Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-07 Board of Selectmen PacketOFF? Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, NIA 01867 -2685 90 lNCO4Q 0� FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942 -9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: August 2, 2012 RE: Agenda — August 7, 2012 la) I am requesting an Executive Session with the Board of Selectmen on three real estate issues. A separate memo covers this. 4) There are three Eagle Scout candidates who will be having their Courts of Honor together at Killam School on August 11th. We will have certificates prepared for the Scouts. Are any of the Selectmen available to attend the Court of Honor? 6a) Enclosed in your packet is the Warrant for the State Election on September 6th This needs to be approved by the Board of Selectmen. 6b) Enclosed in your packet is a two page summary of power point slides that I will be using on Tuesday night, as well as a copy of the power point presentation made by residents back in April. Following discussion, if the Board agrees to these or other changes to traffic flow and stop intersections, these will require a public hearing which I would recommend scheduling for August 21St 6c) Enclosed in your packet is information regarding new conservation regulations. We're working to try to develop them in a format where you can easily see the changes. The Conservation Commission representatives will be in to review the proposed regulations. The process following discussion with the Board of Selectmen will be any further modifications needed and then review by Counsel, final draft, and a public hearing. We hope to have in your packet a single document that is an underline and cross out version of the existing regulations and which will clarify the proposals from the Commission. 6d) Having worked with the Demolition Delay Bylaw Working Group, I have produced a draft Historic Demolition Delay Bylaw. Because the changes were so extensive, it was not practical to do this in a track change format. Town Counsel is currently reviewing this document and I hope to have any comments from Town Counsel before your meeting on Tuesday. Attached to the document are two charts — one shows the existing process and one shows a proposed process. I have also sent these documents to the Demolition Delay Bylaw Working Group and they may or may not have comments on Tuesday. Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Barnes, Lauren (HOU) [Lauren. Barnes @mahouse.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:13 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Chapter 175 of the Acts of 2012 - Reading Easement Attachments: Chapter 175 Acts of 2012.pdf Page 1 of 1 C T6,, W �'A 1,- do` Good evening Peter, Attached, please find a copy of Chapter 175 of the Acts of 2012, An Act Authorizing The Town Of Reading To Grant A Utility Easement Over Certain Parcels Of Land. Please feel free to contact us with any questions about this or any other matter. Regards, Lauren Latifen J. Bames Depiity Chief of Staff House. Minority Leader Bradley 1-1. Jones, Jr. State 11c u -se, Room 12 Boston, MA 02133 (617) 722 -2100 8/1/2012 CP C-1 ( H 4170 Chapter 17 T H E C O M M O N W E A L T H O F M A S S A C H U S E T T S In the Year Two Thousand and Twelve AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF READING TO GRANT A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. For the purpose of upgrading the town's water distribution system, the town of Reading, acting by and through its board of selectmen, with the approval of the conservation commission, may grant a utility easement for the construction, maintenance, repair and operation of utilities over, across and upon certain land known as Timberneck Swamp which is held for conservation and open space purposes in the town of Reading. The proposed i utility easement shall support the pre- existing sewer main and the proposed new 8 inch water main, running parallel, and shall connect Ivy lane to Belmont street in order to improve the current deficient fire flows, water quality and pressure loss in that area.. The easement, extending 711.85 feet by 30 feet in width, and containing 20,977.06 square feet across the 2 parcels of land held for conservation purposes, is shown on a plan entitled "Town of Reading Massachusetts Department of Public Works Utility Easement Belmont Street to Ivy Lane ", prepared by the department of public works engineering division and dated May 29, 2012. The 2 adjoining conservation parcels shown on such plan are shown on the assessors maps as lot 5 on map 29 and lot 194 on map 28. The first parcel, containing 7.0197 acres, is described in an order of taking by the town of Reading for conservation purposes dated March 14, 1972 and recorded in the Middlesex southern district registry of deeds in book 12170, page 436. The second parcel, purchased by the town for conservation purposes and containing 30.4811 acres, is described in a deed dated September 2, 1975 and recorded in said Middlesex southern district registry of deeds in book 12854, page 269. The parcels are also shown as Lot B and Lot 1 on a plan entitled "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass. Timberneck Swamp and Environs" dated May, 1973, prepared by H. Kingman Abbott, Registered Surveyor, and recorded in said southern district registry of deeds as plan 983 of 1974. SECTION 2. As a condition for the conveyance authorized in section 1, the town of Reading shall transfer a parcel of land under the care, custody, management and control of the board of selectmen and dedicated for general municipal purposes to the conservation commission and such parcel shall be dedicated for conservation purposes. If no suitable parcel shall be available for transfer to the conservation commission, the town shall acquire a parcel C_ Z_ H 4170 of land or place a conservation restriction upon private or public land as provided in section 31 of chapter 184 of the General Laws. Any such land acquired or restricted shall be under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission and shall be dedicated or restricted for conservation purposes. The parcel dedicated, acquired or restricted pursuant to this section shall be of equal or greater size and value for conservation, park or water supply purposes than the parcel described in said section 1. SECTION 3. If the land conveyed pursuant to section 1 ceases to be used for the purposes described in said section 1, the land shall revert to the town of Reading for conservation, park or water supply purposes. SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage. i House of Representatives, July �j , 2012. t Passed to be enacted, L,` speaker. In Sen �� July vriP , 2012. Passed to be enacted, President. 2012. Approved, at o'clock and minutes, M. Govern G3 2 F3 3 ,--T. /,W76 4,-T.-1 The Top 10 Management Characteristics Of Highly Rated U Public Primary Credit Analyst: John Sugden, New York (1) 212- 438 -1678; john _sugden @standardandpoors.com Secondary Contact: Robin Prunty, New York (1) 212- 438 -2081; robin _prunty@standardandpoors.com Table Of Contents Top 10 List 2G The Top 10 Management : Highly Rated U.S. ;: (Editor's Note: This is an updated version of an article published July 26, 2010.) U.S. public finance issuers are a varied group, but the management practices of the strongest borrowers show some distinct commonalities. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has widely disseminated to investors and issuers its approach for assigning credit ratings in U.S. public finance (see "USPF Criteria: State Ratings Methodology," published Jan. 3, 2011; and "USPF Criteria: GO Debt," published Oct. 12, 2006, on RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal). We have also developed representative ranges for key ratios that factor into our analysis of tax - backed credit quality (see "USPF Criteria: Key General Obligation Ratio Credit Ranges — Analysis Vs. Reality," published April 2, 2008). Although these ratios are the foundation of the quantitative measures Standard & Poor's uses when assigning a credit rating, Standard & Poor's also relies on qualitative factors to inform our credit analysis. In 2006, Standard & Poor's released its Financial Management Assessment, which offers a more transparent assessment of a government's financial practices, as an integral part of our credit rating process (see "Financial Management Assessment," published June 27, 2006). Our view of management factors, administrative characteristics, and other structural issues facing a government entity may be an overriding factor in a rating outcome. We view management as contributing significantly to many of the individual credit ratios, which can positively affect ratings in a number of ways. On the whole, state and local governments have made many improvements to budget structure, reserve policies, and debt management during prior periods of budget stress. Whether these practices are developed as part of a comprehensive risk management plan or individually, they have, in our view, generally enhanced government's ability to manage through downturns and have contributed to credit stability over time. Conversely, we believe that the lack of strong management can be a significant factor in a weak credit profile. In our opinion, while the economy remains a key factor in assigning a rating level, our view of management and the institutional framework is usually one of the deciding factors in fine- tuning the rating. When assessing management, Standard & Poor's analyzes the political and fiscal framework that governs it, as well as the day -to -day management procedures and policies. There could be a strong management team in place, but if there is political instability or lack of political will to make difficult decisions, we have found that management could be WWWSTANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT Z� The Top 10 Management Characteristics Of Highly Rated U.S. Public Finance Issuers ineffective in many cases. Standard & Poor's also focuses on the "whole of government." Our view of oversight and management controls covering the disparate operations of a government with a focus on accountability at each department or function is critical to strong credit ratings. The following "Top 10" list of management characteristics associated with Standard & Poor's highly rated issuers is generally applicable to state and local governments as well as to other enterprise operations of government such as water, sewer, or solid waste. The relative importance of these factors may vary from issuer to issuer. Our view of credibility is an important part of a rating review process and management assessment. Every government has challenges, but we believe that identifying problems or issues and detailing how these will be addressed establish credibility and greater transparency in the rating process. Tr p 10 List 1. Focus on structural balance In our view, a structurally balanced budget is an essential characteristic of highly rated credits. There are many views of what constitutes a balanced budget. For some governments, a budget is balanced if current revenues plus available reserves match or exceed current expenditures. From Standard & Poor's standpoint, a budget is balanced if recurring revenues match recurring expenditures. In evaluating whether or not a budget is balanced, we analyze the underlying revenue and expenditure assumptions. We might not have a positive view of a budget that relies on optimistic revenue assumptions relative to the current economic environment to meet recurring expenditures. We consider recurring expenditures all of those that are typically incurred year after year and are required as part of a government's normal ongoing operations. This includes salaries, debt service, and pension payments among others. Consistent with our analysis of revenues, expenditure assumptions that rely on debt restructuring for budgetary savings, deferral of ongoing expenditures, and saving assumptions that have significant implementation risks could also color our view of whether a budget is balanced or not. A government's ability to maintain or quickly return to structural balance during a period of economic weakness can lead us to affirm or raise an issuer credit rating. The opposite is also true. Reliance primarily on one -time measures without the appropriate re- alignment of revenues and expenditures could cause us to lower the ratings. 2. Strong liquidity management An additional credit quality factor is management's ability to manage its cash flow and identify potential issues, internal or external, that could lead to a liquidity crunch. Potential for inadequate liquidity serves as a bellwether to the risk of immediate and potentially severe credit deterioration, particularly for those with significant budget misalignments and issuers of certain types of variable -rate debt, in our view. Ultimately, the possibility of having insufficient money to meet debt obligations is at the heart of our credit analysis. In the few instances where state or local governments may encounter genuine credit distress, it is likely accompanied and possibly exacerbated by problems with liquidity. Access to additional sources of internal or external liquidity and a plan on how, when, and in what amounts to access these, are a credit positive. However, just having access to additional liquidity, either through pooled cash or loans from other funds, is not enough. The absence of clear accountability as to where the cash is coming from or when it will be paid back could create uncertainty about the sustainability of the cash flow and the JULY 23, 3013 3 S6(.0 The Top 10 Management Characteristics Of Highly Rated U.S. Public Finance Issuers potential implications of reallocating the cash from one use to the other. In addition, some obligors' debt profiles include liquidity risk exposure tied to variable -rate demand obligations, alternative financing products, and other debt instruments. Under some of these structures, the potential for accelerated repayment causing sudden and significant demands on an issuer's liquidity could have credit implications (see "The Appeal Of Alternative Financing Is Not Without Risk For Municipal Issuers," May 17, 2011). We have found that management teams of highly rated credits are able to limit, mitigate, or develop a careful plan to manage the potential exposure to these liquidity demands. 3. Regular economic and revenue updates to identify shortfalls early In our experience, having a formal mechanism to monitor economic trends and revenue performance at regular intervals is a key feature of stable financial performance. This is particularly true in the case of states, which we have observed tend to exhibit revenue declines during economic downturns because they rely on personal income tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, and other economically sensitive sources. We believe that evaluating historical performance of certain revenues is important to this analysis because each government will have different leading or lagging economic indicators that signal potential revenue variance issues based on its economic structure. The earlier revenue weakness is identified in the fiscal year, the more effective, in our view, the budget balancing response can be. We think it is important to monitor upside growth as well. In our opinion, it is also important to understand a surge in revenues to determine if the trend is an aberration or something that is likely to sustain. 4. An established rainy day /budget stabilization reserve A formalized financial reserve policy is a consistent feature of most of Standard & Poor's highly rated credits. For some governments, such a policy has been standard operating procedure for decades. Others focused attention on this as a risk management tool following the recessions of the early 1990s, 2001, and especially the Great Recession when the country experienced sustained revenue weakness that required severe budget reduction measures. In our view, reserves provide financial flexibility to react to budget shortfalls or other unforeseen circumstances in a timely manner. No one level or type of reserve is considered optimal from Standard & Poor's perspective. We have seen many different types of reserves factor into an improved government credit profile. In our view, some important factors government officials generally consider when establishing a reserve are: • The government's cash flow /operating requirements; • The historical volatility of revenues and expenditures through economic cycles; • Susceptibility to natural disaster events; • Whether the fund will be a legal requirement or an informal policy; • Whether formal policies are established outlining under what circumstances reserves can be drawn down; and • Whether there will be a mechanism to rebuild reserves once they are used. In our view, the use of budget stabilization reserves is not in and of itself a credit weakness. The reserves are in place to be used. However, we believe that a balanced approach to using reserves is important in most cases, because full depletion of reserves in one year without any other budget adjustments creates a structural budget gap in the following year if economic trends continue to be weak. As they've done in the past, state and local governments are re- examining their fund balance reserve policies to determine their adequacy and, in many cases, have adjusted their funding targets. JULY 23, 2013 4 ZG� The Top 10 Management Characteristics Of Highly Rated U.S. Public Finance Issuers 5. Prioritized spending plans and established contingency plans for operating budgets We have found that contingency planning is an ongoing exercise for most highly rated governments. Prioritized spending and contingency plans have always been important risk management tools that allow state and local governments to adjust to changes in the economic and revenue environment. In our analysis, we consider whether a government has contingency plans and options to address changing economic conditions, intergovernmental fund shifts, and budget imbalance when it occurs. This would include an analysis of the following: • What part of the budget is discretionary; • What spending areas can be legally or practically reduced; • The time frame necessary to achieve reductions of various programs; • Where revenue flexibility exists; and • An analysis of revenue under varying economic and policy scenarios. 6. Strong long -term and contingent liability management In our view, recognition and management of long -term and contingent liabilities are characteristics of highly rated credits. We continue to incorporate governmental liability management into our rating analysis, as we have for decades, with an emphasis on how liabilities are managed over time (see "Contingent Liquidity Risks In U.S. Public Finance Instruments: Methodology And Assumptions," March 5, 2012). In particular, Standard & Poor's views pension and other postemployment benefit obligations as long -term liabilities (see "The Decline In U.S. States' Pension Funding Decelerates, But Reform And Reporting Issues Loom Large," June 21, 2012; and "The OPEB Burden Varies Widely Among U.S. States," published Sept. 22, 2011). While the funding schedule for pension and OPEB can be more flexible than that for a fixed -debt repayment, it can also be more volatile and may cause fiscal stress if not managed, in our opinion. The size of the unfunded liabilities and the annual costs associated with funding them, relative to the budget, are important credit factors in our review of state and local governments. Currently, pension systems are undergoing the most significant level of reform in decades, which we view as a credit positive and highlights the importance of managing these liabilities. We will continue to differentiate credits where these long -term liabilities are large and growing, contributions are less than required, and there has been limited action on reform initiatives. Non - essential areas of government operations and services that may fall out of the traditional general fund focus could also result in contingent liabilities and create budget pressures, if not properly managed. Stadiums, convention centers, and health care entities, as well as various other enterprise operations, could also cause funding challenges at the local level, even when there is no clear guarantee or legal responsibility for the government to provide funding. At the state level, we believe that local government fiscal difficulties can increase and become a funding and policy challenge for the state. 7. A multiyear financial plan in place that considers the affordability of actions or plans before they are part of the annual budget In our analysis, we consider whether this plan is comprehensive. During a sustained economic recovery, we see program enhancements and tax reductions as typical. We believe that pension funds that performed at record levels provided incentive to expand or enhance benefits. Elected officials will be ultimately responsible for the decisions necessary to restore out -year budget balance. In our view, even when there is legal authority to raise taxes, there may not be a practical ability to do so because it can be politically unpopular. Having detailed information on costs associated with various policy decisions can provide greater transparency to the budget process, in our view. We WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT JULY 23, 2012 5 aG� The Top 10 Management Characteristics Of Highly Rated U.S. Public Finance Issuers consider multiyear planning as an important part of this process. Standard & Poor's realizes that the out -years of a multiyear plan are subject to significant change. They provide a model to evaluate how various budget initiatives affect out -year revenues, spending, and reserve levels. These plans will often have out -year gaps projected, which we believe allows governments to work out, in advance, the optimal method of restoring fiscal balance. 