one nr mnre of the fnlle nea ew winn th s, e ree a F gs an m ttributes; , , , . , t d t ith ed b s hallow wateF at s o metim gFe e dUFiRg the - Thp siffic4pate is satuFa e each-year. wa w eF OF y GeveF . 11 ~Gf'( 55 And amend section 7.116 as follows: 7.1.16 Violations No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter any area subject to protection under the provisions of this bylaw without the required authorization, or cause, suffer or allow such activity, or leave in place unauthorized fill, or .otherwise fail to restore illegally altered land to its original condition, or fail to comply with an enforcement order issued pursuant to the provisions of this bylaw. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense except-that-any-person-who-fails-to-remove-unauthorized-fill--or-otherwise--fails--to restore-illegally-altered------ land to its original condition after gwieg given written notification of said violation to by the Conservation Commission shall not be subject to additional penalties under this bylaw, unless said person thereafter fails to comply with an enforcement order or order of conditions. Or take any other action with respect thereto Conservation Commission ARTICLE 24 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Reading General ByLaw, in the following respects (note - FOSSthreugh represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language, and all section numbers are in accord with the proposed recodified General Bylaw): by amending Section 2.1.1 Date of Annual Town Meeting, as follows: The Annual Town Meeting shall be held on the third Tuesday preceding the fourth Monday in April of each year for the election of Town Officers and for such other matters as required by law to be determined by ballot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ' , the Board of Selectmen may schedule the commencement. of the Annual Town Meeting for the same date designated as the date to hold any Federal or State election; Or take any other action with respect thereto Finance Committee ARTICLE 25 To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Reading General Bylaw, in the following respects (note - sr s-.. g-h represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language, and all section numbers are in accord with the proposed recodified General Bylaw): by amending Section 2.2 Conduct of Town Meetings, as follows: Rule 3 Prior to debate on each Article in a Warrant involving the expenditure of money, the Finance Committee shall advise the Town Meeting as to its deliberations, findings or recommendations and the reasons therefore; by amending Section 3.3.2, Finance Committee, as follows: 3.3.2.1 Duties The Finance Committee shall consider all matters of business included within the Articles of any Warrant which involve the expenditure, appropriation and raising or borrowing of money or which otherwise impact the town finances; 3.3.2.2 - ReGOmmendations Report to Town Meeting The Finance Committee.shall make a written FeGOMmend report on all Articles that it has considered, and the Town Clerk shall make said written FeGOmmendations report 12 available to eaGh Town Meeting Member at least seven (7) days pFioF to the first adjOUFRment of the Annual Town Meeting, seven (7) days PFiGF te the 56 SG►~' as part of the-"Report on the Warrant" available to each Town Meeting Member. The said FeGGFAmendatiORS should be these of a ity of the entiFe Committee but *FeGG1T1meRdati9R6 may aIsG be made -by a mineFity of said Committee. Th~_ Committee's repeFt shall also state the total amount of apprepriatiens PeGE)MmeRded by it on the eRtiFe VVaFFant aRd the approximate tax rate based OR GUGh reGGMMeRdatiGRS. When sufficient information has been provided to take a vote, the recommendations should be those of a majority of the entire Committee. However, recommendations may also be made by a minority of said Committee in addition - ---_-to the-majority.---The -Committee's -recommendation-shall-include-the total-amount -of -appropriations - that it recommends on each article within the Warrant. by inserting the following new sections: 3.3.2.3 Form of Report The Finance Committee in making its report upon any subject referred to it shall arrange the report in clear and compact form, and shall divide it into separate propositions whenever in its judgment such divisions may be desirable. The Committee shall attach to each proposition its own recommendations or a summary of deliberations, when applicable. 