No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-18 Board of Selectmen PacketDRAFT - BOARD OF 2013 SELECTMEN AGENDAS 2013 Staff Estimated Responsibility Start time (future agendas (Policy on use of the AHTF Review license and permit fees (Policy on Trust Fund Commissioners (Discuss driveway width issues. Strout Avenue Master Plan - after Town Forest planning work is done (Discuss role of Bylaw Committee liquor license hearing - 622 Main Street Discuss driveway width issues. Fingerprinting law implementation (Instructional motion - flag protocol (January 8, 2013 I I Office Hour ICY 2013 Goals IHechenbleikner I Close warrant - Special Town Meeting I Hechenbleikner 1 8:00 Hearing Change of Manager - Macaroni Grill IHechenbleikner I Discussion re re-alignment of parking regulations to take into account the municipal use of the MBTA lot on Vine Street PTTTF 2014 priority for sidewalk -Vine Street or Prescott Street PTTTF Liquor License application - Bunratty's Tavern - Hearing Main Street (review fingerprint bylaw 1 I January 15, 2013 ( I 7:00 IFY14 Budget Meeting location TBA ILeLacheur I I "January 22, 2,013 1" 1, 7:00" IFY14 Budget Meeting location TBA ILeLacheur I I I (January 28, 2013 - Special Town Meeting I INO MEETINGS I I Fobru""a `12 2013 Office Hour Discussion - street numbering. lZambouras Close Warrant - Town Election IHechenbleikner Review final drainage studies lZambouras Review/approve Sturges Park Master Plan IFeudo report - Climate Protection Committee ( February 26; 2013 ( Close warrant - 2013 Annual Town Meeting Office Hour (Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Town Accountant appointment Town Manager appointment April 2, 2013 - Annual Town Election NO MEETINGS ( Aprif 9, 2013 Office Hour Stephen Goldy Zager/LeLacheu Hearing W/S/SWM Rates r Preview Town Meeting April 22, 2013 - Annual Town Meeting no meetngs (April 23, 2013 IMAPC member update Arbor Day proclamation Telecommunications week jApril 25, 2013 - Annual Town Meeting no meetings April 29, 2013 - Annual Town Meeting no meetings May 2, 2013 -Annual Town Meeting no meetings 6:30 Office Hour (Ben Tafoya 6:30 Proclamation Bicycle month Proclamation DPW appreciation week Proclamation (EMS Week I May 21, 2013 June 4, 2013 Office Hour I I I 6:30 Hearing IFY 2014 Compensation Plan I I IHearing Amendment to Personnel Policies I I I I I I IReview Goals I I I I I 18;203'_ ( 1101te I~ (Town Accountant Quarterly meeting Appointments of Boards, Committees, Commissions I I I I July 9-12013 I I ; IOffice Hour (James Bonazoli I I 6:30 ] July 30, 2012 I I . I ]August 20, 2013 I Office Hour (Richard Schubert I 6:30 (September 10,,M3 Office Hour IStephen Goldy I I 6:30 CAB member update Town Accountant Quarterly meeting ISeptember 24, 2013 (Close STM Warrant I I IOctober 8 2013 I- I Office Hour IBen Tafoya I I 6:30 ITax Classification preview November 12, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting no meetings November 14, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting no meetings November 18, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting no meetings 126-Nov-13 Office Hour Tax Classification hearing jApprove Liquor Licenses Review Goals Office Hour James Bonazoli Approve licenses jApprove early openings/24 hour openings Town Accountant Quarterly meeting IDecember 17, 2013 Town Manager Performance Evaluation, establish FY 2015 salary 6:30 6:30 o~ OFRTown of Reading . ) 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 '•lHCOR~ FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: December 13, 2012 RE: Agenda -December 18, 2012 5a) Town Counsel and the Community Services Director will be in to review the legal status of sign enforcement in the Town. In particular, the issue of amortization of signs has been cited in court cases in other communities, and Reading will probably not be able to enforce this. 5b) Community Services Director Jean Delios and consultant Bob Mitchell will be in to review the Housing Plan. Any input by the Board of Selectmen prior to the CPDC adoption of the plan would be helpful. 