8. A formal debt management policy in place to evaluate future debt profile In the past decade, many states and local governments have developed debt affordability guidelines or models, which we regard as a positive development. This affordability analysis generally includes a systematic review of existing and proposed debt, and how they will affect a government's future financial profile. In many cases, these policies address exposure to variable -rate debt, swaps, and other contingent liabilities: They can also include criteria for when refunding bonds are allowed, amortization periods, and what types of projects can be funded through debt issuance. The affordability measures are typically tied to a government's revenues or expenditures, debt per capita, and debt per capita as a percent of either gross state product (states) or market value (local governments). The impact of these policies on a long -term credit rating will depend on our view of how the government establishes and uses the policies, and the track record in adhering to the affordability parameters established in the policies, especially during economic downturns. We believe the process enhances the capital budgeting and related policy decisions regarding debt issuance and amortization. In our view, these policies have moderated leverage at the state and local level. 9. A pay -as- you -go financing strategy as part of the operating and capital budget In our opinion, pay -as- you -go financing can be a sound financing policy. Not only does it lower debt service costs, but it also provides operating budget flexibility when the economy or revenue growth slows. We see the use of pay -as- you -go financing as a more significant funding option when tax revenue growth is uncertain, given the fact that pay -as- you -go financing may provide additional budget flexibility in an uncertain revenue environment. Depending on the government's overall balance -sheet profile, we believe that the government can achieve a better match between nonrecurring revenues and nonrecurring expenditures if it uses this type of financing. 10. A well - defined and coordinated economic development strategy In addition to historical economic trends, we consider each government's economic development initiatives and future growth prospects as they are likely to affect future revenue - generating capacity. Effective economic development programs typically take a long time to implement. We believe that the question for many state and local governments now is not whether there should be a formal economic development program, but rather how significant a resource commitment should be dedicated to running these programs and offering incentives. These are government policy decisions involving cost benefit analysis that are generally outside the credit rating process. However, if these economic development programs and strategies create employment, enhance diversification, and generate solid income growth, they could have a positive effect on a government credit rating over the long term. To the extent that there is a net revenue benefit to a government, this could also be a positive credit factor. We have seen economic development programs expand in the past 20 years with strategies increasingly becoming regional in nature, with a more coordinated approach between state and local governments. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.C,OM/RATINGSDIRECT Copyright © 2012 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit - related analyses and data, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S &P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S &P and any third -party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S &P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S &P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S &P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S &P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit - related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S &P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S &P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and /or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S &P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S &P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S &P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S &P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S &P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S &P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S &P may have information that is not available to other S &P business units. S &P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S &P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S &P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S &P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S &P publications and third -party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. JULY 23, 2012 7 Robert Whelan BSA Unit Commissioner for Reading, Mass; Boston Minuteman Council 609 Summer Ave Reading, MA 01867 July 15, 2012 Peter Hechenblelkner Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenblelkner: The Scouts, Leaders and Committee members of the Boy Scout Troop 728 take great pleasure in announcing that: Having completed the requirements for, and having been examined by an Eagle Scout Board of Review Zachary Robert Whelan Was found worthy of the rank of Eagle Scout. In honor of this achievement, we have scheduled an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for August 11, 2012 at the r, Reading, Massachusetts. l� J!. "Ifg " VQ4 CM, A We would appreciate a letter or certificate acknowledging his achievement. We will compile it with other acknowledgments and place in a commemorative book noting this special occasion. A self addressed stamped envelope is included for your convenience. Thank you for taking time from your extremely busy schedule to help this community recognize the achievements and service of Troop 728's newest Eagle Scout Zachary Robert Whelan. Sincerely, Robert Whelan Va. t Robert Whelan Member of Troop Committee, Troop 728 Reading Massachusetts 609 Summer Ave Reading, MA 01867 July 15, 2012 Peter Hechenblelkner Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenblelkner: The Scouts, Leaders and Members of the Committee Boy Scout Troop 728 take great pleasure in announcing that: Having completed the requirements for, and having been examined by an Eagle Scout Board of Review Thomas Andrew Bishop Was found worthy of the rank of Eagle Scout. In honor of this achievement, we have scheduled an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for August 11, 2012 at the eRier- eemt ", Reading, Massachusetts. Wr 114 +" J-C o a L We would appreciate a letter or certificate acknowledging his achievement. We will compile it with other acknowledgments and place in a commemorative book noting this special occasion. Thank you for taking time from your extremely busy schedule to help this community recognize the achievements and service of Eagle Scout Thomas Andrew Bishop. Sincerely, Rob t Whelan ��v Robert Whelan BSA Unit Commissioner for Reading, Mass; Boston Minuteman Council 609 Summer Ave Reading, MA 01867 oo July 15, 2012 Peter Hechenblelkner Town Manager Town Hall %P�_ V 1� 16 Lowell Street °t Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenblelkner: C The Scouts, Leaders and Committee members of the Boy Scout Troop 728 take great pleasure in announcing that: Having completed the requirements for, and having been examined by an Eagle Scout Board of Review Kyle James Krupa Was found worthy of the rank of Eagle Scout. In honor of this achievement, we have scheduled an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for August 11, 2012 at the &efritrr e = , Reading, Massachusetts. �•� We would appreciate a letter or certificate acknowledging his achievement. We will compile it with other acknowledgments and place in a commemorative book noting this special occasion. A self addressed stamped envelope is included for your convenience. Thank you for taking time from your extremely busy schedule to help this community recognize the achievements and service of Troop 728's newest Eagle Scout Kyle James Krupa. Sincerely, Z;P' ku�� Robert Whelan Kyle r pa`s Eagle Scout Project! Mwical whetel Perlormancei by: S Agnes ChUrd-i WobUrn Street In The Makin Pr Donations of the IiAed item# are highly encouraged ged F r iriq Flans Pizza Paris Cake Paris Loaf Paris Tea Kettles Hand Mixer Coffee Pots LII,)c a f -, Al-i ns 'cat old(, - =rs Sauce Paris Colanders c-)a stern Dish Towel "MUST BE IN GOOD CONDITION! For more information on donations or volunteer information, please contact Kyle Krupa via Facebook or at I S rwi iams @co : �t.n t q 0'A September 6, 2012 State Primary Warrant COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on August , 2012 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 Reading: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Precinct 2 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Precinct 3 Reading Municipal Light Department, 230 Ash Street Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Precinct 5 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Precinct 6 Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue Precinct 7 Birch Meadow School, 27 Arthur B Lord Drive Precinct 8 Wood End School, 85 Sunset Rock Lane Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street The date of posting being not less than seven (7) days prior to September 6, 2012 the date set for the State Primary Election in this Warrant. I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be posted on the Town of Reading web site. A true copy Attest: Laura Gemme, Town Clerk Constable �C, t COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATE PRIMARY ELECTION WARRANT MIDDLESEX, SS. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading who are qualified to vote in the State Primary Election to vote at Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Reading Memorial High School - Hawkes Field House - Oakland Road on THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012, from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Primaries for the candidates of political parties for the following offices: SENATOR IN CONGRESS ......................... REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS.......... COUNCILLOR.............. ............................... SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT .............. REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT CLERK OF COURTS ... ............................... REGISTER OF DEEDS ............................... SHERIFF (TO FILL VACANCY) .................. ._ ............................... FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH ................................ ............................... SIXTH DISTRICT ................................ ............................... SIXTH DISTRICT .......... ............................... FIFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT TWENTIETH AND THIRTIETH MIDDLESEX DISTRICTS ..................... ............................... MIDDLESEX DISTRICT ............................... MIDDLESEX SOUTHERN DISTRICT . ............................... ......................MIDDLESEX COUNTY Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting. Given under our hands this 7th day of August, 2012 A true copy Attest: Laura A Gemme, Town Clerk Stephen A Goldy, Chair Ben Tafoya, Vice Chair Richard W Schubert, Secretary James E Bonazoli John J Arena BOARD OF SELECTMEN Constable ��Z Resident Requests for Green Street • Continue to allow safe parking, but improve traffic flow. • Remove snow from the area and use town equipment to plow snow from the sidewalks - snow that is deposited there by town plows. This would enable pedestrians to walk on the sidewalk instead of the road. • Conduct a study of Green St. The question of making Green St. one -way from Ash St. to the Depot requires additional study. • Either enforce the law, or change the access. Traffic continues to flow in both directions on the one -way stretch (from Ash to Main St.). Resident Requests for Ash Street • Make the intersection at Ash and Green Streets a four -way stop and paint crosswalks. • Ticket offenders who park illegally and disobey stop signs. • Paint the curbs yellow where parking is illegal. • Install a convex mirror to aid traffic turning onto Ash St. from Gould St. Ot 1 PTTTF Recommendations — Green St. ✓ Continue to allow safe parking, but improve traffic flow. Keep all parking regulations the same • Remove snow from the area and use town equipment to plow snow from the sidewalks Do not recommend for financial reasons, and will not be necessary if street is one way ✓ Conduct a study of Green St. The question of making Green St. one -way from Ash St. to the Depot. Recommend making all of Green from main to High 1 way westbound ✓ Either enforce the law, or change the access. Traffic continues to flow in both directions on the one -way stretch (from Ash to Main St.). Recommend keeping restrictions and continued enforcement — may improve signage. PTTTF Recommendations — Ash St. ✓ Make the intersection at Ash and Green Streets a four -way stop and paint crosswalks. Recommend makina an "all wav" stop intersection — aint crosswaiKS wnere tne, only ✓ Ticket offenders who park illegally and disobey stop signs. Continue parking /traffic enforcement • Paint the curbs yellow where parking is illegal. Recommend not aaintina curbina — not effective in snow • Install a convex mirror to aid traffic turning onto Ash St. from Gould St. Do not recommend — location where it would be effective. Recommend considerina Heavv Vehicle Exclusion on Gould �B Z 2 PROPOSED ONE -WAY REEN STREET (ASH STREET WESTBOUND TO HIGH STREE7 MAP PRODUCED BY, TOWN OFREADING yp qp Ifip ENGINEERING DIVISION, AUGUST 2, 2012 Fec� V \a � e kk 0 Traffic Issues � &� � 29,vd2 V� s our property. v Now, about the facts. gv% • Traffic flowed two -way on the section from Washington St. to Green, then one -way down from American Legion to Green St. • There was no access at the north end of Ash to Main St. • Result: Lower speeds and less traffic. x o Pedestrians could safely use the sidewalks and E cross any roads. A _I- ni RA-:- n+ )l. Aerial photograph from Google Maps o Traffic flows two -way from Main St. to Washington St. Result: New intersection at Ash St. and Main St. where traffic can enter and exit. Increased traffic. Drivers are now using Upper Ash St. to bypass lights and traffic on Main St. Vehicles traveling at much higher speeds. A street is so narrow that drivers won't stay in correct lanes. �y Illegal parking. 1z o Traffic flows two-way For traffic from Gould... turning onto Ash St. there is not enough room to make the turn nor is there good visibility. I ffi-w iL ffi-w Fall • A N, it Al- -P, Fall • The next two slides show northbound traffic turning from Ash St. onto Green St. C- c� J Sr.. k. »... ., � i .. >. �. , ," _..ia.. Car accidents from cars traveling westbound too fast turning from Ash St. onto Green St. s a o Property Damage from s1 a w u ..�. h. a� r Ir Ul- (4T— W E` a x R a..,„„ =6' o,. e ,� .... �1...r «..+� Lf: .., , e..m .. w � ..P .'... ,y.w� �v'�i.✓_/�.. w-v- - �w !r. "i:m 'Yerr ....�.,.. Green St. is largely unchanged as to its configuration and use. o Green St. from Ash St. to the Depot has always been used for commuter rail and bus parking. Economic factors have increased ridership on Commuter Rail - the number of vehicles that park here on a weekly basis has increased. 6' 4A o Green St. from Ash St. to the Depot is a two-wav street with Darkina. Let's look at the road itself and compare it to surrounding streets, E;- Gr4��-,q st s, 35 &Een st 104 y'J 0 f, an, 221 lw,�W ; , 191, so 114 Asti Ta to Satellite Ttaffic C.) N, - - - -- - ----------- ------- ----------- -- -- -- -- AV CC ON- 1, t,wh I zp, I Za "Olou fli 7-8 Gcnjld SI F", te G,01 71- "A tt A 4 is 77 A!sh Fi 81 Ash t t4 Gr4��-,q st s, 35 &Een st 104 y'J 0 f, an, 221 lw,�W ; , 191, so 114 Asti Ta to Satellite Ttaffic C.) Al -3, o Recent construction at Willwerth Plumbing Inc. has reduced the number of parking spaces for company vehicles in their lot. These vehicles now park on Green St. This reduces the available spaces for commuters. 4ET- (35 g n a L k g tj 16 Green St. from Main St. to Ash is one -way westbound. N (1raan _1t . ■ • . d r Traffic continues to flow in both directions on the one-way stretch (from Ash to Main St.). Either enforce the law on Green St. to discourage lawbreakers, or make this street a legal two- way street. .. - �.. Install a convex mirror to aid traffic turning onto Ash St. from Gould St. c� N Town of Reading, Massachusetts Conservation Commission Wetlands Protection Regulations March 2010 Authorized by READING GENERAL BYLAWS - SECTION 5.7 August 2012 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The citizens of the Town of Reading, Massachusetts, through Town Meeting action, gave the Conservation Commission power to regulate and protect wetlands and floodplains by adding Section 5.7, Wetlands Protection, to the Reading General Bylaws. This Amendment to the Town Bylaws was approved by the Massachusetts Attorney General on February 29, 1980. All filings made under the Wetlands Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40) are also subject to the Town of Reading General Bylaws, Section 5.7. Some projects not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act may still be subject to Section 5.7. From time to time and after a public hearing, the Commission amends the Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations. Amendments are intended to formalize actions that the Commission has taken to address recurrent issues, to clarify the language used in the regulations, and to maintain consistency with changes made by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Wetlands Protection Act and its accompanying regulations, Title 310, Code, Mass. Regulations, Section 10.00. The amendments are based on the current body of experience and knowledge that the Commission has accumulated in implementing both the Act and the Wetlands Protection Regulations. The amendments are also based on new scientific and regulatory literature and workshops promulgated by the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The amendments are intended to further clarify and streamline the regulatory process, to be more Deleted: Effective Date. March 22 Deleted: 0 6cl consistent with aspects of the State regulations, and to protect specific resources in Reading that are not well addressed in the statewide wetlands protection regulations. Submission guidelines and forms are available through the office of the Conservation Commission at the Reading Town Hall. These guidelines are intended to maximize efficiency in project review, minimize post - application redesign, and minimize delay in the permitting process. The Reading Conservation Commission recognizes that environmental review is a site - specific process. The submission guidelines are therefore intended to be taken as guidelines in the broadest sense. The Commission intends that consultants have maximum flexibility in design and freedom to employ innovative techniques to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Pre - application conferences and site visits are strongly encouraged. 