3.3.2.4 Failure of Finance Committee to Make Recommendation The failure of the Finance Committee to consider, recommend and/or report on any Article in the Warrant shall not affect the validity of any vote or other action taken at any Town Meeting. and by renumbering the current Sections 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.4, as 3.3.2.5 and 3.3.2.6, or take any action with respect thereto. Finance Committee ARTICLE 26 To see if the Town will vote to amend Section 7.2, Demolition of Structures of Potentially Historical Significance, of the Reading General Bylaw, as follows (all section numbers are in accord with the proposed recodified General Bylaw): by inserting the following new sections: 7.2.3.7 Appeal Within seven (7) business days of the Commission's determination that a structure is a. Preferably Preserved Historic Structure pursuant to Section 7.2.3.6.hereof, the property owner may appeal the determination to the Board of Selectmen by filing a written request for review with the Board of Selectmen. The request for review shall be received by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Clerk's Office within seven (7) business days of the date of the Commission's determination and a copy of the request shall be provided to the Building Commissioner and the Commission. The Board of Selectmen shall hold a public hearing and issue its determination within forty-five (45) business days from the date of said Commission's determination. Public notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be posted in a conspicuous place at Town Hall and published in a local newspaper not less than seven (7) business days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. Said notice shall identify the street address of the subject Building. A copy of the public hearing notice shall be mailed to the Applicant and record owner if different from the Applicant, the Building Commissioner and Commission; 7.2.3.8 Certificate of Hardship Pursuant to M.G.L. c.40C, §10(c), in the event of an application for a Certificate of Hardship, the Commission shall determine whether, owing to the conditions especially affecting the building or structure involved, but not affecting the District generally, failure to approve an application will result in a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant and whether such application may be approved without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and purposes of this bylaw. If the Commission determines that owing to such conditions failure to approve an application will involve substantial hardship to 13 5 57 the applicant then approval thereof may to authorize the Building Inspector to approve the application for demolition of said property; and by renumbering the current Sections 7.2.3.7 and 7.2.3.8 as Sections 7.2.3.9 and 7.2.3.10; or take any other action in respect thereto. Petition ARTICLE 27 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to amend Article 5, Town Manager, Section 5-1: Appointment, Qualifications, Term, so that it reads as follows (language with -st-ri reugh-shows deletions/words in bold denotes new language) The Board of Selectmen shall appoint a Town Manager without and may enter into a contract with the Town Manager not exceeding three (3) years in length, and shall fix his compensation within the amount annually appropriated for that purpose. The Town Manager shall not be subject to a personnel bylaw, if any. The Town Manager shall be appointed solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications. He shall be a professionally qualified person of proven ability, especially fitted by education, training and previous experience. He shall have had at least five (5) years of full-time paid experience as a City or Town Manager or Assistant City or Town Manager or the equivalent level public or private sector experience. The terms of the Town Manager's employment shall be the subject of a written contract setting forth his tenure, compensation, vacation, sick leave, benefits, and such other matters (eX g tenwe) as are customarily included in an employment contract -agreeff%nt. While serving as Town Manager he shall devote full time to the office (and except as expressly authorized by the Board of Selectmen) shall not engage in any other, business or occupation and (except as expressly provided in the Charter) shall not hold any other public office, elective or appointive, in the Town. With the approval of the Selectmen, he may serve as the Town's representative to regional boards, commissions and the like but shall not receive additional salary from the Town for such services. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 28 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to amend Article 7, Finances and Fiscal Procedures, Section 7-2: Submission of Proposed Budget, paragraph 1, so that it reads as follows: (language with stfikethFE)UgI4 shows deletion/language in bold denotes new language) At least four (4) months before the start of the fiscal year, and following consultation with the Board of Selectmen on the Municipal Government portions of the budget, the Town Manager shall submit to the Finance Committee a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year with an accompanying budget message and supporting documents. He shall simultaneously provide for the publication in a local newspaper of a general summary of the proposed budget, and a notice stating the times and places where complete copies of his proposed budget shall be available for examination by the public. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 29 To see if the Town will vote pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter to amend Section 2-12, Establishment of Standing Committees, the third paragraph under Finance Committee, as follows (new language in bold): 14 58 The Finance Committee shall have all the powers and duties granted to Finance Committees under the laws of the Commonwealth, Town bylaws, Town Meeting vote and other applicable laws. In addition to these powers, the Finance Committee shall have the power to investigate the books, accounts, records and management of any office, board or committee in Town, and may use agents in carrying out such investigations. The Finance Committee shall report on its deliberations, findings, approval or disapproval on all Articles that involve the expenditure of funds in the Warrant in writing at least seven (7) days before Town Meeting. Such a report shall not preclude further action or reconsideration by the Finance Committee, or take any other action in respect thereto. Finance Committee. ARTICLE 30 Warrant Article Title: Amendment of Section 2-15 Referendum Procedure, of the Reading Home Rule Charter To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to amend Section 2- 15: Referendum Procedures, subsection (b) Form of Referendum Petition/Ballot Question, so that it reads as follows: (language with stFikethFo g shows deletions/words in bold denotes new language.) No final affirmative vote of a Town Meeting on any Warrant Article shall be operative until after the expiration of seven (7) ten (10) days following the dissolution of the Town Meeting except the following: (a) a vote to adjourn or dissolve, (b) votes appropriating. money for the payment of notes or bonds of the Town and interest becoming due within the then current fiscal year, (c) votes for the temporary borrowing of money in anticipation of revenue, or (d) a vote declared by preamble by a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health, safety or convenience of the Town. If a referendum petition is not filed within the said seven (7) ten (10) days, the votes of the Town Meeting shall then become operative. (a) Referendum Petition - If, within said seven (7) ten (10) days, a referendum petition signed by not less than three (3) percent of the voters certified by the Registrars of Voters containing their names and addresses is filed with the Board of Selectmen requesting that any question affirmative vote'of Town Meeting be submitted to the voters in the form of a ballot question, such ballot question to be in the form required in (b) herein, to the voters, then the operation of the Town Meeting vote shall be further suspended pending its determination as provided below. The Board of Selectmen shall, within ten (10) days after the filing of such referendum petition, call a Special Election that shall be held within thirty (30) days or such longer period as may be required by law after issuing the call, for the purpose of presenting to the voters any such ballot question. If, however, a regular or Special Election is to be held not more than sixty (60) days following the date the referendum petition is filed, the Board of Selectmen may provide that any such ballot question be presented to the voters at that Election. (b) Form of Referendum Petition/Ballot Question - Each ballot question submitted shall appear at the top of each referendum petition and shall be presented in the following form which shall be placed on the official ballot: - "Shall the Town vote to approve the action of the representative Town Meeting