5c) Recreation Administrator John Feudo will review with the Board of Selectmen the Open Space and Recreation Plan. This needs to be updated periodically in order for the Town to be eligible for certain funding - particularly for land acquisition and grants for park improvements. 5d) The Reading Fall Street Faire Committee chaired by Selectman Ben Tafoya will review their annual report for 2012 on the Reading Fall Street Faire. 5e) I hope to have a draft inter-municipal agreement regarding Veteran's services as we previously discussed. 5f) Enclosed in your packet is a list of licensees for the various types of licenses. The Board has delegated to the Town Manager approval of license renewals. I will be asking the Board if they have any questions or concerns about any of the licenses prior to reissuance. Hechenbleikner, Peter _ From: Lindsay Houff <Ihouff@cadca.org> f Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:41 AM IJ( Subject: FW: Medical Marijuana Law: ACTION ALERT V UJ Hi Everyone, We thought you would find the below information useful. As always, please let me know if you have any questions! Best, Lindsay Houff Public Policy Associate Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) 625 Slaters Lane, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 706-0560 x 255 IhouffO-cadca.ora, From: heidiheilmanmaoaCabamaii.com fmailto:heidiheilmanmaoa(damail.comj On Behalf Of Heidi Heilman Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:25 PM To: Info(c- maDreventionalliance.Ora Subject: Medical Marijuana Law: ACTION ALERT Dear Members, Partners, Colleagues and Allies, In the interest of public health and safety in the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance is urging all local stakeholders to take immediate action! Please contact your municipal leaders today and urge them to support the Massachusetts Municipal Association's call for a delay on the enactment of the new medical marijuana law until state regulations are fully in place and cities and towns have had adequate time to prepare and plan for the implementation of this new law. The one simple step for your municipal leaders to take is detailed below. 1 [G1 Without a stay on enactment, the following activity is legally permitted throughout Massachusetts as of January 1, 2013 1. People can possess, use and grow marijuana with a doctor's note. (Check out this new doctor's business that's moved into town: httr)://www.intear8ma.com/) 2. Caregivers can be designated, transport and grow marijuana - for as many patients as they want. 3. The 90-day clock on marijuana dispensaries starts. Medical marijuana businesses that submit an application to the state with only 4 requirements (name and address of dispensary, additional cultivation location, officers and board members, operations procedures) will be legal to set up shop after 90 days regardless of whether DPH is ready with regulations and license procedures or not. (Check out this dispensary consulting and licensing firm for Massachusetts: httr)://www.disr)ensarvr)ermits.com/) The Department of Public Health is not likely to have full regulations in place for another six-months to a year. Cities and towns are now scrambling to prepare for the marijuana dispensary business, cultivation and home grows that are already moving into Massachusetts communities. We need your help NOW to inform your municipal leaders how to take IMMEDIATE action that will delay enactment until the state has time to put in the restrictions and safety measures that our voters were promised by proponents of this law. WE HAVE TWO WEEKS TO GET THIS DONE or the wild west begins with medical marijuana with the new year. The simple, easy action to take: Our legislators and government leaders need to hear from local municipalities NOW. The Massachusetts Prevention Alliance has been advised that a key strategy for