6 G2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section I INTRODUCTION 1 -2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 -4 Section 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS 5 -11 A. Authority 5 B. Purpose 5 C. Jurisdiction 5 D. Filing Fees 6 -7 E. Variance from Regulations 8 F. Burden of Proof 8 G. Emergencies 9 H. Enforcement (Fine Schedule) 9 -11 Section 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS 12 -22 A. General 12 B. Banks 12 C. Fresh Water Wetlands 12 -13 D. Zone of Natural Vegetation 13 -14 E. Land Subject to Flooding 14 -15 F. Land Under Water 15 G. Riverfront Area 15 H. Public and Private Water Supply 15 I. Side Slope Grades Near Wetlands 16 J. Vernal Pools 16 -19 K. Wildlife Habitat 19 -21 L. Erosion Control 21 M. Crossing of Wetlands 21 N. Stormwater Runoff 22 O. Discharge of Runoff into Resource Areas 22 Section 4 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY 23 -25 A. General 23 B. Filing Procedure 23 C. Public Meeting 23 D. Determination of Applicability 23 E. Appeal of Determination of Applicability 23 F. Work Pending Appeal 24 G. Minor Projects 24 -25 3 ��3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 6Gj Page Section 5 NOTICE OF INTENT 26 -30 A. General 26 B. Abbreviated Notices 26 -28 C. Filing Procedure 28 -29 D. Administrative Review for Completeness 29 E. Public Hearings 29 F. Decision 29 -30 Section 6 PLANS AND TECHNICAL DATA 31 -33 A. General 31 B. Minimum Requirements 31 -33 Section 7 ORDER OF CONDITIONS and ORDER OF 34 -36 RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION A. Definition 34 B. Pre - Construction Requirements 34 C. Copies 34 D. Requests for Plan Change 35 E. Extensions 35 -36 F. Appeals 36 Section 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 37 -38 A. Definition 37 B. Request 37 C. Decision 37 D. Burden of Proof 38 Section 9 SECURITY 38 Section 10 CONSULTANT FEE 38 -39 Section 11 SEVERABILITY 39 Section 12 DEFINITIONS 40 -45 INDEX 46 -48 4 6Gj SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Authority 1. These Regulations are promulgated under the authority of the Home Rule Amendment of Article LXXXIX (89), of the amendments of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1966 and Section 5.7 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading ( "the Bylaw "), and shall be effective upon the fulfillment of all legal requirements. B. Purpose 1. These Regulations are promulgated to create uniformity of process and to clarify and define the provisions of the Town of Reading Wetlands Protection Bylaw. C. Jurisdiction AREAS SUBJECT TO PROTECTION UNDER THE BYLAW (Resource Areas):): Consistent with 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c) 1 and 2, any ikny bank; any fresh water wetland including marsh, meadow, bog, or�wamp which has at least two of the following attributes: 1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly ydrophytic vegetation; 2)the substrate in the uppermost foot is predominantly undrained hydric soill; 3) the substrate is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year ; any creek, river, stream, pond (including vernal pool), or lake whether permanent or intermittent; any land under water bodies; any land within one hundred feet of any of the preceding resource areas; any land subject to flooding; and any riverfront area. 2. ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THE BYLAW: Any activity proposed or undertaken within an area specified above which will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area is subject to regulation under the Bylaw and requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or an Abbreviated Notice of Intent. 3, ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE: Any activity proposed or undertaken within one hundred feet of all areas specified above except for land subject to flooding, (hereinafter called the Buffer Zone) which, in the judgment of the issuing authority, is likely to alter an area subject to protection under the Bylaw is subject to regulation and requires the filing of a Notice of Intent, or an Abbreviated Notice of Intent. 4. ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE BUFFER ZONE: Any activity proposed or undertaken outside the areas specified above and outside the Buffer Zone is not subject to regulation under this bylaw and does not require the filing of a Notice of intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent unless that activity is more likely than unlikely l to alter an area subject to protection under this bylaw. In the event that the Commission determines that such activity is more likely than unlikely lik-e-ly to alter an area subject to protection under the Bylaw, it shall impose conditions on the activity or any portion thereof as it deems necessary to contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Bylaw. Formatted: Font: Times New Formatted: Strikethrough Deleted: swamp Formatted: Font: Times New SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS D. Filing Fees 1. The local newspaper charges the applicant for publishing the legal notice of the public hearing or public meeting that is required by law for all Requests for Determination, Notices of Intent, Abbreviated Notices of Intent, Abbreviated Notices of Resource Area Delineation, and Amendments to Orders of Conditions. 2. Town projects are exempt from filing fees under these Regulations. 3. The filing fee for a Request for Determination of Applicability shall be $75 for projects on single- family residential sites and $100 for all other projects. 4. Filing fees for Notices of Intent, Abbreviated Notices of Intent, and Abbreviated Notices of Resource Area Delineation shall be paid according to the Notice of Intent Filing Fee Schedule below. Filing fees must be submitted or the filing shall be deemed incomplete. Filing fees calculated from incorrect delineations of wetland resource areas shall be adjusted upon a determination of the correct delineation by the Commission. Where filing fees are listed for two different resource areas, and those two areas overlap on the site, only the higher of the two filing fees shall be paid. Although the Fee Schedule lists fees for alterations of specific resource areas, no such alteration shall be allowed that does not meet the performance standards in the Regulations or qualify for a variance from the performance standards. 5. The filing fee for a Request for an Extension Permit for an existing Order of Conditions shall be $25 for projects on single- family residential sites and $50 for all other projects. 6. The filing fee for a Minor Project permit under Section 4.G of these Regulations shall be $50.00. 7. The filing fee for a Request to approve a plan change as insignificant under an existing Order of Conditions shall be $25 for projects on single - family residential sites and $50 for all other projects. 8. The filing fee for a Request to Amend an existing Order of Conditions shall be $25 for projects on single- family residential sites and $100 for all other projects. 9. There is no filing fee for a Request for a Certificate of Compliance or a Partial Certificate of Compliance. SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS NOTICE OF INTENT FILING FEE SCHEDULE A: For each addition to or accessory use activity associated with an existing single - family or multi - family residential dwelling, including but not limited to driveways, sheds, swimming pools, athletic courts, additions to existing houses, grading, and landscaping - $125. $110.00, plus all applieable fees listed in lines F through K. B. For each new single - family dwelling, including associated driveway, utilities, grading, landscaping, and drainage structures - $600. Qgfin.t)f his all applicable fees listed in lines >~ through K, C. For each new multi - family dwelling - $600 for the first unit $599- 00;plus $125 $149:00 per unit located in any Resource Area or Buffer Zone, plus all applicable fees listed in lines F through K. D. For each subdivision roadway, or other roadway or driveway (other than for single- family dwelling), and all associated drainage structures, utilities, grading, curbing, landscaping, and other associated work exclusive of dwellings - $1000, $55000, plus $600 per house plus all applicable fees listed in lines F through K. E. For each commercial, industrial, institutional, or other non - residential project - $1000, $700.00, plus all applicable fees listed in lines F through K. F. For boundary delineation for any Resource Area — $1.25 $4-.44 per linear foot of Resource Area boundary, up to a maximum of $125 $111.00 for a single- family lot and $1250 $1110. 00 for any other lot. G-: For temporary and /or permanent alteration of land within the Buffer Zone - $1.25 per square foot of Buffer Zone altered for any temporary or permanent alteration within 25 feet of a Resource Area or any permanent structure within 35 feet of a Resource Area}; nd Qn.�n X0.03 pe squafe feet of Buffer Zone temporafily or permanently altefed �af any ethef werl H. For work in Floodplain - $1.25 $960 per square foot of Floodplain temporarily or permanently altered outside of any other Resource Area and Buffer Zone_ I. For Work in Vernal Pool or its Buffer Zeft habitat - $11 18 $11 per square foot of Vernal Pool habitat temporarily or permanently altered and $4-.44 $100 per square foot of Buffer Zone of Vernal Pool temporarily or permanently altered J. For work in Freshwater Wetland, Wet Meadow, Bog, Swamp, Marsh, Creek, River, Stream, Pond, Lake, or Land Under W_ater_body , $_ 11.00 per square foot of Resource Area temporarily or permanently altered K. For work in Bank - $11.00 per linear foot of Bank temporarily or permanently altered. Formatted: No underline Deleted: ; Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline, Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Deleted: W Formatted: Underline 6C,� SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS E. Variance from Regulations 1. The Conservation Commission may grant a variance from strict compliance with these regulations for a proposed activity when the Commission finds that: a. There are no reasonable conditions or alternatives that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with the performance standards in these Regulations; and b. Mitigating measures are proposed that will allow the project to be conditioned so as to have no adverse impact upon the wetland values set forth in Section 5.7 of the Reading General Bylaws; and c. The variance is necessary to accommodate an overriding community, regional, state, or national public interest. In the case of owner occupied single or two family residences mitigation which improves the resource area quality, may be considered to accommodate the public interest. Any request for a variance shall be submitted to the Commission in writing as part of a Notice of Intent or a Request to Amend an Order of Conditions. The applicant shall submit an analysis of alternatives explored that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with these Regulations and an explanation of why each alternative is unreasonable. The applicant shall also submit a description of the mitigating measures to be used to prevent adverse impacts upon wetland values. The applicant shall also submit evidence that an overriding public interest is associated with the project that justifies the variance. After holding a public hearing on the Notice of Intent or Request to Amend an Order of Conditions, the Commission shall issue a written decision concerning the request for a variance as part of the Commission's decision on said Notice of Intent or Request to Amend an Order of Conditions. F. Burden of Proof 1. Any person who files a Request for Determination of Applicability, Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent to perform any work within an area subject to protection under the Bylaw, or within the Buffer Zone, has the burden of demonstrating to the Commission that: a. The area is not significant to any of the interests identified in the Bylaw; or b. The proposed work will contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Bylaw by complying with the performance standards listed in these regulations. w SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS G. Emergencies 1. Any person requesting permission to do an emergency project shall specify why the project is necessary for the health or safety of the citizens of the Commonwealth and what agency of the Commonwealth or subdivision thereof, including the Town of Reading, is to perform the project or has ordered the project to be performed. If the project is certified to be an emergency by the Conservation Commission or its Administrator, the certification shall include a description of the work which is to be allowed and shall not include work beyond that necessary to abate the emergency. A site inspection shall be made prior to certification. 2. The time limitation for performance of emergency work shall not exceed 30 days unless written approval of the Commission is obtained. However, if the emergency work is for Immediate Response Actions approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0410, then the time limit shall not exceed 60 days unless written approval of the Commission is obtained. 3. The recipient of an emergency certificate may be required by the Administrator or a member of the Commission to meet with the Commission to explain the nature and extent of the work performed and its long -term impacts upon the interests protected by Section 5.7 of the Reading General Bylaws and_these Regulations. The Commission may require that the recipient of the emergency certificate, the owner of the subject property, and /or the persons responsible for the emergency shall file a Notice of Intent documenting the impacts and setting forth a proposal for restoration, mitigation, and other actions to ameliorate the impacts. IT Enforcement The Commission shall have the authority to enforce the Bylaw and these Regulations by means of violation notices, and /or enforcement orders, administrative orders, civil actions and /or criminal proceedings. The enforcing person shall mean any member of the Commission or its agent. In addition, pursuant to Reading General Bylaws Section 5.7.16: the provisions of said Bylaw and these Regulations may be enforced by noncriminal disposition (fines) in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw Section 5.11 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40 Section 21D. For the purposes of such noncriminal disposition the term "enforcing person" shall mean any member of the Conservation Commission, the Conservation Administrator or his or her designee. SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS H. Enforcement, Continued 2. Any enforcing person taking cognizance of a violation of RGB Section 5.7.16 or these regulations may, as an alternative to initiating criminal proceedings, give the offender a written notice to appear before the clerk of the district court having jurisdiction thereof at any time during office hours, not later than twenty -one days after the date of such notice. Such notice shall be in triplicate and shall contain the name and address, if known, of the offender, the specific offense charged, and the time and place for his required appearance. Such notice shall be signed by the enforcing person and shall be signed by the offender whenever practicable in acknowledgement that such notice has been received. 3. The Town shall fix as penalty for such a violation a specific sum of money not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00). The payment to said clerk of such sum shall operate as a final disposition of the case. 4. No person shall; remove, fill, dredge or alter any area subject to protection under the provisions of the 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. 5. Each day a 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 giving written notification of said violation to the Conservation Commission shall not be subject to additional penalties under the Bylaw unless said person thereafter fails to comply with an enforcement order or order of conditions 6. Any person who violates any provision of said Bylaw or of these Regulations or of any condition of an order or a permit issued pursuant hereto, or who allows such violation to occur on his or her property, may be ordered to restore the property to its original condition and take other actions deemed necessary to remedy such violations, and shall, at the discretion of the enforcing person, be punished by a fine of not more than $300 for each offense. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, failure to pay said fine within twenty -one (21) calendar days may result in criminal prosecution. 7. Citations issued by the enforcing person shall subsequently be presented to the Conservation Commission for its review. If the Commission does not take action at that time, it shall be deemed to approve of the issuance of such citation. Upon review, the Commission may, at its discretion, withdraw the citation. Notwithstanding said review, during the review the violator shall remain subject to all other provisions of this section. 10 �do SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS H. Enforcement, Continued 8. The Town shall be the beneficiary of all fines imposed on account of the violation of said Bylaw or these Regulations, in order to help defray the expense of enforcing the same. 9. Upon request of the Commission, the Board of Selectmen and Town Counsel shall take such legal action as may be necessary to enforce said Bylaw and these Regulations. FINE SCHEDULE I. Failure to file a Notice of Intent or Request for Determination of Applicability and to receive a valid Order of Conditions or Determination of Applicability prior to activity: $300.00 2. Failure to promptly comply with an Enforcement Order: $300.00 3. Failure to record Order of Conditions at the Registry of Deeds prior to activity: $25.00 4. Failure to notify the Commission prior to activity where a Condition of an Order of Conditions or a Request for Determination or a Minor Project permit requires such notice: $25.00 5. Failure to install and /or properly maintain erosion controls (per project): First offense: WARNING Second offense: $25.00 Third offense and each offense thereafter: $100.00 6. Failure to comply with any Condition of an Order of Conditions or Determination of Applicability or Minor Project permit $25.00 7. Failure to apply for a Certificate of Compliance in a timely manner: First offense: WARNING Second offense: $50.00 8. Conducting an activity subject to the Bylaw and Regulations after the expiration of a valid Order of Conditions or Determination of Applicability: $50.00 (Separate fines may be assessed for each violation and for each day of violation. 11 C'41 SECTION 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS I. Limited Proiects If a project is considered limited as specified in 310 CMR 10.53 (3) an Order of Conditions can be issued under the Reading Wetland Regulations notwithstanding the provisions of the Reading Wetland Protection Regulations if all conditions specified in 310 CMR 10.53 (3) are satisfied. J. Normal Maintenance Maintenance of existing developed or landscaped yards or structures within the buffer zone that does not result in any net loss of native vegetation or permanently alter the soil surface (other than for planting of vegetation) is exempt from filing under the Reading Wetland Regulations. Examples include but are not limited to: trimming of branches and shrubs, pruning (but not removing) trees, and removal of invasive species. If ornamental shrubs located within 25 feet of a wetland are removed, they must be replaced by a similar shrub. ,SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS �e�eted: - -- -Page creak A. General 1. The following section is intended to notify applicants proposing work that may alter areas subject to protection under the Bylaw of what performance standards should be applied, and to identify the level of protection needed to protect the interests identified in the Bylaw. B. Banks 1. Proposed work that may alter a bank shall not adversely affect the following: a. The stability of the bank; b. The capacity of the channel to convey water; C. Ground water and surface water quality; d. The capacity of the bank to provide important fisheries, wildlife habitat, food, shelter, migratory, breeding, and overwintering areas; or e. The function of the bank to recharge or discharge groundwater. C. Fresh Water Wetlands Wetlands protected in Reading Because of the history, geography, geology and hydrology of Reading some wetlands may not qualify for state protection under 310CMR 10.55 due to being isolated or disconnected from water bodies. These will be protected under the local By -Law provided they are: 1. 500 or more square feet in area and 2. Meet all of the other criteria of 310 CMR 10.55 with the exception of connection to water bodies. 1. It is the Commission's policy that there shall be no net loss of fresh water wetlands, including marshes, wet meadows, bogs, and swamps. 12 (0 C', (Z 2. Any proposed work that may alter a fresh water wetland shall not destroy or otherwise impair any portion of the area. However, the Commission may issue an Order of Conditions permitting work that results in the alteration of less than 5000 square feet of fresh water wetland, provided the following requirements are met: a. There is no reasonable alternative to a proposed crossing, utility easement, or roadway drainage structure; b. All design mitigations, including the utilization of structures such as headwalls, have been utilized to minimize the alteration of wetlands; c. A revegetation plan addressing issues of interspersion and diversity of vegetation has been submitted, describing the construction and the amount of recreated fresh water wetland necessary to compensate for that portion that is proposed to be destroyed; d. The replacement fresh water wetland area must adequately replicate the wetland functions to be lost, and shall be at a 2:1 ratio to the area lost. The replacement freshwater wetland shall have an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the same fresh water wetland, waterbody, or waterway associated with the lost area; e. The replacement area shall be located in the same general area of the fresh water wetland, water body, or reach of the waterway as the lost area; SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS C. Fresh Water Wetlands, Continued 2.17. All surface vegetation and contours of the replacement area shall be substantially restored within two growing seasons; and g. Excavation and soil preparation preparation timing of the replacement area shall be specified as needed in the Order of Conditions of the replacement area shall be eenipleted pfief to the commencement of altefation of tempemrily altered. Where soils and vegetation are to be transfeFFed from the area to-he destroyed into the replaeement area, said tfansfef shall inimediately follow ex6avation and soid preparation in the feplaeement area. Where soils and vegeta+ien afe to be 3ur-ees ethef than the area to be destroyed, the), shall be installed pfopefly 3. Supporting biological data for fresh water wetland delineation shall be considered valid for a period of three years from the date of the issuance of an Order of Conditions or a Determination of Applicability. 