whereby it was voted on (insert date of town meeting) to (insert complete language of the vote in the same form in which it was stated when presented by the Moderator to the Town Meeting, and as it appears in the records of the Clerk of the meeting)"? The form of the referendum petition shall in conformance with this section. The circulator(s) of the referendum petition may make additional copies of the petition form, but such copies must be an exact duplicate thereof. The petition form may not be altered in any way. No extraneous markings, sus# defined as underlines, highlighting, erasures, marking out or insertion of words, or other additions that alter the wording or emphasis of the petition question language OF other , are allowed. Alterations of the petition 15 59 C)vK form, or copies of the petition form that are not exact duplicates, will result in the invalidation of all signatures contained on that petition form. Extraneous markings do not include signatures or addresses. Each petition form shall include language informing voters that additional markings will disqualify the signatures on the petition form; that for their signature to be valid, they must be a registered voter of the Town of Reading; that their signature shall be written as they are registered; that they should not sign the petition more than once; and that if they are prevented by physical disability from writing, that they may authorize some person to write their name and residence in their presence. The back of each petition form where signature lines appear, shall include the following instruction: "ATTENTION VOTERS: Before signing, read signer information on the other side". The Town Clerk shall upon request produce suitable Town referendum petition/ballot question forms, compliant with section b requirements and prepared with the ballot question language as appears in the records of the Clerk of the meeting. At the requester's option, the Clerk shall make 10 paper copies available for pickup at the Town Clerk's service window, or shall send an email containing an Adobe PDF document attachment of the form within 2 business hours following the original request. A referendum petition produced by the Town Clerk shall be deemed compliant with section (b) form conformance requirements in later examinations. In addition to the certification of signatures on the petition form, the Board of Registrars of Voters shall examine the petition forms for extraneous markings, and determine whether they are exact copies; or take any other action in respect thereto. Petition ARTICLE 31 To see if the Town will vote pursuant to Section 8-1 of the Reading Home Rule Charter to amend Article 8, General Provisions, by inserting the following new section: Section 8-16: Term Limits of Appointed Boards, Committees and Commissions No volunteer member of an appointed board, committee or commission shall serve more than three (3) consecutive three (3) year terms on any individual board, committee or commission. The Chairmanship of all boards, committees and commissions shall rotate among the membership on an annual basis with no person serving two consecutive, one year terms as Chairperson or, more than three years as Chairperson throughout their term of service on that specific board, committee or commission; and by renumbering the current Sections 8-16 as Section 8-17; or take any other action in respect thereto. Petition and you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to November 14, 2011, or providing in a manner such as electronic submission, holding for pickup or mailing, an attested copy of said Warrant to each Town Meeting Member. Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting. Given under our hands this 27th day of September, 2011. Camille W. Anthony, Chairman 16 60 ~o~~oFR gory Town of Reading y 16 Lowell Street s P ~9p1NCORpO~ Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM T®: Property Owners near Town Owned land at Audubon Road and Pearl Street Property Owners near Town Owned land on Lothrop Road From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Re: Meeting regarding potential sale of Town owned land -Audubon Road and Pearl Street; on Lothrop Road The Board of Selectmen is considering the possible sale of Town owned land at Audubon Road and Pearl Street; and on Lothrop Road. The Board has this item on its agenda on: September 27, 2011 at 8:30 PM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Reading Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading MA You are invited to attend the