a successfully stay of enactment is for municipal planning boards, boards of selectmen, school committees and police departments to write to their Representatives and Senators to request a z (GZ stay of enactment from the Legislature prior to January 1st. This simple, one-page correspondence should be sent via email as soon as possible to the following individuals: All individual district Legislative delegates (for an email address directory of Representatives: httr)://www.maleaisIature.aov/Deor)l e/house; for an email address directory of Senator emails: http:Hwww.maleaislature.aov/people/senate) Speaker of the House Representative DeLeo (Anita. Flintoff(a-)mahouse.aov; Robert.DeLeo0maho use.aov) • Senate President Therese Murray (Therese. Mu rrav(a)masenate.aov, Garv.Andersona- masenate.gov) • Governor Deval Patrick (G Office5. state. ma. us; The Honorable Governor Deval Patrick Massachusetts State House, Office of the Governor Boston, MA 02133 • Cc'd to Geoffrey Beckwith of Massachusetts Municipal Association (gbeckwitha-mma.orq) so that he may then directly follow-up with individual Legislators - this is ESSENTIAL for this strategy • Attorney General Martha Coakley: officeCcDmarthacoaklev.com The argument: The 63% vote, on November 6, 2012, in favor of Question 3 has been called "the will of the people". It is a reasonable working assumption, based on the way the question was worded, that the will of the people is for marijuana to be an option safely available to profoundly ill citizens with specifically defined severe conditions for whom conventional medicine is not effective. It is reasonable to assume also that it was the people's assumption that public health and safety would NOT be adversely affected. Given the unforeseen, unintended consequences to public health and safety that has occurred in other states with similar laws and that our voters were promised by proponents of the ballot question that if passed, Massachusetts would be among the safest, most tightly regulated medical marijuana programs in the country - it makes no sense, to enact this law on January 1 st with no regulations at all. 3 (~3 Attached are three documents to assist you with this call to action: 1. A release from the Massachusetts Municipal Association 2. An example letter written and submitted by the Sandwich Board of Selectmen (feel free to cut and paste for your own purposes). 3. A one-pager on the timeline of the implementation of this law, as it is written. Thank you, and please email with any questions or needs. Please help us delay the enactment of the medical marijuana law NOW, before it's too late. Kind regards, The Massachusetts Prevention Alliance PS. More to come: Update on current legislative strategy and on local zoning ordinances and regulatory bylaws to pursue. We are assisting several communities with their zoning discussions now and are putting a package together for members to use for their own local purposes. Stay tuned! PSS. Please notify me if you receive this email from me more than once. Thank you. 4 1VH Heidi Heilman, President Massachusetts Prevention Alliance PQ Box 1502 Westborough, MA 01720 email: heidiheilman(a~mapreventionalliance.ora 508-439-0926 www.m anreventi on al l i an ce.ort l.iUXAI':1mif?i' 1us , Follokv %,,I.,\IIA ot7 '3 rt ittc^e Protecting and grornotr"ng the health and well-being of a# Massachusetts youth through sound public health and safety policies, (Gs- s 111LVg10 IVIUNNMAIUNULLS }j k gt f E 5 iRi,` Sdm f 'uAN.. Massachusetts rage 1 01 Home a2!aet i,~ Integr8 Massachusetts is an Integrative Medical Practice in the Boston area. We focus on helping patients get the most out of Medical Marijuana. • The practice is in collaboration with Dr. Dustin Sulak D.O., who is one of the leading Integrative Medicine Doctors on the East Coast and a Diplomat of the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine. • Our highly trained Medical Marijuana Doctors and Practitioners are ready to help