13 (PG13 D. Zone of Natural Vegetation 1. Bordering any wetland, the Commission may require a Zone of Natural Vegetation (ZNV) of sufficient width and vegetative community type to assure that silt, soil, fertilizer in solution, organic chemicals, herbicides, organic manures, oils or petroleum products which may be carried by surface run -off shall not reach that wetland, but instead will be trapped by the natural mulch, soil and roots; and that light levels and temperature shall be moderated; and that dispersal of seeds of exotic or otherwise disruptive plant species, such as phragmites reed and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) shall be avoided; and that other alterations shall be avoided or mitigated within the wetland. 2. Under most conditions, a zone width of a minimum of twenty -five feet would be considered sufficient to accomplish this purpose. A wider ZNV may be required, depending on specific site conditions, such as grades, soil permeability or other impact potential. 3. Excavations for proposed structures extend beyond the finished limits of the structures. The extent of excavation varies depending on: the nature of the structure; the soil; depth of excavation; type of equipment used; construction techniques; slope; incidence of precipitation; groundwater flow; soil saturation and freeze /thaw cycles; existing vegetative cover; or other ground cover. An area of curtilage is developed around structures as a result of access for finish work, maintenance, foot traffic, and machine travel such as lawnmowers; and to provide a clear area for security; and to prevent moisture damage and physical damage from shading and plant structures such as tree limbs. SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS D. Zone of Natural Vegetation, Continued 4. To protect the integrity of the Zone of Natural Vegetation, including the associated root system and canopy, no new foundations, including footings, frost walls or other in- ground structures, shall be permitted within ten feet of the ZNV. Depending on special site conditions, a greater distance may be required. Associated structures, including but not limited to the following: cantilevered structures, bay windows, eaves, and, garrisons, or other overhangs, may protrude to no closer than seven feet from the ZNV. 5. Notwithstanding the standards of the preceding paragraph, the Commission may grant a reduced setback distance of structures from the ZNV as a consideration of specific site conditions, such as limited vegetative cover or an existing developed condition, and provided that a permanent physical delineation, such as a solid hedge or an appropriate permanent fence or wall, of sufficient height, shall be provided and shall be maintained between the structure and the ZNV. 6. Permanent markers shall be installed and maintained in convenient locations along the limits of the ZNV, such as at any corners or along a radius, no more than fifty feet apart. Markers may be stone or concrete bounds, metal pipes or rods, trees, shrubs or other structures as approved. 14 E. Land Subject to Flooding I . Proposed work that may alter land subject to flooding shall not adversely affect the interests protected under the Bylaw, including the flood control capacity of said area. Werk en a single lot and ffiay not altef ffiefe than 10,146 2. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold, or altering vernal pool habitat, may be permitted if they will have no adverse effects on important wildlife habitat, food, shelter, migratory, breeding or overwintering areas. 3. Construction of the compensatory storage area shall be completed prior to any alteration of the existing storage area. 4. Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within land subject to flooding, when in the judgement of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. Compensatory storage shall mean a volume not previously used for flood storage and shall be incrementally equal to the theoretical volume of flood water at each elevation, up to and including the 100 - year flood elevation, which would be displaced by the proposed project. Such compensatory volume shall have an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the same waterway or water body. Further, with respect to waterways, such compensatory volume shall be provided within the same reach of the river, stream, or creek. SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS E Land Subject to Flooding, Continued 5. Work within land subject to flooding, including that work required to provide the above - specified compensatory storage, shall not restrict flows so as to cause an increase in flood stage or velocity. 6. Work in those portions of land subject to flooding found to be significant to the protection of wildlife habitat shall not impair its capacity to provide important wildlife habitat functions. Except for work that would adversely affect vernal pool habitat, a project or projects on a single lot, for which Notice(s) of Intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s) up to 10% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is less) of land in this resource area found to be significant to the protection of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to provide important wildlife habitat functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold, or altering vernal pool habitat, may be permitted if they will have no adverse effect on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures contained in 310 CMR 10.60 F. Land Under Water 1. Proposed work that may alter land under water shall not adversely affect the following: 15 � C'rS a. Water storage or carrying capacity of the waterbody, or of the land under the waterbody; b. Groundwater or surface water quality; c. The ability to provide important fisheries and wildlife habitat, food, shelter, migratory, breeding, and overwintering areas. G. Riverfront Area Riverfront area shall be defined as in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 and 310 CMR 10.00, as amended, except that all land within 200 feet of any stream or river that is also deemed to be a manmade canal in Reading shall be defined and protected as Riverfront Area. Proposed work in riverfront areas, including work within 200 feet of any perennial stream, river, or manmade canal, shall conform to the performance standards of 310 CMR 10.58, as amended. H. Public and Private Water Supply 1. Projects proposed in areas significant to public or private water supply shall be required to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on the water resources. Projects proposed for the Aquifer Protection District shall comply with the provisions of the Aquifer Protection Bylaw, Section 4.8 of the Reading Zoning Bylaws. SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS I. Side Slope Grades Near Wetlands 1. Side slopes within 100 feet of a wetland shall have a finished grade according to the following: a. No steeper than a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope for grassed and mulched slopes; b. Any slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:verticle) must be an engineered design with a stamped plan. s. 0 t J. Vernal Pools The Town of Reading accepts and adopts the current( effective Jan 1, 2012) requirements, definitions, performance standards, and regulatory restrictions for vernal pools as specified by the Massachusetts natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife under 310 CMR 10.00(1). All Vernal Pools currently listed as certified by Natural Heritage and those that meet the criteria as so defined are protected by the Reading local regulations. 17 (C..,(? SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS 18 (o G ( 9 SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS T Vorr..,l Peels celir:.... d a. Weeding ..,7..1k,. b. Spefmataphores (sperm cases); 6. The presence ofeggm dTr.,nsfer.r.ingj ..:low shall not result in the fellell.k.l. 19 (oc(q SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS T Ver«.d.l Pools. R. if the r'e_._______._., determines that avernal pool having eharacteristies F preeeding subseetiens 3.j. 1, 34.3, 34.4, and 34.5 is pfesent in or "vithin �w proposed • rL area, the vernal of and the land within ene h a d f C shall be prestiffied to provide sigfiifieant vernal pool habitat fidnetions. T-" sufficient eredible evidenee fef the Commission to deteFmine that the peel AE as vernal peel habitat. Evaltiatien ofvernal pool habitat ftinctions normftg�-f observations d a f+er the time breed' i4 ' 4 � a u cc,�,w i��r "'�c,,,,c breeding g- JCaoo„ xc ■o c o r�� � appliennts survey sites for Nv the Co .. 41... .. .. 4:. 4 filing ReEl 4 for- it 4 F intent or an Abbreviated N ti of Resouree Area Delineation, 4 K. Wildlife Habitat The Town of Reading accepts and adopts the current (effective Jan 1 2012) requirements definitions, performance standards, and regulatory restrictions for wildlife habitat as specified in the Massachusetts Wetland Regulations 310 CMR for jurisdictional wetlands under these Town of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations. 1 . Persons proposing to altef nattifal wetland afeas suitable fef wildlife habitat shall be Fequifed to submit documentation deseribing the alternatives to alteration and to pfevide ffleans of sating fer lost wildlife habit..t ...1..e.. 2. Adverse effects to 3wildlife habitat shall mean the alteration of any habitat characteFistic-, insofar as such altefatien will, following two 1. 1 --ons efpfejeet eeffipletion (or if-a project : eludes the elimination oftrees .r...t..r: t., of- , replanted below: a. Food b . Shelter a Bfeedding a ..,. ,�, wu,,.�- ccr -ccrS e Ov'ei-vrrirtei -iirg f. Travel ceffidor -s: a. For Lank.: work must he on a single let and may alter ne Fflore than 100/ or 50 f (whieheye..:s less) of the length of the hank en the let; �. u,�d,,.. vim„ � m b. Fef land undef water bedies and waterways� werik Fflost be en a single let, and fna-y ourntilatively ..Ito.. no o than 10'-I Fro, land d r bodies on the 1 + 5,000 squafe feet (whiehevef is less); 21 �&I,l ,SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS Deleted: Page Break 5.b. Land undefwa4ef bodies erwatef,�vays The plant oemmunity, soil eefflpOsifiEffl and structure, hydfolegie regime, topegfaphy, and water quality of land undefwater bedies e. Vernal pool habitat The tepegfaphy, soil struetare, plant eommunity eemposition and struetufe, and hydfolegie regime ef vemal peel habitat are presumed to provide the d. Loweffleedplains o plant eomfflunity, fleadplains (ten year fleedplains) are presumed to provide the fellewifig ifflpfftafit and ovef-A,intefing areas ferwildlif�. e. Fresh waterwetlands FFesh watef wet! ands are pfe bably the town of Reading's me s fant inland habi.at for wildlife. The hydfelagic regime, plant eommunity, soil wildlife. L. Erosion Control 1. Disturbed soils areas near and within wetland resource areas shall be stabilized and protected from the erosive forces of wind and water. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be kept in functional condition until the soils are stabilized by vegetation and until removal of the devices is authorized by the Commission or its administrator. M. Crossing of Wetlands I. In addition to the provisions of Section C, proposed crossings of wetland areas shall include the following: retaining walls, embankments, or other structures shall be required, to minimize wetland alteration. 22 6 X22 SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AREAS N. Stormwater Runoff 1. There shall be no significant change in runoff characteristics to any resource area. Any change in stormwater runoff characteristics, which may result in increased flooding off the site or degradation of water quality, must be mitigated by on -site controls. Such controls may include, but are not limited to, storm water detention facilities and stormwater retention facilities which do not alter existing wetlands. O. Discharge of Runoff into Resource Areas 1. All discharges must be appropriately treated to mitigate for turbidity, sedimentation, erosion, nutrients, water volume and rate, temperature, oil and grease, and other toxic substances. There shall be no unmitigated point source discharges directly into any resource areas or into their zones of natural vegetation (see Section D), 23 6 C,z3 SECTION 4 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY A. General 1. Any person who proposes to perform work within the Buffer Zone, or who desires a ruling as to whether or not the Bylaw applies to an area, or work to be performed on an area, shall submit to the Conservation Commission by certified mail or hand delivery a Request for Determination of Applicability. Any meeting held under the Bylaw shall be held simultaneously under the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Ch. 131, s.40, as it applies. B. Filing Procedure 1. The applicant shall obtain a certified abutters list, available from the Reading Assessors Office. The applicant shall submit stamped or properly metered (no date), legal -sized envelopes addressed with the names of all abutters, the applicants, their representatives, and all owners. 2. The applicant shall submit an original and eleven copies of the Request for Determination and of all supporting materials. 3. The applicant shall provide proof of payment for the required legal notice(s) prior to the public meeting. C. Public Meeting 1. The Commission shall hold a public meeting within twenty -one days of the submittal of a complete Request for Determination or by a later date agreed upon by the applicant. The Commission may continue the public meeting beyond the 21 days, with the consent of the applicant. D. Determination of Applicability 1. The Commission shall close the public meeting and issue its Determination within twenty -one days of the submittal of a complete Request for Determination, or by a later date agreed upon by the applicant. E. Appeal of Determination of Applicability 1. Any person may appeal a Determination to Superior Court according to the provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 249, Section 4. 24 �G21 SECTION 4 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY F. Work Pending Appeal 1. Upon the issuance of a Positive Determination, work may not proceed until a judicial determination has been made by a court of competent legal jurisdiction that the proposed work is not subject to the Bylaw, or until a Notice of Intent has been filed and an Order of Conditions has been received by the applicant. 2. Upon the issuance of a Negative Determination, work may not proceed for the appeal period except at the applicant's risk. G. Minor Projects I. Some projects are simple, routine, and involve very little activity or alteration within the Buffer Zone, and no significant potential adverse impact on a resource area. For such projects, it would be unreasonable to interpret this section to require a full Determination of Applicability. To avoid unnecessary regulation and it's allied costs to the property owner, we establish a set of minor projects. These require the written approval of the Conservation Administrator or other agent duly appointed by the Commission. If a project is denied by the Administrator or other agent the decision may be appealed to the Commission. Once approved unless contested, the project is merely reported to the Commission of doubtful practical validity, the following projects, subject to the following conditions, shall require only the written approval of the Conservation Administrator or other agent duly appointed by the Commission. 2. Conditions: vernal Peels: b. The limit of the resource area must be clearly evident to the Conservation Administrator, 25 Deleted: of deubtAil pfaetical v a tt the ng pFajeets, subject to the r.n ... the written appreN a! of the cefiseBanafl appointed by the CE)fflffffs�i�T Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough i G2,5' d. A complete written description of all of the work and protective or mitigative measures, and an accurate sketch or plan must be submitted to the Conservation Administrator. e. All conditions applied prescribed by the Administrators """ be eemplied with must be met_ f The Administrator shall provide a copy of the proposal and any conditions to the Commission at its next regular meeting. 2.g. If the Administrator grants approval, the proponent may proceed with the project at his /her own risk pending a review by the Commission; any person may file a formal Request for Determination pursuant to the preceding Section 4.A., and the Commission's Determination shall supersede the Administrator's decision. 3. Minor Projects checklist: Projects which have met Minor Project status are listed on the Minor Projects Checklist available from the Conservation Office in Town Hall, 3. Minor Projects include: a. Installation of unpaved pedestrian walkways for private use; b. Installation of fencing or free - standing stone walls, provided that they will not constitute a barrier to wildlife movement; c. Pruning of trees and shrubs located more than 50 feet from a wetland resource area, and pruning of existing landscaped areas regardless of distance to wetlands; d. Planting of species of trees, shrubs, or groundcover native to Massachusetts, but excluding planting of turf lawns where turf lawns do not presently exist; e. Conversion of existing lawns to uses accessory to existing single family houses, provided that the activity is located more than 50 feet from wetland resource areas, such as: open slotted decks without roofs; above - ground pools; freestanding (no foundation) sheds under 15 feet by 15 feet; steps under 100 square feet; patios under 100 square feet; porches under 100 square feet on existing foundations or on concrete footings;. The conversion of such accessory uses to lawn is also allowed. f Conversion of impervious surfaces to vegetated areas in the Buffer Zone; 26 Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Deleted: . Deleted: Page Break........................ SECTION 4 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY¶ Deleted: G. Minor Projects Continued¶ 6 &2_� g. Activities that are temporary in nature, have negligible impacts, and are necessary for planning and design purposes (e.g., installation of monitoring wells, exploratory borings, sediment sampling, and surveying). 4. Buffer Zone projects that are not permitted by this procedure include but are not limited to the following work (note: no work in a resource area can be permitted by this procedure): a. New or increased foundations; b. Filling, grading, or machine excavation; c. Additions except as listed in subsection 2; d. Work within 100 feet of a known vernal pool; e. Wells; and f. Work within land subject to flooding, or within twenty -five feet of another resource area, or within ten feet if legally existing development exists in the location. SECTION 5 NOTICE OF INTENT A. General 1. It is recommended that all applicants confer with the Conservation Administrator prior to filing. 2. Any person who proposes to do work that will remove, fill, dredge or alter any area subject to protection under the Bylaw shall submit a Notice of Intent. a. The requirement of the Bylaw to obtain or apply for all permits, variances, and approvals required by local bylaw with respect to the proposed activity shall include only those which are obtainable at the time the Notice of Intent is filed. b. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, when an applicant for a Comprehensive Permit (under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, Sections 20 -23, a.k.a. Chapter 774) from a Board of Appeals has received a determination from that Board, whether to grant or deny the permit, and in the case of a denial, has appealed to the Housing Appeals Committee, said applicant shall be deemed to have obtained all local permits obtainable at that time. c. The applicant shall either obtain all permits prior to filing a Notice of Intent, or may file a Notice of Intent after the filing of application(s) for all such obtainable permits. The Notice of Intent shall then include any information submitted in connection with such other application(s) that is necessary to describe the effect of the proposed activity on the environment. 3. If the Conservation Commission rejects a Notice of Intent because of a failure to obtain or apply for all permits, variances, and approvals, it must specify in writing the permit, variance, or approval that has not been obtained or applied for. A ruling by the municipal body within whose jurisdiction the issuance of the permit, variance, or approval lies or by the Town 27 6('-17 Counsel concerning the applicability of such permit, variance, or approval shall be acceptable by the Commission. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when the Commission has determined that an activity outside the areas subject to protection under this bylaw and outside the Buffer Zone is likely to alter an area subject to protection under this bylaw, the Commission may require such plans, supporting calculations and other documentation as are necessary to describe the entire activity. B. Abbreviated Notices For certain purposes, other forms of Notices may be used. 1. The applicant shall have the option to file an Abbreviated Notice of Intent for proposed work only when the following criteria are met: a. The proposed work is within the Buffer Zone, or within land subject to flooding; SECTION 5 NOTICE OF INTENT B. Abbreviated Notices, Continued b. The proposed work will disturb less than one thousand square feet of surface area within the Buffer Zone and /or land subject to flooding; and c. The proposed work will not require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 or Section 404 permit, or a license from the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Waterways pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 91 (Waterways License). Abbreviated Notice of Intent Submittal Requirements - Abbreviated Notice of Intent Submittal Requirements -The requirements are identical to those required in 310 CMR 10.05. with the additional requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures. submit, fufthef infermation that will assist in the review and is deemed necessary te deter the pfopesed effeet on the interests preteeted by the Bylaw. A complete applicatien for an Abbreviated Notice of intent shall : eltide the original and eleven e of the A bbfeyi ted T.le flee of Intent Land of the fel l,..,, ing:.�uu�, 28 SECTION 5 NOTICE OF INTENT C. Filing Procedure A complete Notice of Intent, Abbreviated Notice of Intent, or Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation_ shall meet requirements identical to those required in 310 CMR 10.05. with the additional requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures., 29 Deleted: shall include: Formatted: Font: Times New Formatted: Font: Times New Oman 1 . 6bg original and eleven eepies of the Notiee of intent, AbbFeviated Notice ef intent, er Abbfeviated Netiee ef Resetifee Area Delineation, and aeeempanying plans (see SECTION 6 PLANS AND TEGHT41GAL DATA), plus the filing f�e payable to the TO'A,H of Readip.-g, (unless exempted tinder the fee sehedule). These doeuments and plans shall be sent by eet4ified mail er hand delivered to the Reading Gonsefvatien Commission." 2. Stamped or prepefly Ffletefed (no date) legal sized envelapt-, addressed ,vith the names and addresses ef the abuttefs as shown in the Get4ified Abuttefs List available ffE)ffl the Readif+g Fepfesentatives, shall be provided iueu w the Cormrrrssrvrr. 3. Alefland afeas, buffef zone, readways and building eefnefs shall be flagged and nufflbeped� eaeh with its own eoler. Colors in the field shall mateh Mors noted on the plan and wettand boundaries shall be flagged every ot twenty fo , 4. The applieant shall provide a point by pointwritten evaltiation of the impaet ef the proposed pfejeet on values r eteeted by the Bylaw. These values a. Pfotectien ef private and publiewatef supply, b. Pfateetion of gFotind,�vater, e. Fleed control, d. Storm damage prevention, e. Pfeteetien off:,.hei::o. SECTION 5 NOTICE OF INTENT C. Filing Procedure, Continued 41. Protection of wildlife habitat, g. Erosion control, and h. Prevention of pollution. D. Administrative Review for Completeness 1. If the Administrator or a Commissioner determines that a Notice of Intent or an Abbreviated Notice of Intent or an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is incomplete or improper, he or she may return the entire filing, in which case all required time periods for processing the submitted Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation will no longer be applicable. E. Public Hearings 1. A public hearing shall be held by the Conservation Commission within twenty -one days of receipt of the minimum submittal requirements for a complete filing. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the Commission at the expense of the applicant not less than five business days prior to such public hearing, by publication in a local newspaper, and by mailing notices to abutters, the applicant, and the owner. 30 (� G3 2. All hearings held under the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, as it applies, may also be held simultaneously under Section 5.7 of the Reading General Bylaws. 3. After opening the public hearing, if the Commission determines that additional information is needed, the Commission may: a. Continue the public hearing, at the applicant's expense, to a future date to be specified at the hearing. All requested information shall be submitted no less than six business days prior to the date of the continuance; or b. Deny the project because the applicant failed to provide the necessary information that the Commission requested. F. Decision 1. The Commission shall issue a decision on a Notice of Intent, an Abbreviated Notice of Intent, or an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation within 21 days of the close of the public hearing or, where Notice has also been filed under MGL Chapter 131, Section 40, within 3 business days of receipt of a written Notification of File Number from DEP, whichever comes later. ECTION 5 NOTICE OF INTENT F. Decision, Continued 2. The Commission may decide to deny permission for the activity proposed under a Notice of Intent or an Abbreviated Notice of Intent in accordance with Section 5.7.8 of the Reading General Bylaws. The Commission may decide to issue an Order of Conditions permitting the proposed activity in accordance with Section 5.7.9 of the Reading General Bylaws. 3. The Commission may issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation that determines that the wetland resource area boundaries set forth in an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation have been identified and delineated according to the definitions in Section 5.7 of the Reading General Bylaws and these Regulations, or the Commission may modify the delineation submitted." 31 Deleted: Page Break 66,-31 SECTION 6 PLANS AND TECHNICAL DATA A. General 1. Plans submitted to accompany a Notice of Intent, an Abbreviated Notice of Intent, or an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation shall include a complete description of the wetlands resource areas, the proposed activity, and the effect of the proposed activity on the resource areas and the interests protected under the Bylaw 2. All submittals shall meet plans and technical data requirements required in 310 CMR 10.05. with the additional requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures e. The ppl nt_shall preyide an 8 1 ,12" x 11" photoeopy sheet eten-at penion --6f the USGS with the loeatiefl clea4y quadfangle Hiap showing the leeatien of the proposed n n , marked. This sheet shal be labeled the i b 4�"3 33 (G33 34 SECTION 7 - ORDER OF CONDITIONS and ORDER OF RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION A. Definition 1. An Order of Conditions is a document issued by the Conservation Commission, after receipt and review of a Notice of Intent or an Abbreviated Notice of Intent, that permits, regulates, requires, and /or prohibits activities under the Commission's jurisdiction. An Order of Conditions shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance. 2. An Order of Resource Area Delineation is a document issued by the Conservation Commission, after receipt and review of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, that confirms or modifies the delineation submitted. An Order of Resource Area Delineation shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance. B. Pre - Construction Requirements 1. The Conservation Commission shall receive proof that the Order of Conditions has been recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds showing date and instrument number(s) and /or Certificate number(s) of the recording. 2. The applicant shall inform the Reading Conservation Commission, in writing, of the names, addresses, business and home telephone numbers of both the project supervisor who will be responsible for ensuring on -site compliance with this Order, and his/her alternate. This list will be kept current, and the Reading Conservation Commission shall he notified of all changes. 3. A pre- construction meeting shall take place between the contracting agent and the Conservation Administrator for the purpose of reviewing the requirements of the Order of Conditions and establishing a general construction schedule. 4. Proof of receipt of a DEP file number and proper registration with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program -- Appendix A - -(if the site of the proposed work is shown on the most recent Natural Heritage Program Map of Estimated Habitats of State - Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife) shall be provided to the Reading Conservation Commission prior to any work subject to an Order of Conditions. C. Copies 1. A copy of the Order of Conditions shall be kept on site at all times. 35 �3 S SECTION 7 - ORDER OF CONDITIONS and ORDER OF RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION D. Requests for Plan Change 1. After the Commission has issued an Order of Conditions for a proposed activity, if changes are proposed in the activity, the applicant must notify the Commission in writing requesting approval for these changes. The applicant must submit with the request adequate site plans, calculations, data, descriptions of the proposed changes, and any other information that the Commission may require to understand the proposed changes and to make the determination. No work shall be done on the subject area until the Commission has reviewed and approved the changes. 2. The Commission shall review the proposed changes and may determine: a. That the plan change is insignificant and the Order of Conditions requires no Amendment; or b. That the plan change is significant and the Order of Conditions requires an Amendment; or c. That the plan change is sufficiently different from the approved plan that a new Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent must be filed. 3. The applicant shall be notified of the decision of the Commission within 21 days of the receipt of the applicant's notification of the changes. If the Commission decides that the plan change requires an Amendment of the Order of Conditions or a new Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent, a public hearing shall be held in accordance with Section 5.1) of these Regulations. If the applicant anticipates that the Commission will require an Amendment, the applicant may request that the Commission bypass the determination under Section TD.2 and proceed directly to the public hearing for the Amendment. If the applicant anticipates that the Commission will require a new Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent, the applicant may file the new Notice without first undergoing the determination process in Section 7.D.2. F Fxtencinnc 1. The Commission may issue an Extension Permit for an Order of Conditions or an RDA Extension D° for a period of up to three years to an applicant who has demonstrated reasons for such a permit. The Commission may deny an Extension to a project that has not commenced within the original time limit. The applicant must apply in writing for an Extension Permit at least 30 days prior to expiration (note: application for an Extension Permit may trigger a redelineation of the wetlands. 36 4,c�'3 � SECTION 7 - ORDER OF CONDITIONS and ORDER OF RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION E. Extensions, Continued 2. For projects upon which work has not yet begun within three years of the issuance of an Order of Conditions or an Order of Resource Area Delineation, and for which an Extension Permit has been requested, the Commission may review the wetland resource area delineations before granting an Extension Permit. If the Commission finds that a delineation is no longer valid, the Commission may amend the Order of Conditions or Order of Resource Area Delineation before granting an Extension Permit, following the procedure set forth in Section 7.D. above, or may deny the Extension F. Appeals 1. Any person may appeal an Order of Conditions to Superior Court. according to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 249, Section 4. 37 �>&3� SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE A. Definition 1. Certificate of Compliance shall mean a written determination made by the Conservation Commission verifying that work has been completed in accordance with an Order of Conditions. B. Request 1. Upon completion of work under an Order of Conditions, the applicant or owner shall submit a written request for a Certificate of Compliance to the Commission. The applicant or owner may request a Partial Certificate of Compliance for discrete portions of the work under the Order of Conditions. The Commission may require that a request be accompanied by: a. As -built plans (I" = 40' or 1" = 20' scale, corresponding to submission plans) stamped by a registered professional engineer and /or register land surveyor showing: 1) All structures, buildings, impervious surfaces, and existing grading; 2) Wetlands resource areas and mitigation areas; and 3) Any other elevations or distances the Commission may specify to ensure compliance with the Order of Conditions. b. A written statement by a registered professional civil engineer and/or other qualified professional, as may be required by the Commission, certifying compliance with the approved plans referenced above and this Order of Conditions and setting forth what deviations, if any, exist. c. Any other reports or documents related to the work that are required by the Order of Conditions. C. Decision Upon receipt of a request for Certificate of Compliance, the Commission shall make a site inspection with the applicant /owner or the representative of the applicant /owner, and shall review the materials submitted with the request. The Commission may issue the Certificate of Compliance within 21 days of the receipt of the request, or may determine that the requirements for the Certificate of Compliance have not been met and deny the request. In the case of a denial, the reasons for the denial shall be issued in writing to the applicant within 21 days of the receipt of the request. If the Order of Conditions contains conditions that continue past the completion of construction, the Certificate shall specify which conditions shall continue in effect. The applicant or owner shall record the Certificate of Compliance at the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court, as appropriate, and shall submit certification of the recording to the Commission. 38 6,3g SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE D. Burden of Proof 1. The applicant shall have the burden and obligation of bringing the property into compliance with the Order of Conditions. SECTION 9 SECURITY 1. A bond or other means of financial responsibility acceptable to the Commission and the Town Counsel, may be required to secure performance of work required by an Order of Conditions. It shall be held by the Town, and shall be released by the Commission only upon satisfactory completion of the work required by the Order, and the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 2. The amount of security shall not exceed the cost, as estimated by the Town or their agent, of the required work or of the restoration of affected lands and properties if the work is not faithfully performed as required, whichever is greater. 3. Forfeiture of such bond or security shall be recoverable at suit of the Town in Superior Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 249, Section 4. SECTION 10 CONSULTANT FEE 1. The Commission may require an applicant to pay a fee for the reasonable costs and expenses borne by the Commission for specific expert engineering and other consultant services deemed necessary by the Commission to make a Determination of Applicability, complete the review of a Notice of Intent or other application or request made pursuant to Reading General Bylaw Section 5.7 or these Regulations. This fee is called the Consultant Fee and shall be in the maximum amount of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 2. The specific consultant services may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Resource area and wetland survey and delineation, b. Analysis of resource area and wetland values, c. Wildlife habitat evaluations, d. Hydrogeologic and drainage analysis, and e. Environmental and land use law. 39 � G3� SECTION 10 CONSULTANT FEE, Continued 3. The Commission may require the payment of the Consultant Fee at any point in its deliberations prior to a final decision. The applicant shall pay the Consultant Fee to the Town to be put into a revolving fund for consultant fees of the Commission, which may be drawn upon by the Commission for specific consultant services approved by the Commission at one of its public meetings. 4. Any unused portion of the Consultant Fee shall be returned to the applicant unless the Commission determines at a public meeting that other action is necessary. 5. Any applicant aggrieved by the imposition of, or size of, the Consultant Fee, or any act related thereto, may appeal according to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws. 6. The minimum qualifications of any consultant selected by the Commission shall consist either of an educational degree in or related to the field at issue or three or more years of practice in the field at issue or a related field. SECTION 11 SEVERABILITY I. The invalidity of any section of these Regulations shall not invalidate any other section or subsection, nor shall it invalidate any permit or determination that has been previously issued. 2. If any court of the Commonwealth shall invalidate any provision of the Bylaw or of these Regulations, the Commission shall promulgate additional Regulations, or present to the next Town Meeting after such invalidation, amendments to the Bylaw or Regulations which are designed to comply with any court decision invalidating such provision or Regulation. 40 b &qp SECTION 12 DEFINITIONS The follewing definitions and discussion of terms in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this bylaw with following exceptions : , river, stream, bfeelc, or creek ffefn the ubjeet p orty ACTIVITY: any �arfn of draining, dumping, dfedging, damming, disehafging, excavating, filling of grading; the efeetien, reconstfuetion ef expansion of any buildings ef stfuetures; the driving ef pilings; the eenstruction of imprevement of roads and ether,�vays; the changing of ran eff utility eenduit ef system, ineluding but fiet limited to dfainage, sewage and water systems; fl+e discharging of pelltitants; the destruetien of plant lif�; and an), othef changing of the .. ..l.o...ieal t6.ormal or biel..,.ieal ,.1,. raetefistics of land „ ,.,for � AG4UGULTURR (see 3 10 GN4R 10.04 the Wetlands Pfetectien Act Regulatiens definition) ALTER: to impact ., a by an), activity as defined ..L.eye APPLICANT: any person who files a Request fer a Deteffnination of , intent Abbreviated Notioe of intent .�hese behalf these forms e filed A ]3,0�: land adjeining any bed), ofwatef that sefves to eenfifle said water, of where BOG: a wetland formed where surface drainage is congested. Low oxygen levels and soil temperatures cause incomplete decomposition, resulting in the build -up of fibrous peat. Bog plant species shall include but not be limited to those listed for bogs in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40. BORDER4NG VEGETATED WETLAND: A wetland that teuehes any: ereek, fivef, stfeam, whether permanent of , diteh; pond; of lake; E)f the bank ef any of the preeeding wetland r BREEDING AREAS: areas used by wildlife for , mating, nesting, t;.,;ty nd the r nd de elo nt o f ,. BUFFER ZONE: land extending ene htindfed feet hefizentally outwafd from the boundafy-of an), feseuree area subjeet te pfeieetiefi tindef these Regulatiens except for land subject to flooding or riverfront area, 41 I' 6,NI SECTION 12 DEFINITIONS CONSERVATION COMMISSION: that body of citizens appointed pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40, Sec. 8C. 42 FLOOPPLAP4 (See also Land Subjeet te Fleeding and Lewef Fleedplain): an area which floods ffeFA awaterway or watefbedy, during any event tip to and ineltiding the 100 yeaF storm ev SECTION 12 DEFINITIONS GROLR4DWATER: w&tef below the eafth's stirfaee in the Zone of Saturation, ifleludiHg !a tinder waterbedies-. HYDRIC SOIL: a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen - lacking) conditions in the upper part of the soil. HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: plant life growing in water and /or saturated soil that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen. Hydrophytic plant species include but are not limited to those listed in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40. iNTERMITTENT: (as applied to a bed), of water) does not flow thfetigheat the year, inelu4iftg !SS DIG AUTHORITY: rTHO ITV. the !