meeting, listen to the presentation, and offer comments, and ask questions. Attached is a fact sheet about the property prepared by Town staff. say 62 0 Page 1 Property Location 1 Map-Lotid Assessed Value (fy12) Pearl Street & Audubon Road 28-202 $211,600 Town Counsel: The drainage/sewer between Charles Street and Audubon may only be an easement in which case, the underlying fee belongs to the property owners. More importantly, all i found was a plan which does not suffice to do a taking. We may be able to simply release the town's interest to the. abutters. The square footage is added to their parcels and taxed as part thereof. Research needs to be done to determine ownership of the easement part of the lot. The status of the old Pearl Street right of way is also unknown. Property is made up of three separate pieces totaling 28,850 square feet, but separated by Audubon and Pearl streets. A lot of approx. 24,500 sf could be carved out if the old ROW (hatched) were abandoned and combined with I flat with no known wetlands. the adjacent portion of the lot labeled 13,925 s .The pro ert is relative Control _ T~ Board of Selectmen i Utilities Sewer and water service in adjacent street f ,r ` r } 1 ROWS. in : S 15 Z on - lot size Min Frontage Setbacks , 15,000 sf 100' Front Side Rear s Lot circle dia. 20' 15' 20' 60' Lot covera e 25% ~,•;ti r 7 em Charles Lawn "r NN" - .10 897 sf 4 615 sf 4' f ~ } , , i irnberneck ~ ~ 'ova 'l8 202 r -T~ ' : 110 a r t "u,' < } q_ 14 i ( ~j 5~✓ r lye y4 f , r J'.li IN n 1~~" y4 1. !"1~ ,J . S,J Ji,,,l~l 1 )1 U4(~ W,k i'i~ riT4{ rob Jftr r Q 3 „ 00 ~ W }w V, y ^ 0 50 400 2 z ,ir p,- Sewe E r Main. NK~RspV r r' ~~rCvx d . - Water Mam U 2 1 Recommended Actions • Establish ownership and contol of all three portions of the lot • Subdivide three lot portions • Determine if Town has rights to hatched right of way; dissolve it if so • Combine and sell dissolved ROW and.ad'acent lot 8/.18/2011 63 6-S-2" CHAPMAN JUDITH ANN TRUSTEE CHAMPA WILLIAM A RAFFI JOHN CATHERINE E RILEY IRREVOC TRUST CAREN M CHAMPA 402 SALEM ST 128 PEARL ST 127 CHARLES ST WAKEFIELD, MA 01880 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 GENOVESE PETER A POOR BRIAN K FALKOS PAUL PATRICIA A GENOVESE KAREN L POOR COLLEEN FALKOS 10 DUCK RD 140 CHARLES ST 81 CHARLES STREET READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 O'NEIL TIMOTHY S NAPOLITANO ANGELO A LINDSAY JAMES H _ KAREN D O'NEIL PATRICIA A NAPOLITANO COLLETTE G LINDSAY 108 PEARL ST 24 AUDUBON RD 123 CHARLES STREET READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 KAPER FRANK A MARFIONE PETER C LIEVENS GEERT JOAN G KAPER MARY T MARFIONE BARBARA S LIEVENS 122 CHARLES ST 31 DUCK RD 14 BUNKER AVE READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING CONRAD JAMES CEMETERY DEPT CEMETERY DEPT ELAINE T WEDGE 16 LOWELL ST 16 LOWELL ST 154 CHARLES ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TRITTO CARL A SR ET AL MCCORMACK KERRY P CORMIER PAUL M JEREMY J CAYTON ET AL KAREN M MCCORMACK LISA J CORMIER 20 AUDUBON RD 115 CHARLES ST 164 PEARL. ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 WEST GARY L TRUSTEE DRISCOLL KEVIN G MARDEN RALPH CHANDLER III. THE WEST FAMILY TRUST DRISCOLL CATHERINE H 13 BUNKER AVE 160 CHARLES ST 191 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 MARINO ANTHONY JOSEPH ETAL TTEES BARNES JOHN I THE MARINO FAMILY IRREVOCABLE ELIZABETH W BARNES TRUS 173 PEARL ST 17 AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TZIANABOS ARTHUR 0 KRISTEN Q TZIANABOS 14 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 CROWLEY PATRICIA A 12 AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 PENSAVALLI DOMENIC NINA PENSAVALLI 34 AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 SUTARIA DHIREN K C/O MAMTA D SUTARIA ETAL TRUSTEES 17 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 WINKLER THEISS E 66 LONGVIEW ROAD READING, MA 01867 OLSEN SUSAN 157 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 KUSHINSKY ALAN ELIZABETH KUSHINSKY 23 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 Sd-3 64 MAURO LUIGI TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING FELICITA MAURO CONS CEMETERY DEPT 59 FRANCIS DR, 16 LOWELL STREET 16 LOWELL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING TSAY JEFFEREY PERRY LINDA T CONS SHARON TSAY 160 PEARL STREET 16 LOWELL STREET 10 GILLIS DR READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 NORTH READING, MA 01864 DEMILD ROBERT H JR. MURRAY KEVIN C GILLIS DONNA M PATRICIA C DEMILD ELIZABETH L MURRAY 141 PEARL ST 141 BELMONT ST 147 BELMONT ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 MURRAY KEVIN C DALEY TRACY Y. GRAPPONE ELIZABETH M ELIZABETH L MURRAY DALEY KEVIN V ANTHONY J GRAPPONE 147 BELMONT ST 124 PEARL ST 55 FRANCIS ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK TRUSTEE SELFRIDGE JAMES W JR DAVENPORT PETER NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP BARBARA J SELFRIDGE 179 PEARL ST 1111 POLARIS PARKWAY 116 PEARL STREET READING, MA Ot 867 COLUMBUS, OH 43240 READING, MA 01867 . RANIERI DOMENICO A MALCOLM LORETTA M TURVEY ANTHONY E ROMILDA RANIERI 167 PEARL ST 5 BUNKER AVE 5 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 RANIERI DOMENICO A ZEEK DAVID A STABLER PATRICIA J ROMILDA RANIERI CATHY K ZEEK THOMAS G EVERS 5 DUCK RD 163 PEARL ST 49 WHITTIER ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 MELROSE, MA 02176 PRUITT STEPHEN W MCDONALD PAUL M RYAN SUZANNE M EILEEN K PRUITT NANCY A NICHOLS 78 CHARLES ST 27 AUDUBON RD 72 CHARLES ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 CONRAD JAMES RYCHLIK BERNARD A NUNAN THOMAS KIERAN ETAL TRS ELAINE T WEDGE JOSEPHINE R RYCHLIK THE THOMAS & CYNTHIA NUNAN T 154 CHARLES ST 167 BELMONT ST 854 MAPLE ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 CARLISLE, MA 01741 GENT PETER HOWARD ELIZABETH A LAMBRECHT RONALD C LESLIE GENT 197 PEARL ST JACQUELME.M MASON 27 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 187 PEARL ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 ~d0! 65 KAPODISTRIAS GEORGE GALLO STEPHEN HARIKLIA S APOSTOLOU LISA GALLO 18 DUCK RD 99 CHARLES ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA- 01867 GUANCI MATTHEW J REGAN JOSEPH P PATRICIA A GUANCI KATHRYN M REGAN 23 AUDUBON RD 144 CHARLES'ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 RAY DAVID J MACPHERSON GEORGE E MARY ELLEN RAY C/O ERIC I BURKHART 123 PEARL ST 161 BELMONT ST READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 SAVIANO MARIA DILENDICK ALEC W PATRICIA MCGARRY 34 COTTAGE ST 129 PEARL ST STONEHAM, MA 02180 READING, MA 01867 SWEENEY MICHAEL G BERSON HELEN MARRA D SWEENEY 147 PEARL ST 30 DUCK RD ' READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 CONNORS EDITH VAINER ELENA LINDA CONNORS ANDREY BELOUS 109 CHARLES ST 31 AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 LARKIN MICHAEL H ANN M LARKIN 28 AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 66 BEAULIEU ALAN D DONNA M BEAULIEU 153 BELMONT ST READING, MA 01867 WALDRON EVANS W ETAL TRS EWW REALTY TRUST 35.AUDUBON RD READING, MA 01867 WALSH DENIS D DEIRDRE BRADLEY 24 DUCK RD READING, MA 01867 BECKER KEITH P MARY ELLEN BECKER 126 CHARLES ST READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL ST READING, MA 01867 WINKLER THEISS E 66 LONGVIEW RD READING, MA 01867 Property Location Map-Lotid Assessed Value (fyl2) Lothrop Road 9-3 $159,600 Town Counsel: Parcel under. Water Department on Lothrop. The Water Department cannot hold title, so this may ,have been set aside for wellhead protection or some similar purpose and the Assessors labeled it as Water Dept. TM could authorize its use to be changed under c.40, sec. 15A from water purposes, and convey it to the BofS for purposes of conveyance. It's an unusually shaped lot which might support an application to vary the frontage if that would make it buildable. The Town Engineer confirms Water Department. control of this lot. Parcel frontage of 40.53 ft does not meet zoning requirements. Parcel abuts vacant state owned land (9-11) and touches the corner of a tax title lot (9-19). The land slopes u to the center of the lot and has no known wetlands. Control r, Water Department v. Utilities Sewer and water service on Lothrop Road. Zoning: S-2 0 Min. lot size Frontage. Setbacks w~- 20,000 sf 120' Front Side Rear Lot circle dia. 20' 15' 20' .4 N 80' _ Lot coverage ~r !tP h 25% J u, yy '"J} xir.. Sr. aL_f"° _ NLkn -•Jy vow_ { V y iETfle Water r ) ; i ( Y< 9-3 i "!~p f G 31,614 6f i . r \ O t;* Sewer Main . l CFA r Water Main 0 50 100 2010 Ft 1'.17 A to of i \ \ r \ \ 1 , \ . ; ~ . , \ ..III~J. ry~S+ \,.L1.