you get your life back, legally. • We pride ourselves on compassionate care and education, while helping you achieve greater health through optimal use of cannabis and other safe, natural therapies. • We are opening the first week in January around Boston Metro Area, MA. We will contact you once we begin scheduling patients. We value your privacy all information will be kept confidential. I G('0 http://www.integr8ma.com/ 12/11/2012 lvlahhLIUIIUscu6 lvlcuiCUI lvldrlJuaIla rCrnIILS incenses 'kUnsulCmg rage 1 01.) Email Support Horne U sraI,is,i N,r, a Uspens;~rv Packages Dispensary Plans Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Dispensary Licenses & Consulting i ""gym A E rp~ { R' MassaCItls. tts Marijuana Dispensary Application and Expert Consulting Services Governor Deva! Patrick abou!, r is dical canr a s inlTativc and legalization. Vote Yes on Ouestion 3, 2012 lvlassachuseltS Medico' fAxijjana Initiative. P,tedca Ma=ijuxna !n Massac, .usetis. Wart V; r. .r.! . € E:<_ v, >iaitir:q a mcd.ua ra ijuana busmcss~ Wani to open a medical marijuana business or a medical marijuana lfeaJnN t cc-J.", i r: xx husals ro are riot exactly sure h OW"' You can pu°cnase a dispensa! y consultation and work 't on •.vith scrneone who as :Oct al . .~.a bUS.r eso asner: open Cannabis dispensaries, cultivation renters and other rTIedICX marijuana re aced i .....,,C, (,a,i H; Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Dispensary Business Plan A ccn, cl:.!1:n4.: O.i t"8t trvery wo;i.d t?~. ~ s.:.::::.,. - ,~r ,t Ii•.;afi:;n hLiSi if > t. eA[i ll Jn w"rJnt(4 d;,cun c I f a r:~ r 1'r, a.°!crt ;5 nm'('ic it i.r,(,_ca( .,ary n!'are. appiyi o r d h";".( + y nerrn8 it nc LAi i -tety 1 <.<. plans lined in'h:s •ncsar.. Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Dispensary Operations Plan Mari refit : e dispensaries and Ihedlcal marijuana cultivators, to have an c,!cratiors play r escr Bing your o1up'.)Ved flay- o {ay actlvl tes. An o,,er PUr s plan is pf-h ps the most i•m SitarS aspect of your business plan i het demonstrates your proonrt,dncs, w1d 'orw,ard-thinking to run a medical nmriiuana business. =`r, ir:ct nt: Contact Us Massachusetts MMJ News Aski ryy GoV nor pal, t k ab ul MA. toted c a M t .lama n Ir tictiv r ,'BZ. Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Dispensary Financial Plan A very useful too. for medical marijuana businesspeopk interested in cultivating or dispensing medical marijuana Includes a fin dnca: model incorporating real-world informal onto help you decide facility size, plant count build-out costs, capital requirements, revenue p ojertinns and murh more. PrnCu!`k Infp G~ Dispensary Template Essential Corporate Documents for Opening a Dispensary http://www.dispensarypennits.com/ 12/11/2012 1vJLdbbd ;11UJCl.IN iV1rU1La1 1VlarljUaila. rern1115 I L1LenSCS l.UnSUnmg rage ,4 01 .3 Dispensary Template Package Massachusetts Dispensary License Package F: i';r'.p iemplate PankagP L inc€ljdes r s ewial:rorpo tie doc'um Is to,, h ~3t.lsarv mar:juana r~ pcr. „ egill(e ' fa? ub(aining a wP . "y isper>ary 1-on- 'i Jnsulling time, us ir.?oer,•.arv DVC) DO packs €c ) .;>:il il -I, t.rn,)<;', srr}r'_ ,,ita~x>e5 T17e ' 1k nu) r ,.In : es h_ r,ti:, of pages of docun L . : t.fla .,fl t..,::...I:, ,d succ v :y F,', N do pen. nr, =;~ry ?her,r(h(n r> i, ~ana This pack•,;~ irc:,udcs. Corporate Documents: ( ...~r, A I of Inc:, ~ s .a~nf i'e n,pla'e D ~:r , mi se-r, N6 c 11.2 Ee Dispensary- f, iw,s. Di u. wry f" t-+'.ern[,r s are>,r,ent Sample, Extras' 4 t c opcr ,,I!dispr csar}. The custom Massachusetts Dispensary License Package is a very comprehensive solution for those interested In opening a medical marijuana dispensary in Massachusetts. This package will specifically address the rred cal marijaana licensing prugram of Massachusetts. DispensaryPermits.corn has a t0U is success 'nick record in helping clients obtain dispensary licenses in verycompetit ve state processes me ud,ng California, New.lersey Arizona and the Distnc, of Colombia. Tnls package includes ALL OF THE TEMPLATE items but CUSTOM for Massaviusens medical marijuana c,spersc:ry licenses. Ir, a Alton to the toilowing plans ;if required by %,W Dispensary Plans: Dispen Sa ry >ecwit., Pier • D,spensary Pr )du:;t Safety and L.a o 1 stin Plan • Dispenr r} + 16vatbn P <n• D,sf,, ns,rv Patlf fit E(JUC:rtu;r+ Fq„r° • Di^>penssry Ir,vr,ntay (antis') Plan • Dispensary Build!nq & Consh'ixI or, Plan Dis;Jr3ns,)ry Environrr +t=, Plan Dispensary I 're Prole( ion Par, • Dispensary Lo-,.