`onsery tier C,,...missie LAND S II\R�� ECT TO L'I (1llDD G (See also lrl. odpl.,in and I e �nT 1 I],,rdering hand Subj et to Flooding: an afea wI ieh fl. eds due to a fise inwatef level e watev�vay of water body duri to and ineluding the 100 year sterm event; a 2. isolated Land Subject to Flooding� an isolated depfession or a elosed basin whieh serves as a- pending area fef fun off or high ground watef whieh has fisen above the ground suffaee. LOT: ui�ic u„r land, d- ith defined L d 0 nTVi�vwic T;mr p: LOWER FLOODPLAP�: the afeawithin the statistieal 10 year good or within 100 feet of bank or bordering vegetated wetland, whiehever is farther from the wateFbedy orwatefway. AAA O ITY: ffiere than half of the duly appointed m RibeFs .file ('onseizyatiOn Commission. MARSH: an afeawhefe gfound water is at of near the suff�ee of the gretind for a signifieant pa of the growing season ef where Fun effwater from surfaee drainage ftequenfly e0lleCtS aboVe the ineltiding grasses, sedges, rushes and other emergents. Marsh plant speeies shall inelude but no be limited to these listed fer marshes in Massaehusetts General Laws chaptef 13 1, Seetion MEADOW ()AIET)� see WET MEADOW MIGRATORY AREAS: these areas used by wildlife ffi g from one habitat to a eth 43 �6'q3 te the Bylaw. SECTION 12 DEFINITIONS PERSON: ORDER OF CONDITIONS: the doeument prepaFed by the Conservation Gommission tha business organizatten, tfust, estate, the Gommenwealthwhenevef subject to this bylaw, ef a" agency, public of quasi public COFPE)Fatien or body, or any other legal entity er its legal representative, agents, or assigiv- ' ON ` the issuing authefity, may suff-ef an injury in f�etwhieh is diff-eFent either in kind or magnitude from that li-W` i?iO in "'Fitifig suffleient faets as to how the), may be affected-by said act of failure to act. PLANS: sueh data, maps, drawings, ealeulatiens, speeifications, schedules and othef mate applieability of the Bylaw, of te detefffiine the impaet of the proposed work upon the intefests 0 the Bylaw. POND! a pefmanent or intermittent open body of f esh ,ate,- eithef naturally wastewater treatment plants shall not be considered .,,de etent: basins. � PREVENTION OF POLLUTION: the prevention or reduction „f ,.ent.,.r, :nation of the of ehange in the degradation ef an f:, water, ,o groundwater. r , thermal or bielegieal ehafaeteristies „f land .r PROTECTION OF FISHERIES: p „tectien of the e ..:t., „f an area ubjeet to protection n unu.,f the Bylaw to prevent or reduee eentamination of damage to fish, and te seFN,e as theif habitat and ..tfient s (Fish ineltides Edl speeies of finfish and shellF-h) QUORUM:: a quorum consists of four (4) members of a seven (7 ) member committee a majefity „f the ,dui appointed . mbe of the G .,tier r„ , issio ,. RARE SPECIES: 1. Those vertebrate and invertebrate animal species officially listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife under 321 CMR 44 b 6." �q 8, as well as those plant species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. i 2. Those plant species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. JSECTION 12 DEFINITIONS REMOVE: to take away by aet ef preeess, ineluding femoval of vegetatiefi; or to meve an), type RESOURCE AREA: an afea subjeet to pfeteetien under the Byla-w. RIVER: a natural course of water that has a continuous or intermittent flow and empties to any wetland, lake, pond or other river. The States definition is modified to include Canals. n flit RFRONT n R n : Shall be as defined in 21 n GN4R 10.00, as amended-. SHELTER: pfeieetian ffeffl the elements of predators. SIGNIFICANT� plays a fele in the pfevisien E)r protection of an intefest identified in this by4a-w-. STATE LISTED SPECIES: see: RaFe Speeies-. STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION: the prevention of damage eaused by Nvater- ffern sterffls, 0 buildings; of .7.,m.,ge a ed by fl.,.,. ing ,.,tor borne debfis ,ester borne ; STREAM: a bedy ef flowing water including bfeeks and ereeks, whethef permanent or of the grewing seasen er Where Full eff waleF ftem stiFfaee drainage trequently eelleets above the soil suffaee, and whefe at least 0 predominantly shrubs and trees. Swafflp plant speeies shall inelude but net be lifflited tO theS-e listed faf s,�vamps in A,T.,,.s.,..husetts Getier.,l Laws s Chapter 13 1 Cooties nn 45 Deleted: . Deleted: - Page Break -- ��Y� WATER SUPPLY: any source of water available, or potentially available, for public or private use. ECTION 12 DEFINITIONS WETLANDS: lands where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. This shall include swamps, wet meadows, bogs and marshes, creeks, streams, ponds, rivers, and lakes and bordering vegetated wetlands. Wetlands must have _two or more of the following three attributes: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytic vegetation; 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3. The substrate is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year, WET MEADOW: an area where ground water is at the surface for a significant part of the growing season and near the surface throughout the year, and where fifty percent or more of the plant community is composed of hydrophytic vegetation. Wet meadow plant species shall include but not be limited to those listed for wet meadows in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, section 40. 46 Deleted: Page Break..................... Deleted: one Deleted: ¶ 6't 6 INDEX Appeal of Determination 23 Of Order of Conditions 36 Authority 5 Burden of Proof 8, 38 Certificate of Compliance 37 -38 Consultant Fee 38 -39 Definitions 40 -45 Abutter 40 Activity 40 Agriculture 40 Alter 40 Applicant 40 Bank 40 Bog 40 Bordering 40 Breeding Areas 40 Buffer Zone 40 Certificate of Compliance 40 Conservation Commission 41 Creek 41 Date of Issuance 41 Date of Receipt 41 Determination of Applicability 41 Ditch 41 Dredge 41 Erosion Control 41 Fill 41 Fisheries 41 Flood Control 41 Flooding 41 Floodplain 41 Groundwater 42 Hydric Soil 42 Hydrophitic Vegetation 42 Intermittent 42 Issuing Authority 42 Land Subject to Flooding 42 Lot 42 Lower Floodplain 42 Majority 42 47 INDEX, Continued Marsh 42 Meadow 42 Migratory Areas 42 Notice of Intent 42 Order of Conditions 43 Person 43 Person Aggrieved 43 Plans 43 Pond 43 Prevention of Pollution 43 Protection of Fisheries 43 Quorum 43 Rare Species, 43 Remove 44 Resource Area 44 River 44 Riverfront Area 44 Shelter 44 Significant 44 State Listed Species 44 Storm Damage Prevention 44 Stream 44 Swamp 44 Variance 44 Vernal Pool Habitat 44 Water Supply 44 Wet Meadow 45 Wetlands 45 Wildlife 45 Wildlife Habitat 45 Work 45 Zone of Saturation 45 Determination of Applicability 23 -25 Emergencies 9 Enforcement 9 -11 Erosion Control 21 Extensions 35 -36 Fee Schedule 6 -7 Introduction 1 -2 48 6 '�'q 9 INDEX. Continued Jurisdiction 5 Minor Projects 24 -25 Notice of Intent 26 -30 Order of Conditions 34 -36 Performance Standards 12 -22 Banks 12 Biological Data 13 Buffer Zone 13 -14 Crossings of Wetlands 21 Detention/Retention Areas 22 Erosion Control 21 Fresh Water Wetlands 12 -13 Land Subject to Flooding 14 -15 Land Under Water 15 Riverfront Area 15 Side Slopes Near Wetlands 16 Stormwater Runoff 22 Vernal Pools 16 -19 Water Supplies 15 Wildlife Habitat 19 -21 Zone of Natural Vegetation 13 -14 Plans and Technical Data 31 -33 Plan Changes 35 Public Hearing 29 Public Meeting 23 Purpose 5 Security 38 Severability 39 Variance from Regulations 8 49 to ("YI 7.2 Historic Demolition Delay 7.2.1 Purpose The purpose of this bylaw is to provide the Reading Historical Commission with a tool to assist the Commission in its efforts to preserve the Town's heritage and to protect historically significant structures within the Town, which reflect or constitute distinctive features of the architectural, cultural, economic, political or social history of the Town. The intent of this bylaw is not to permanently prevent demolition, but rather to provide owners of such structures with time to consider alternatives, by encouraging owners to seek out ways to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore such structures To achieve these purposes, the Reading Historical Commission is empowered to create a List of Historic Structures, and to provide a copy of that List, as it may be updated from time to time, to the Building Inspector. With the Building Inspector, the Reading Historical Commission will implement the provisions of this bylaw with respect to the issuance of permits for demolition of structures that are included on the List of Historic Structures 7.2.2 Definitions The following terms when used in this bylaw shall have the meanings set forth below. 7.2.2.1 Commission Reading Historical Commission. 7.2.2.2 Demolition Any act of pulling down, destroying, removing or razing a structure or commencing the work of total destruction with the intent of completing the same and /or work requiring a Demolition Permit. 7.2.2.3 Demolition Application An official application form provided by the Building Inspector for an application for a Demolition Permit. 7.2.2.4 Hearing A public hearing conducted by the Commission after due public notice as provided in this bylaw. 7.2.2.5 Legal Representative A person or persons legally authorized to represent the owner of a structure that is or is proposed to be subject to this bylaw. 7.2.2.6 List The List of Historic Structures as it is constituted pursuant to this bylaw. 7.2.2.7 Owner Current owner of record of a structure that is included in or proposed to be included in the List of Historic Structures. 7.2.2.8 Premises The parcel of land upon which a demolished Significant Structure was located and all adjoining parcels of land under common ownership or control. 7.2.2.9 Structure Materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or shelter, such as a building. 7.2.3 Commission to Establish a List of Historic Structures The Commission will provide a List of Historic Structures to the Building Inspector. This List shall be updated from time to time as needed when properties are added to or subtracted from the List 6C( I of Historic Structures. The List shall also be provided on the Town's web site or other electronic means of publishing information to the community. This List shall be made up of: • all structures listed on, or located within an area listed on, the National Register of Historic Places, or the Massachusetts Historical Register of Historic Places ; and • all structures included in the Town of Reading Historical and Architectural Inventory, as of September 1, 1995, maintained by the Commission; and • following the procedures included in Section 7.2.3.1 of this bylaw, all structures that have been determined from time to time by the Commission to be historically or architecturally significant. 7.2.3.1 Procedures for expanding the List of Historic Structures In considering additional structures to be included on the List of Historic Structures, pursuant to section 7.2.3, the following process shall be followed: • The Commission shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, an inventory form for each structure considered for addition to the List of Historic Structures. The inventory form for each property shall be prepared using a standard form provided by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The criteria to be used for consideration for inclusion on the List of Historic Structures will include: • The structure is determined to be importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or • The structure is determined to be associated with the broad architectural, cultural, economic or social history of the Town or Commonwealth, or • The structure is believed to be historically or architecturally significant in terms of: • Period, • Style, • Method of building construction, • Association with a significant architect, builder or resident either by itself or as part of a group of buildings; • The Commission will inform by regular US mail each property owner whose structure is being considered for preparation of an inventory form • The owner of each structure for which an inventory form has been prepared shall be sent a notice of a public hearing at least 30 days in advance of the hearing. The notice shall be sent by Certified Mail — return receipt requested — or by service by a Constable. The notice shall include the following information: • that the structure that they own is being considered for inclusion on the List of Historic Structures, • a copy of the inventory form for the structure, • a statement as to the criteria considered in including additional structures on the List of Historic Structures, and • a copy of this bylaw. In addition to the notice of the hearing delivered to each owner, legal notice of the hearing including the street address of all structures proposed to be added to the List of Historic Structures shall be published at the Commission's expense at least 14 days in advance of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community. Additionally, at least 7 days prior to the hearing a copy of the newspaper notice will be mailed by regular U.S. mail to all property owners within 300 feet of each property containing a structure to be considered for inclusion on the List of Historic Structures At the hearing, the Commission will hear comment from all owners and abutters who wish to be heard, and following the close of the hearing the Commission will make a determination as to which of the structures proposed for inclusion on the List of Historic Structures shall be voted onto that List. The decision as to what properties to include shall be made by the Commission, with the inclusion of a property on the List of Historic Structures requiring the affirmative vote of at least 4 �-Z,, members of the Commission. The vote shall be taken at a public meeting, and the vote may be made either the same day as the close of the hearing, or at a later meeting of the Commission. If at a later meeting, the Commission shall inform each owner either upon closing the hearing or by regular US mail at least 3 days in advance of a public meeting, of the date of the meeting at which the matter is to be further discussed. Nothing shall preclude the Commission from voting to add structures onto the List of Historic Structures at different meetings. 1 7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal of addition of a structure to the List of Historic Structures An owner, at the public hearing at which additions to the List of Historic Structures are to be considered, may object to inclusion of their structure onto the List of Historic Structures. At the hearing or such later date as agreed by the Commission, the owner shall submit information or documentation in support of their objection. The Commission may consider their objection at the hearing and /or subsequent public meetings, and the Commission shall not vote to include the structure in question onto the List of Historic Structures until all information supplied by the owner can be fully considered by the Commission. In considering whether to finally vote to include a structure on the List of Historic Structures the Commission will consider the information provided by the owner, and particularly how the structure meets the criteria established in 7.2.3.1. In addition to those criteria, the Commission will consider the uniqueness of the structure, quality of the materials remaining on the inside and outside of the structure, and financial or other hardship that might be created to the owner by inclusion of the structure onto the List of Historic Structures. A structure whose owner objects may only be included on the List of Historic Structures if all 5 members of the Commission vote to do so. 7.2.4 Referral of Demolition Applications of stri Building Inspector to the Commission Upon the receipt of a completed Demolition Application for a structure on the List of Historical Structures, the Building Inspector shall • As soon as possible but not later than 30 days from the submission of a complete Demolition Application, notify the owner that the structure they want to demolish is on the List of Historic Structures, and therefore subject to this bylaw. • Provide the owner with a packet to apply to the Commission for demolition approval, along with a copy of the inventory of their structure, a copy of this bylaw, and a copy of any guidelines that the Commission has adopted regarding the demolition delay process. • Inform the Chairman of the Commission of a pending application under this bylaw. • Obtain an abutters list, at the expense of the owner, of all properties within 300 feet. • Upon receipt of a completed application for Commission demolition approval, determine the completeness of the application. • Notify the Chairman of the Commission who will provide the Building Inspector with alternative dates for a public hearing not sooner than 7 days nor more than 21 days from the determination that the application to the Commission is complete • Arrange for the publication of a legal notice of the hearing, at the owner's expense, in a newspaper of general circulation in the community including the street address of all structures proposed to be demolished. The notice shall be published not later than 7 days prior to the hearing. • Arrange for a mailing, at the owner's expense, of a copy of the newspaper notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the property containing a structure to be considered for demolition. • Immediately forward a copy of the application to each of the members of the Commission. 7.2.4.1 Completed Application The Owner shall be responsible for submitting seven sets of the following information as a completed application prior to the scheduling of the public hearing: • Completed application form (if any) • Description of the structure to be demolished (the inventory is an acceptable document for this purpose); • A demolition plan • Assessor's map or plot plan showing the location of the structure to be demolished on its property with reference to the neighboring properties; • Photographs of all facade elevations; • Statement of reasons for the proposed demolition and data supporting said reasons; • Description of the proposed reuse of the premises on which the structure to be demolished is located. • If applicable, the name and contact information of the Legal Representative; 7.2.5 Public Hearing The Commission will hold a hearing to allow all interested parties to voice their opinions and to present pertinent information concerning the structure, as well as its value and importance to the neighborhood and the Town. The Owner or the Legal Representative will present the requested demolition plan and supporting documentation. The public may present their opinions and additional relevant information. After the presentation and the public comments, the Commission will make one of two decisions: • The presented information is insufficient for the Commission to make a final determination on requested demolition of the Structure. Therefore, the Commission may continue the hearing. A continued hearing shall be not later than 21 days from the initial hearing. • The presented information is sufficient to make a final determination on the requested demolition of the Structure. Therefore, the Commission shall close the hearing. 7.2.6 Determination of whether the Demolition Delay is imposed Once the Hearing is closed, a motion shall be made to determine if the loss of the structure would be detrimental to the Town: • An affirmative vote by 4 members of the Commission will declare that the structure is protected by this Bylaw, and therefore, a demolition delay of up to six (6) months is imposed beginning the date of the vote. • A negative vote by the Commission (affirmative vote of less than 4 members of the Commission) will declare that the structure is not protected by this Bylaw, and the Building Inspector may issue a permit to demolish the structure. The Commission will notify the Building Inspector within seven (7) days of the Commission's decision. If the notice is not received within the expiration of seven (7) days of the close of the hearing, the Building Inspector may act on the Demolition Permit Application with no further restrictions of this bylaw. 7.2.6.1 Demolition Delay imposed The Commission shall advise the Owner and the Building Inspector of the determination that the Demolition Permit will be delayed up to six (6) months. During this time, alternatives to demolition shall be considered. The Commission shall offer to the Owner information about options other than demolition, including but not limited to resources in the preservation field, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Town Planner, and other interested parties that might provide assistance in preservation or adaptive reuse. 7.2.6.2 Responsibilities of Owner if Demolition Delay is imposed The Owner shall be responsible for participating in the investigation of options to demolition by: • Actively pursuing alternatives with the Commission and any interested parties; • providing any necessary information; • allowing reasonable access to the property; and • by securing the premises. 