-`h t } -fy p ~~,j~ \ ~ 7 WOBURN L~\\p~~\\ \ f ~ Recommended Actions • Have Town Meeting authorize change of _use • Convey parcel to Board of Selectmen for sale or reuse 8/18/2011 67 CIPRIANI JASON A JOHNSON PHILIP R TRUSTEE CATARINA A CIPRIANI PHILIP R JOHNSON TRUST 83 COUNTY RD 106 COUNTY RD READING; MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 BUCKLEY NORA E FABBRI MARIANNE 4 OVERLOOK ROAD 103 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 MURDOCK DAVID JR CERASUOLO MICHAEL A JOHANNA MURDOCK ROSE M CERASUOLO 75 COUNTY RD 41 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 GALLAGHER RICHARD P JR ANN M POWERS 79 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 CLARONI JAMES R BETH M CLARONI P 0 BOX 222 READING, MA 01867 FULLER FRANK R SHEILA C FULLER 5 JERE RD READING, MA 01867 KERRIGAN PAUL F NANCY W KERRIGAN 24 OVERLOOK RD READING, MA 01867 BROWN ROBERT J CHERYL A BROWN 67 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 CARDILLO KATHLEEN M TRUSTEE 10 OVERLOOK RD READING REALTY 10 OVERLOOK RD READING, MA 01867 ROSE RAYMOND C II LENORA A ROSE 58 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 FABBRI MARIANNE 103 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 NICHOLS CHERYL 117 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 COMMONWEALTH OF MASS COM. DEPT. OF ENVIRON. MANAGEM 100 CAMBRIDGE ST BOSTON, MA 02202 WILSON CHARLES E ANDREA E WILSON 88 WESCROFT RD READING, MA 01867 GREEKWOOD JOSEPH W GREEKWOOD ELIZABETH A 55 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 JOHNSON PHILIP R TRUSTEE PHILIP R JOHNSON TRUST 106 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 LAMBROFF MEREDITH A 74 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 )?,,A_l~ BOSC14ETTI DEBRA M TRUSTEE 6 EMERALD DR REALTY TRUST 6 EMERALD DR READING, MA 01867 KROUSE RICHARD J ETAL TRS KROUSE REALTY TRUST 26 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 MERRILL DAVID J 15 STURGES ST MEDFORD, MA 02155 HIGGINS LOUIS J ETAL TRS HIGGINS REALTY TRUST 25 EMERALD DRIVE READING, MA 01867 TRAUGER ALEX C LEANNE TRAUGER 107 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 . DOHERTY AUSTIN W CAROLYN M DOHERTY 14 EMERALD DR READING, MA 01867 CAMPBELL JOHN S HELEN L CAMPBELL 54 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 DIMAMBRO DAVID J BOUDETTE PAUL V RULE WILFRED P C/O GEBEYAW DEMEKE JENNIFER W BOUDETTE JANE E RULE 61 LOTHROP RD 48 LOTHROP RD 84 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 68 sd'~ CLARK ROBERT S JR PATCH JAMES H PACE VINCENT J JUDITH A CLARK EILEEN B PATCH MARY KAY PACE 9 EMERALD DR 78 COUNTY RD 40 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 GILLIS GARY C PIPITONE JOHN A CAMPBELL CHRISTOPHER R MARY L GILLIS CAMILLE M PIPITONE THERESA M CAMPBELL 11 LOTHROP RD 97 COUNTY RD 12 OVERLOOK ROAD READING, MA 01867. READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867, TOWN OF READING RIELLY THOMAS M JANGRO ROBERT E WATER DEPT. JODY A BERGEVIN JENNIFER K JANGRO 16 LOWELL ST 26 EMERALD DR 20 EMERALD DR READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING POWER JOHN 16 LOWELL ST 16 LOWELL ST LINDSAY FLAHERTY-POWER READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 34 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 CONDON JOSEPH C CZARNOTA JOHN J GRANT THOMAS D LINDA A CONDON ANNEMARIE CZARNOTA KATE E GRANT 29 LOTHROP ROAD 62 LOTHROP RD 15 LOTHROP RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 PUTNAM AVALON CARTER CO LLC OATES MARK J IENTILE JOSEPH V A MASS LTD LIABILITY CO MARY ELLEN GATES CARLA CROGNALE 12 PUTNAM RD 127 COUNTY ROAD 89 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 JOHNSON CHARLES R SEGAL JEAN M SHEMKUS JOHN J KATHLEEN K JOHNSON 98 COUNTY RD FRANCES M SHEMKUS 64 COUNTY RD READING MA 01867 128 COUNTY RD READING, MA 01867 , READING, MA 01867 sA 69 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2011-5 TOWN OF READING This is to certify that WILLIAM HECHT, 73 Martin Road, Reading, MA IS HEREBY GRANTED A SPECIAL ONE-DAY LICENSE TO SERVE ALCOHOL AT THE LIBRARY FOUNDATION ANNUAL RECOGNITION EVENT AT THE READING PUBLIC LIBRARY, 64 MIDDLESEX AVENUE TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 14, 2011 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. Under Chapter 138, Section 14, of the Liquor Control Act. Holders of one day licenses shall provide a bartender and/or servers who are trained and authorized to make decisions regarding continued service of alcoholic beverages to attendees. There shall be no self service of any alcoholic beverage at any event approved as a one day license. This permission is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating thereto and expires at 10:30 p.m. on October 14, 2011, unless suspended or revoked subject to the following conditions: 1. Liquor to be purchased from authorized distributor. 2. Liquor to be stored on site only before and after event. Date Issued: September 22, 2011 r .I ~w G bas TO: CPDC, ZBA, Conservation Commission, and Staff CC: Board of Selectmen, Town Clerk From: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Date: Thursday, September 15, 2011 Re: Site Visits As part of my work as a member of the Open Meeting Law Advisory Commission, the subject of site visits has come up and I wanted to give you some information on how they are treated under the Open Meeting Law. The Open Meeting law exempts "site visits" or "site inspections from the requirements of the Open Meeting Law: "Meeting"; a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body's jurisdiction; provided, however, "meeting" shall not include: (a) an on-site inspection of a project or program, so long as the members do not deliberate, The emphasis added is mine. The issue then arises as to how "deliberation" is defined. Deliberation is defined in the Open Meeting Law as follows: "Deliberation", an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; provided, however, that "deliberation" shall not include the distribution of a meeting agenda, scheduling information or distribution of other procedural meeting or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed. Practically what this means, at least to a lay person, is that for site inspections by a quorum of a "multiple member body", which the CPDC, ZBA, and Conservation Commission are, you may and probably should do site visits to see what the situation 71 q -a' is "on the ground" for applications that you are ~ onsideringl. During a site visit, board Comment[ecDI]: Peter this -1 sentence must be reworked. J members may not discuss what they find in the site visit; members may not share their opinions about any aspect of the site; and no testimony may be taken. Only administrative matters, such as the date for the next meeting, may be discussed during a site visit. 6(0-1 72 /c ~Os v Y d 7~i1~/ V 'LlG4C/j x 6 Y/" ~ . Deval L. Patrick Governor Thom G. Gatzunis, P.E. Timothy P. Murray Lieutenant Governor ~QCl' 7 C mmissioner Mary Elizabeth Heffernan Secretary / GIXIJfI,~ 711tlttdt~ Tnas P. Hopkins Director 22 September 16, A 1 Joan Miller 1381 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Notice of Action of the Board; 5 Senses School, 1381 Main Street, Reading, MA; Docket Number V08-119 Dear Ms. Miller, The Architectural Access Board ("Board") has received your September 6, 2.011 e-mail, regarding an extension to the previously ordered September 1, 2011 amended decision of the Board. Said decision ordered that the Board would "GRANT until September 1, 2011 for either an accessible entrance (521 CMR 25.1) to the first floor of the school or an accessible at-grade entrance into the basement level with a means of compliant vertical access to the first floor (521 CMR 28.1) to be completed and verified as such, with both written and visual verification, by said date." Your email stated that due to delays with the Town of Reading, due to plans and permitting, the project would be finished once all of these matters were resolved with the Town. The Board reviewed your submittal during an administrative discussion at their regularly scheduled September 12, 2011 meeting and voted as follows: Based on the fact that this case has been ongoing since 2008, GRANT a final extension to the date of compliance to January 1, 2012 for an accessible entrance (521 CMR 25.1) to the first floor of the school, via the proposed ramp, to be completed and verified as such, with both written and visual verification, by said date, or the business will be closed starting January 3, 2012. The Board also required that a copy of this decision be sent to the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Selectmen, in addition to the Local Building Inspector,- Local Independent Living Center, and Local Commission on Disability. Page 1 2 f S:\AAB\tCSutton\Agenda's and Results\DECISIONS\2011\091211\5 Senses School, 1381 Main St., Reading-AMENDED 091211.doc IJ., 73 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD By: Donald Lang, Chairman %4~jox-' Diane McLeod, Vice Chair Andrew Bedar, Member Gerald LeBlanc, Member )-7zlr 0- Myra Berloff, Director of Massachusetts Office on Disability Carol Steinberg, Member oWad 4~-x~ D.-Mark Trivett, Member Walter White, Executive Office of Public Safety Designee (not present) A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Architectural Access Board. cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission Independent Living Centers Reading Board of Selectmen Reading Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 2 S.\AAB\KSutton\Agenda's and Results\DECISIONS\20111091211\5 Senses School, 1381 Main St, Reading- AMENDED 091211.doc V' TJ 74