7.2.6.3 Release of Delay 6d4 Notwithstanding the preceding section of this bylaw, the Building Inspector may issue a Demolition Permit at any time after receipt of written notice from the Commission to the effect that the Commission is satisfied that one of the following conditions has been met: • There is no reasonable likelihood that either the Owner or some other person or group is willing to purchase, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the structure; • The Owner, during the delay period, has made continuing, bona fide and reasonable efforts to locate a purchaser to preserve, rehabilitate and restore the structure, and that such efforts have been unsuccessful; • The Owner has agreed in writing to accept a demolition permit on specified conditions, including mitigation measures approved by the Commission; or • A period of six (6) months has elapsed since the conclusion of the Hearing and provided. 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a demolition delay may appeal from the imposition of the delay, and /or conditions of the imposition of the delay, by filing with both the Chairman of the Historical Commission and the Board of Selectmen a written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision of the Commission to impose the Demolition Delay. Within twenty -one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board of Selectman shall convene an appeal hearing which shall include the Historical Commission and the owner or the owner's Legal Representative for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The appeal shall review the record of the proceedings before the Commission and input provided by the owner and Commission representatives. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the parties and to abutters within 300 feet of the property. Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal 7.2.7 Emergency Demolition Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the Building Inspector from ordering pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 143 the emergency demolition of a structure included in the List of Historic Structures. Before issuing an order for an emergency demolition of such a structure, the Building Inspector shall make reasonable efforts to inform the Chairperson of the Commission of his intent to issue such an order. 7.2.8 Enforcement and Remedies In the event a structure on the List of Historic Structures is demolished in violation of this bylaw, then no building permit shall be issued for the premises for a period of two (2) years after the date of such demolition. Note — the sections in boxes are alternative language for the Board of Selectmen to consider M" National and State Registers Local inventory Pre 1995 Determined by 4/5 of RHC DEMOLITION DELAY BYLAW - EXISTING PROCESS Application for RHC Makes Preferably Demolition Determination Perserved Inventory/ ISO Permit to 0 RHC to designate imposes List to = B;ulding ? holds as Preferably Demolition Building Inspector' Positive 21 Public 15 Preserved or Delay of up Inspector 7.223_E •'; Determination days hearing days release to 6 months Building Inspector 14 notifies RHC days RHC notifies Property owner Negative determination Early Release Building inspector issues 4M A- Demolitio n Permit >s Delayed for upto6 months - work with Property owner - delay may List of Historic Structures - National and State Registers - Local Inventory pre 1995 - Determined by 4/5 of RHC 8/1/2012 DEMOLITION DELAY BYLAW - ALTERNATIVE PROCESS If on the List of Historic Structures, Building Inspector notifies applicant, gives application packet to the applicant, determines when an application is complete, notifies RHC, reviews potential hearing date(s), days Public hearing I days I release Early Release Preferably Perserved designation imposes Demolition Delay of up to 6 months uemounon Delayed for up to 6 months - work with Property )wner - delay mad be released before 6 months Memo To: Jean Delios, Community Services Director/Town Planner Jessie Wilson, Staff Planner From: George J. Zambouras, Town Engineer CC: CPDC; Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager; Phil Terzis, Oaktree Development Date: August 5, 2012 Re: Oaktree - 30 Haven Revisions Materials Reviewed: Revised Site Plans — Oaktree 30 Haven, sheets C -1 to C -3 prepared by DeVellis Zrein Inc. dated May 31, 2011 with revisions to August 2, 2012 The above plans depict changes in the original design to correct for existing elevation differences discovered during construction; to eliminate the removal of trees along the northerly property line of the Brande Court Parking Lot and to confirm the materials to be utilized in sidewalk re- construction. The plan revisions successfully address the existing site conditions determined during construction and I recommend their approval. Haven Street Elevations: To address the elevation differences within Haven Street the developer will adjust curb heights and establish new pavement grades as depicted on the revised plans. These revisions will enable for proper sidewalk grading and drainage; and will establish roadway grades within Haven Street that will coincide with the final grades anticipated under the Towns future streetscape project. Brande Court Parking Lot: To address the protection of mature trees along the northerly property line of the Brande Court Parking Lot the layout has been reconfigured in a manner that maintains the original approved number of parking spaces and re- establishes a two way lane along the northerly portion of the lot. Site Materials: The sidewalk along Haven Street, along the parking lot ROW and along the rear of the building adjacent to the parking lot will be constructed of concrete sidewalk with brick banding to match the treatment installed within the Main Street project. The Haven street crosswalk will also be constructed to match the treatment installed within the Main Street project. The parking lot center banding will be constructed of stamped bituminous pavement which will provide the visual separation between the rows of parking stalls in lieu of the approved treatment to reduce long term maintenance. 0 Page 1 LAYOUT AND MATERIAL NOTES LEc El THI PARKING COUNTS 30 HAVEN - LAYOUT PLAN ffi oz i aaA01 DeV II Z Inc e C_ FOR CONSTRUCTION " LAYOUT AND MATERIAL NOTES LEGEND i ­TEL 1011 IF IIAIINI 1. 11 INI STING CDN OFF ILI PROPCISED BUILDING 30 HAVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION Board of Selectmen Meeting July 10, 2012 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Stephen Goldy, Vice Chairman Ben Tafoya, Secretary Richard Schubert, Selectman John Arena, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena, and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Joanne Senders, Lorraine Horn, Town Engineer George Zambouras, Aron Wynette, Mark Reserve and Betsy Shea. Executive Session Real Estate — A motion by Tafoya seconded by Schubert to Izo into Executive Session to consider the purchase, exchanIze, lease or value of real property at 136 Haven Street, and that the Chair declares that an open meetinlz may have a detrimental effect on the nelZotiatinIZ position of the body and to reconvene in Open Session at approximately 7:30 p.m. was approved on a roll call vote with all four members voting in the affirmative. The Board reconvened in Open Session at 7:35 p.m. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments — John Arena indicated he is working on the Demolition Delay Group and it is working well. Stephen Goldy noted that the State Representatives took a bus full of seniors to the State House. Bill Brown gave him suggestions on sale of real estate including changing the zoning for the Oakland Road parcel and maintaining the right of way on Lothrop Road. Mr. Goldy noted that this agenda item is being rescheduled for when there is a full Board. Town Mana erg 's Report — The Town Manager gave the following report: ♦ Volunteers still needed — ZBA, Bylaw Committee, Finance Commission, and Trails Committee. ♦ I have included in your material the semi - annual customer service survey results. Through the end of June we had 59 forms submitted. Customer satisfaction was very high — 98% rated good or excellent — the vast majority excellent. It is my intent to report the results to the Board of Selectmen annually from here on in, unless a customer service problem surfaces. ♦ Demolition Delay Bylaw Working Group is still meeting. ♦ The Town's home rule petition regarding the water and sewer easements between Belmont Street and Ivy Drive has passed the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. %1 Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10, 2012 — page 2 Community Services ♦ FREE Clinic for seniors - Tetanus /Whooping Cough vaccine — went very well. ♦ The ZBA and CPDC held a joint hearing on an application by Home Depot. I will want to survey participants and see how they feel it went. ♦ You have received material from the National Association of Tobacco Outlets regarding the Board of Health's approval of new tobacco regulations which are consistent with many such regulations in Massachusetts including those in Melrose and Wakefield. ♦ The Farmers Market is now open at the depot on Tuesday afternoon/evening. ♦ The staff kick -off of the Retail Visioning program is Thursday afternoon, with the public part of the program — a community workshop — on September 12, from 8:00 to 10:30 a.m. Individual consultations will be solicited following that workshop program. Public Safety • Everbridge issues with Comcast. • Fire truck fire. ■ Licensing of Parking Garages — 30 Haven Street on July 24; others in August. Public Works Street Paving • Pearl Street, Belmont Street, Wilson Street, Track Road, Norman Road, and California Road. • William Road, Kieran Road, Susan Drive, Sandra Lane, Joseph Way. • Microseal — Washington Street, Lowell Street, Hopkins Street, Charles Street. • Upper Lowell Street and Causeway Road (by state). • Blueberry Lane (All) — scheduled to pave on Monday 7/9. • Mill Street (Old Sanborn Lane to Short Street) - scheduled to pave on Monday 7/9. • Short Street (All) - scheduled to pave on Monday 7/9. • Bancroft Avenue (Woburn Street to Middlesex Avenue) - scheduled to pave on Tuesday 7/10. • Copeland Avenue (All) -scheduled to pave on Tuesday 7/10. • Evergreen Road (All) — paving not scheduled as of this date. • Susan Drive (All) — paving not scheduled as of this date. • Willow Street — Lowell Street westward 1,200 feet. • Additional roads this year: Oakland Road (next summer), Boswell Road, Main Street, Washington Street to RR, Pleasant Street, Manning Street to end, Garret Street, Irving Street. Curbing /Sidewalk ♦ Edgemont Avenue — almost complete. ♦ Haven Street — Starts in 2 -3 weeks. ♦ Mineral Street — RMLD getting access rights addressed. Utilities ♦ Haverhill Street water main replacement. ♦ Howard Street water main. ?a2 Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10 2012 — page 3 ♦ "Poet's Corner" sewer main. ♦ Lewis Street Sewer main — reauthorize funding next fall. Reading Fall Street Faire will be held on September 9. We are in need of money to complete the conversion of our holiday light display (expanded by 6 trees) to LED lights. We need 500+ strings of lights at an average of $11 per string. Donations can be made to the Town of Reading with a note that they are for "Holiday Lights." Assistant Town Manager's Repo — Bob LeLacheur noted that the water bills are due on Monday to be eligible for the discount. The Assessors RFP was inadequate so a second RFP was issued. All the work can be done as scheduled and there should be adequate funding. Also there has been $650,000 in state aid funding added to our base. Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation Recognition of Board, Committee and Commission Members who are Retiring and Served More than Five Years — Stephen Goldy thanked the retiring Committee members for their service. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen approve the Certificate of Appreciation for Marguerite Bosnian for serving six years on the Council on Aging was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen approve the Certificate of Appreciation for Lorraine Horn for serving six years on the Cultural Council was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen approve the Certificate of Appreciation for Victoria Schubert for serving six years on the Cultural Council was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen approve the Certificate of Appreciation for Charles McDonald for serving nine years on the Human Relations Advisory Committee was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Personnel and Appointments Appointment of Reading Municipal Light Board Member — Light Board members Phil Pacino, Marsie West, Robert Soli and Gina Snyder were present and called their meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. It was noted that this is a joint meeting of the Reading Municipal Light Board and Board of Selectmen to fill an opening midterm due to Mary Ellen O'Neill's resignation. The Town Manager noted there are three applicants and five votes are needed to win. -?a3 Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10, 2012 — page 4 Applicant John Stempeck noted that he is a 30 year resident and he spent time on the Community Planning and Development Commission and worked on the 193/195 project. He does consulting work and has followed the Reading Municipal Light Board and feels it is a good fiscally run organization. He noted that his work experience lends itself to qualify him for the position. Phil Pacino asked how he felt about renewable energy and Mr. Stempeck indicated he would buy fossil fuel but still invest in renewable energy. John Arena asked how he weighed the options on REC's and Mr. Stempeck indicated that we have to be fiscally responsible and noted that Germany invested in solar energy for 10 years and when they stopped investing it bottomed out. Gina Snyder noted that the average electric bill in Reading is $94 per month and asked how he would reduce it. Mr. Stempeck noted there is a savings by going to off hours and he also suggested subsidizing an LED lighting program. Richard Schubert asked if he will run for election in the spring and Mr. Stempeck indicated he will. Robert Soli noted there are 20 meetings per year and asked if Mr. Stempeck can fit those into his schedule and Mr. Stempeck indicated he could. Marsie West asked how he would make the biggest impact and Mr. Stempeck noted he has a strong analysis background. Applicant David Talbot noted that he is a 14 year resident and a technology journalist who works at MIT. He has been to research labs, including Germany, and he has also been a news reporter. He would suggest giving better analytical data on the bill. He also suggests finding and promoting new communication strategies because only a couple of hundred residents are using time use. Phil Pacino asked how he felt about renewable energy moving forward and Mr. Talbot indicated to go all in as feasible. Marsie West asked his position on REC's and Mr. Talbot indicated a couple of weeks ago he felt we should have kept them but he would need to see the balance. Gina Snyder asked him how he would reduce the average bill of $94 per month and Mr. Talbot indicated he would promote demand reduction. Robert Soli asked about his work schedule and Mr. Talbot indicated he has children and a job but still has time, but not as much as Mr. Stempeck. -2 o. Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10 2012 — page 5 Richard Schubert asked what kind of strategies he would use as a Light Board member and Mr. Talbot suggested getting more involved with the schools, the website, I- phones and best use practices. Applicant John Carpenter indicated he served on the School Committee, Town Meeting, and the RCTV Board of Directors which meet on Tuesdays so there is no conflict. He's been volunteering since 1985. His day job evolved into project management and he is working as a contractor at Hanscom Air Force Base. He would focus on how to do things more efficiently, advocate for stakeholders and consumers, encourage more input from customers, and evaluate if we can recover from terrorist attacks, storms, etc. John Arena asked what the largest single challenge was that the RMLD faces. Mr. Carpenter indicated it was smart use of technology and also nuances on how to conserve. Phil Pacino asked about renewable energy and Mr. Carpenter indicated that he likes it and it promotes conservation. Richard Schubert asked if he plans on running for election and Mr. Carpenter indicated most likely. Gina Snyder asked Mr. Carpenter how he would reduce the average monthly bill and Mr. Carpenter noted that RMLD rates are already low so he would suggest technology, conservation, and outreach. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya that the Board of Selectmen and Reading Municipal Light Board, acting as a committee of the whole, place the following names into nomination for one position on the Reading Municipal Light Board for a term expiring upon the conclusion of the Town Election scheduled for April 2, 2013: John Carpenter, John Stempeck and David Talbot. Mr. Stempeck received six votes and Mr. Talbot received two so Mr. Stempeck was appointed to the position. A motion by West seconded by Snyder for the Light Board to adjourn at 8:47 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Discussion /Action Items Hearing — Confirming Causeway Road Betterments — The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted the project is complete. The estimate was $230,000 and the final cost is $130,000. The highest estimated assessment was originally $22,000 but now $8,600 is the highest assessment. The interest rate is the Town's borrowing rate for up to 20 years. John Arena asked who pays if the building is sold and Bob LeLacheur noted that the assessment goes with the property. Joe Curto, 81 Causeway Road, indicated that this is a public road and he feels that he should not have to pay for betterments. He will go to court if he has to pay for betterments. Stephen Goldy noted that this road is listed as a private way. Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10 2012 — page 6 Fred Livingstone, 52 Causeway Road, complimented the employees in Engineering and Public Works on the great job they did. A motion by Tafoya seconded by Schubert that the Board of Selectmen close the hearing on confirming the Causeway Road betterments was approved by a vote of 4 -0- 0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Arena that the Board of Selectmen confirm the betterments for the improvement of Causeway Road at a total cost of $129,705.25 with the assessments apportioned as follows among the benefitting property owners and at the rate of interest on unpaid balances of 3.97% per annum for a maximum term of up to 20 years: Total private road frontage 1930.22 feet Final construction cost for the private section of roadway = $ 129,705.25 cost per linear foot = $ 67.20 7a.'(0 CAUSEWAY ROAD BETTERMENT ASSESSMENTS — July 10, 2012 Taking No. MAP PARCEL ADDRESS FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT T -15 31 1 (RMLD) 30.80 $ 2,069.67 T -12 31 2 31 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.64 $ 4,074.83 T -11 31 3 3' ) Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.53 $ 4,067.44 T -13 25 57 (RMLD) 221.28 $ 14,869.38 T -13 31 4 (RMLD) 179.30 $ 12,048.45 T -14 31 5 (TOWN) 169.19 $ 11,369.08 T -6 25 46 80 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 129.20 $ 8,681.87 T -7 25 47 74 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -8 25 48 66 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -9 25 49 60 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -10 25 50 52 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 126.47 $ 8,498.42 T -5 25 51 53 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -4 25 52 61 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -3 25 53 65 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -2 25 54 73 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 T -1 25 55 81 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 112.81 $ 7,580.51 $ 129,705.25 Total private road frontage 1930.22 feet Final construction cost for the private section of roadway = $ 129,705.25 cost per linear foot = $ 67.20 7a.'(0 Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10. 2012 — The motion was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Presentation of Draft Report on Saugus and Aberjona Rivers Drainage Study — Town Engineer George Zambouras noted that AECOM did the study of the Aberjona and Saugus River Drainage Study. Aron Wynette, Mark Reserve and Betsy Shea from AECOM were present. Staff has not reviewed it yet. Mark Reserve noted that they did a site walk and identified problem areas. There are issues of deteriorating structures. There are two issues in area 1 — the bridges on Track Road are not in good shape and should be closed, replaced or left as is. Also, the beaver dam was removed last October and the beaver population needs to be maintained. Aron Wynette noted that on Bolton Street there are three properties with an open channel. This is a safety concern because it has deteriorated. The channels could be covered and landscaped or a footbridge could be provided. He recommends covering the channel which will provide residents with full access to all of their property. Mr. Wynette noted in area 3 in the Sunnyside area he proposes to increase the size of the pipes and put in a control gage to prevent an increase in flows downstream. At Minot Street at Main Street he recommends a similar solution or just divert the flow to the wetland area and there will be no downstream impact. In area 4 on Whittier Road he recommends improving the conveyance of capacity of the culverts. The Board members indicated that a lot of time has been spent on Whittier Road flooding issues and any help would be appreciated. Mr. Wynette suggested mitigating flooding in the Bond Street area by offering a channel release instead of flooding backyards. Richard Schubert asked how old some of the deteriorating structures are and it was noted 1936. Mr. Schubert asked if there is a broader model that covers the impact on towns downstream. George Zambouras noted that the Saugus River is being blocked downstream. Bill Brown noted that the Town of Reading owns the Aberjona up to a certain street in Wakefield. Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Wakefield for Tax Assessment Services — Bob LeLacheur noted that the agreement is for 18 months to share the current Assessor Director in Wakefield 50150 and there is a clause to opt out if it is not working. This is similar to the health agreement and the Appraiser is confident that half time is enough time to get the job done. The Town Manager noted that this will need a vote of Town Meeting. He also noted that the Board of Assessors does not approve of the purchase of service. -�a;l Board of Selectmen Minutes — July 10, 2012 — page 8 A motion by Tafova seconded by Schubert that the Board of Selectmen approve the Inter - Municipal Agreement Between the Town of Reading and the Town of Wakefield for the services of a Director of the Assessing Department as presented was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Authorize the Sale of Land — This will be rescheduled when there is a full Board present. Approval of Minutes A motion by Tafoya seconded by Schubert that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of May 22, 2012 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafoya to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary imp /aG t3 0 S mater � �Jllaste SPi � Testin Inca' TOWN OF READING, MA WATER LEAK DEFECTION SURVEY SURVEY DATA CHART JUNE /JULY, 2012' m Stephen R. Wladyka 192 Washington Street Reading, MA 01867 July 18, 2012 Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 RE: Re- pavement of Washington Street - Response Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: I am in receipt of your response to my letter and just have to say a very loud and clear "Thank You!" �/ C 6c,J a f r� M to I truly appreciate your timely response and am so very glad and grateful that I live in a community (over 32 years now!) where an individual's voice can be heard and responded to by Town leaders. And, needless to say, I look forward to the raising of the catch basins later this summer/ early fall. Sincerely, Stephen R. Waldyka mu; BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. STATE REPRESENTATIVE MINORITY LEADER MassDOT Board of Directors MBTA Board Room 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3830 Boston, MA 02115 L/c QQs a�� e o�jcr e9eia��L�a�� 3 5 X412= 23 pi ji July 18, 2012 Dear Chairman Jenkins and Members of the Board: 20`^ MIDDLESEX DISTRICT READING • NORTH READING LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON ROOM 124 TEL. (617) 722 -2100 Bradley.Jones @MAhouse.gov We write to support the Town of Reading's position with respect to the I931I95 Interchange Improvements Project. The Town articulates its position on the project in the enclosed 2007 letter to the then Executive Office of Transportation, supporting the six "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system but does not endorse either of the interchange design alternatives because they do not eliminate all property taking, minimize noise impacts or minimize visual impacts on Reading properties. They were, and continue to be supportive of an earlier proposal to extend the four -lane cross section to the Route 129 interchange, including the elimination of the lane drop on I -95 in the Woburn/Reading area, but have concerns about other aspects of the project. The Town suggests that the Commonwealth implement the "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system now and invest more money into local infrastructure improvements, which will directly impact our citizens immediately. For example, the West Street reconstruction project in the Town of Reading has been in the works for over fourteen years, and is awaiting TIP funding. This project will provide much needed roadway, geometric and traffic control improvements that will result in improved vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as vehicular capacity and traffic operations. This project can be completed in a relatively short period of time for a fraction of the cost of the interchange project's preliminary design and enviromnental plan. This local project, and hundreds of others across the Commonwealth, deserve attention by the Administration and would be a better investment than some of the recommendations in the 193/195 Interchange Improvements Project. On behalf of the Town of Reading, we thank you for your consideration of their concerns. Sincerely, Enclosure Cc: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, Town of Reading veading Board of Selectmen 26s J. Dyer 0 Representative 30 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS. ANTHONY D'AREZZO Plaintiff , V. L (C 1'k) c. . cut %�-( 20!? 4`1.'� ',3 A 10! 38 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION TRIAL DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO. # 12-27 40 TOWN OF READING, ) TOWN OF READING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, ) DAMASE CAOUETTE, Chairman ) ROBERT REDFERN, ) JOHN JAREMA, ) KATHLEEN HACKETT, ) DAVID TRANIELLO, ) JOHN MILES and ) HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. ) Defendants. ) PARTIES COMPLAINT The plaintiff, Anthony D'Arezzo ( "D'AREZZO "), is an individual who, at all relevant times herein, resided at 130 John Street, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. 2. The defendant, Town of Reading Zoning Board of Appeals ( "ZBA "), is an administrative entity of the defendant, Town of Reading, ( "TOWN ") principally located at 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant, Damase Caouette, is an individual and member of the ZBA, residing, according to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 11 Field Pond Drive, Reading, Massachusetts. 4. Defendant, Robert Redfern, is an individual and a member of the ZBA, residing, according to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 54 Prospect Street, Reading, Massachusetts. 5. Defendant, John Jarema, is an individual and a member of the ZBA, residing, according '7d i to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 797 Main Street, Reading, Massachusetts. 6. Defendant, Kathleen Hackett, is an individual and a member of the ZBA, residing, according to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 3 Indiana Street, Reading, Massachusetts. 7. Defendant, David Tramello, is an individual and a member of the ZBA, residing, according to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 1 Old Mill Lane, Reading, Massachusetts. Defendant, John Miles, is an individual and a member of the ZBA, residing, according to information supplied by the Town of Reading, at 532 West Street, Reading, Massachusetts-. 9. Defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ( "HOME DEPOT "), is a private business which seeks a Variance under Section(s) 6.1 of the Zoning By -laws in order to allow HOME DEPPT to have fewer than the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning By- Laws for retail use located at 60 Walkers Brook Road in Reading, Massachusetts. FACTS /CAUSE OF ACTION 10. On or about July 2, 2012, a Decision was filed with the Clerk's Office at the Town of Reading on a petition for a variance regarding a proposed project located at 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts ( "SITE "). 11. Said Decision provided, in part; "Upon a duly made Motion and seconded, the Board voted (4 -1 -0) to grant the Petitioner's request for a variance under Section 6.1 of the By -Laws in order to reduce the number of parking spaces as depicted on the referenced plan ". 12. The plaintiff, D'AREZZO, is an interested party and an individual with standing with regard to the SITE and hereby appeals the decision of the ZBA stating that the actions of the ZBA exceed the authority of the ZBA, were arbitrary and capricious, legally untenable and not supported by substantial evidence. 13. The plaintiff, D'AREZZO, claims that the Decision violates several provisions of Town of Reading By -Laws Sections, without limitation, 6.1, 4.9.5.2.5 and 4.3.2.9 and that the petition submitted by HOME DEPOT for said approval was inadequate for the TOWN and /or ZBA to properly evaluate, vote and /or act upon in violation of Town of Reading By -Laws. 14. Specifically, and without limitation, the plaintiff, D'AREZZO claims that the relief q:d,Z CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET TRIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NC /- "'1 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S) ANTHONY D'AREZZO TOWN OF READING, et all Plaintiff Att Y Timothy 1. B (ley Type Defendant's Attorney Name Defendant Atty Address 274 Main Street, #307 Address City Reading State MA Zip Code 01867 City State Zip Code Tel. +1 (781) 942 -0200 j BBO# 566,491I (((( TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side) CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? E03 Claims Against Comm or Municipality - Average Track ]Yes r ] No The following is a full, itemized and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine money damages. For this form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only. TORT CLAIMS (Attach additional sheets as necessary) A. Documented medical expenses to date: 1. Total hospital expenses $ 2. Total doctor expenses S 3. Total chiropractic expenses $ 4. Total physical therap expenses $ 5. Total other expenses describe) $ Subtotal $ B. Documented lost wages and compensation to date $ C. Documented property damages to date $ D. Reasonably anticipated future medical expenses $ E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages and compensation to date $ F. Other documented items of damages (describe) G. Brief description of plaintiffs injury, including nature and extent of injury (describe) Total S CONTRACT CLAIMS (Attach additional sheets as necessary) Provide a detailed description of claim(s): Defendant's Decision violates Town By -Laws and defendant exceeded their authority by issuing decision. Plaintiff will suffer loss of value to his property and other damages as a result. © TOTAL $ ............... PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NA:1IE AND COUNTY, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT "I hereby certify that I have iumplicd with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court l'niform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC Itule 1:18) requiring that I provide Inv ' nts tyith infortttatLon about eaurt- connected dispute resolution services and discuss with them the advantages and disadvantages of the art s etko Signature of Attorney of Record ( { Date: 2 A.O.S.C.3 -200 . -" qj *CONTRACTS CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS SELECT CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CASE * REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS A01 Services, Labor and Materials F) C01 Land Taking (eminent domain) (F) E02 Appeal from Administrative A02 Goods Sold and Delivered (F) CO2 Zoning Appeal, G.L. c.40A (F) Agency G.L. c. 30A (}() A03 Commercial Paper A08 Sale or Lease of Real Estate (F) (F) CO3 C04 Dispute concerning title Foreclosure of mortgage (F) (X) E03 Claims against Commonwealth Al2 Construction Dispute (A) C05 Condominium Lien & Charges (X) E05 or Municipality Confirmation of Arbitration Awards (A) X A99 Other (Specify) E03 Claims against Commonwealth (F) (A) C99 E03 Other (Specify) Claims against Commonwealth (F) (A) E07 G.L. c.112, s.1 2S (Mary Moo) {X) or Municipality or Municipality E08 E09 Appo[ntment of Receiver General Contractor bond, (X) EQUITABLE REMEDIES G.L. c. 149, ss. 29, 29a (A) *TORT D01 Specific Performance of Contract (A) E11 Worker's Compensation (X) B03 Motor Vehicle Negligence (F) D02 Reach and Apply (F) E12 G.L.c.123A, s.12 (SDP Commitment) (X) personal Injury/property damage D06 Contribution or Indemnification (F) E14 G.L. c. 123A, s. 9 (SDP Petition) B04 Other Negligence- (F) D07 Imposition of a Trust (A) E15 Abuse Petition, G. L. c. 209A (X) P ersonal Injury/property dama a D08 Minority Stockholder's Suit (A) E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal (x) 805 Products Liability (A) D10 D12 Accounting Dissolution of Partnership (A) (F) E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12, s. 11H (A) B06 Malpractice- MedicaL (A) D13 Declaratory Judgment G.L. c. 231A (A) E18 Foreign Discovery Proceeding (X) B07 Malpractice -Other (Specify) (A) D99 Other (Specify) (F) E19 Sex Offender Registry G.L. c. 178M, BOB Wrongful Death, G.L. c.229, s.2A (A) s.6 (X) B15 Defamation (Libel - Slander) (A) E21 Protection from Harassment c 258E (X) B19 Asbestos (A) E25 Plural Registry (Asbestos cases) B20 Personal Injury- slip & fall (F) E95 ` *Forfeiture G.L. c. 94C, s. 47 (F) B21 Environmental (F) E96 Prisoner Cases (F) B22 Employment Discrimination (F) E97 Prisoner Habeas Corpus (X) B99 Other (Specify) (F) E99 Other (Specify) (X) E03 Claims against Commonwealth (A) 'Ciaims against the Commonwealth or a municipality are type E03, Average Track, cases. * *Claims filed by the Commonwealth pursuant to G L c 94C, s 47 Forfeiture cases are type E95, Fast track. TRANSFER YOUR SELECTION TO THE FACE SHEET. EXAMPLE: CODE N0, TYPE OF ACTION (SPECIFY) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? B03 Motor Vehicle Negligerce- Personal Injury (F) [X]Yes I ) SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29 DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF. The plaintiff or his/her counsel shall set forth, on the face sheet (or attach additional sheets as necessary), a statement specifying in full and itemized detail the facts upon which the plaintiff then relies as constituting money damages. A copy of such civil action cover sheet, including the statement as to the damages, shall be served on the defendant together with the complaint. If a statement of money damages, where appropriate is not filed, the Clerk- Magistrate shall transfer the action as provided in Rule 29(5)(C). DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT. Should the defendant believe the statement of damages filed by the plaintiff in any respect inadequate, he or his counsel may file with the answer a statement specifying in reasonable detail the potential damages which may result should the plaintiff prevail. Such statement, if any, shall be served with the answer, A CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET MUST BE FILED WITH EACH COMPLAINT. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS COVER SHEET THOROUGHLY AND ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION. &TJ 1 07/15/2012 14:47 9709,0994401 ABELjJD1,11ACi; 1'4 +C Nl1l PAGE 02/03 Town of Reading Zoning Board of Appeal The Decision of the Board of Appeals on the Petiti Zof 3;1 32 P 2: 3b YG rA voia Home Depot USA Inc. 4 D, S V �q Y2- P 21 3e Z :T For The Property Located At 60 Walker Brook Road, Reading, Massachusetts June 21, 2012 Case No. 12 -10 The Read -ng Zoning Board of Appeals (The `Board ") held a public hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall; 16 Lowell Street in Reading, Massachusetts on Thursday, June 21, 2012 to hear the petition of Home Depot USA Inc., (the "Petitioner ") who sought a Variance under Section 6.1 of the Zoning By -Laws in order to allow the Petitioner to have fewer than the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning By -Laws for retail use located at 60 Walker Brook Road in Reading, Massachusetts (the "Property"). This public hearing was a joint meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Property is located in a PUD -1 Zoning District. For the gross floor area of the Home Depot facility, the Zoning By -Laws require 469 parking spaces on the Property. The Petitioner requested relief in the number of required parking spaces to allow for increased use of parking spaces for truck rentals, cart corrals, shed displays, seasonal sales and additional outdoor areas as depicted on Parking Supply and Layout Drawing C -1, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustilin, 101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9 15 1, Watertown, MA 02471 and certified by Michael E. McNiece, PE dated May 11, 2012 and amended June 21, 2012. The amendment dated June 21, 2012 revised the requested parking space relief from 75 to 65 spaces for the seasonal period of March through February from 32 to 22 spaces for the seasonal period of August through February. The Board may grant a Variance from the By -Laws if it determines that each of the following conditions are met: (1) particular circumstances exist relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structure that are the subject of the petition, but do not generally affect the zoning district in which it is located; (2) literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; (3) desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; and (4) the requested relief does riot nullify or substantially derogate the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. Attorney Bradley Latham made a presentation on behalf of the Petitioner, detailing the proposed parking plan and compliance with the variance criteria. The meeting was then opened for public comment where some suggested alternatives were expressed. A memorandum from the Zoning Officer dated June 20, 2012 was read into the meeting record. The Zoning Officer opined that truck rentals were not a retail use allowed by the Zoning By- Laws, however, subsequent discussion resulted in the conclusion that action on this issue rested with the Community Planning and Development Commission. Member Jarema concurred with the Zoning Officer's interpretation that the 12 parking spaces designated for the Penske Rental Truck enterprise is not a retail use at this location and subsequently, the petitioner /owner Home 5/ Reading ZBA Case No. 12 -10 Variance q,.j„ 67/1c-./2012 14:47 97P9899401 ABELI,)-Ji,IACK S'JC NlA, FIGt Ei; /Fi3 Depot USA, does not qualify, in his opinion, for variance relief for reduction of parking requirements for the retail Home Depot use of the Reading Zoning Bylaws. Following the presentation and public input, the Board determined that: (1) The uniqueness of the topography and soil conditions of the Property makes it difficult to reconfigure the parking arrangement or expand the retail activities into areas other than the existing parking field. (2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning By -Laws would involve significant changes to the property to provide additional parking spaces for truck rentals, cart corrals, shed displays, seasonal sales and additional outdoor activities. (3) Historical data on the use of customer parking spaces indicates the requested reduction in parking spaces will not change the character of the surrounding area, .thus relief can be granted without detriment to the public good. (4) The reduction in parking spaces will not change the appearance of the property and will still allow an adequate margin for customer parking, thus relief can be granted without nullifying or derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. Upon a duly made motion and seconded, the Board voted (4 -1 -0) to grant the Petitioner's request for a variance under Section 6.1 of the By -Laws in order to reduce the number of parking spaces as depicted on the referenced Plan. Any person aggrieved by this decision of the Board may appeal to the appropriate court pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 17, within twenty (20) days after the date of filing this Decision with the Town Clerk. Notice of appeal with a copy of the complaint must also be filed with the Town Clerk within twenty (20) days as provided in § 17. This Variance shall trot take effect until a copy of this Decision, bearing certification of the Town Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed after the Decision was filed in the Office of the Town Clerk and no appeal has been filed, or if an appeal has been filed within such time, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds and indexed in the Grantor's Index under the name of the owner of record, or is recorded and noted on the Owner's Certificate of Title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the Owner or Petitioner. Any person exercising rights under a duly appealed Variance does so at the risk that a court may reverse the variance and order undo any construction performed under the variance. ON BEHALF OF THE READING ZONIINTG BOARD OF APPEALS Zoning Board Members Voting in favof Caouette, Kristin Cataldo kins, Damase Zoning Board Member- Voting against the Motion: John J Reading ZBA Case No. 12 -10 Variance .. TOWN GL1rRiC jqd