- Rc, • Dispensary Community Benefits Plan G mail for irfa Our team has written PERMIT-WINNING dispensary and cultivation plans! u spc r;;+ , r + s; !.n, r wi n of ic, , prof.;..','onais including doctors. sawyers. scientists. architects, CPAs, hort.cuiturahsts, engineer, and .nedical rti m u< b::_ ...<>.a-i~r_, tc crea;r..,;.mH. eF,rnsi dispensary and cultivation plans, The, intellectual property we have developed on Md..>.9f..u>e, . +:.i; is a. + , ,u_, -a (.<atn erd c;,,,MFs A,(aUl l cos! you hundreds thousarms of do;iars to develop on yaUi own- but is available to you Wan Orfy o. ) i,.rsru+ In..i .;a„ .,can c ,)e'. nis available in Massachusetts we expect con,petitior, will be fierce. Once, they are given out the (,narree is awing, Gel profesionif consultation in Messachusetts to give your proposal the boss chance of M:.Ui4 i 1, t, r ~ (~aY a;h C7s.>Txinsrary pef rusts R%• ~~6 P ;1r~izaCP JVr•Et4 D!sfkcrunry P»nnlts N W 41, G S http://www.dispensarypennits.com/ 12/11/2012 BRACKETT & LUCAS COUNSELOIts AT LAW 19 CEDAR S I RI'1'I WoR(i s 1114, MA 01609 50M.799-9739 (1AR) S.INAiKI.II FAN 50:4-7990799 Kshrackettrc~brackcttluc:as.ann VIA Eh1A1L AND FIRST CLASS MAIL December 1 3, 2012 Peter 1. Heclaenbleikner 1'o~\ n Mam Cer "town Of Reading 16 Lowell Street }leading, NIA 01867-2674 CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RI:: Zoninu F.nforc:emc:nt of SiL'ns Dear Peter: You have requested that I prov idC you N ith an update to our memorandum Of October 19, 2012 regarding enforcement of the Readin- Zoning Bylaw ("Bylaw") as to certain signs N-hick do not comply with the applicable regulations. In our previous memorandtun, a copy of which is attached, we addressed the issue Of nonconforming protection of signs, using the matter of the Fantasia Building sign as an example. We had examined correspondence from the building owner in that case in v"llich he raised the question that, due to the fact that the sign was in existence when the Bylaw in que>6011 was adopted, the sign was protected from removal unless its use was abandoned or nut uSCd for a period of trio years or more. At our mcetinu on October 22, 2012, we discussed with Jean Delios the matter of Prey iOUS attempts to secure compliance with the Bylaw through Cnti)rcement letters and a proposal to bring signage into compliance through a special permit program. Following that meeting, Jean provided us with copies of enftorcement orders and letters which had been sent to properly owners in 2010 and 2012. We have reviewed those documents and prepared an inventory of property locations and the dates and contents of the orders./letters Much have been issued to date. A copy of that inventory is attached Lis well. For the benefit Of the Board of Selectmen and their consideration of this matter on TueSda) night, I point out the 161I(M ing elements: the Bylav,, as it applies to nonconforming signs, was approved by the Attorney (;eneral's Otiice and, therefore, has a legal presumption ofvalidity. Sa.1 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEI'-CLIE:N'I' PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION 11cter I I CC hcnhlei k tier, ' toH it Manager Uecenlher 13, _'012 Prue 2. The burden to proec protection as a nonconforming sign rests with the property owner. To date, it appears that no property owners have taken administrative appeals to the ZBA from the enforcement orders/letters which have been issued in 2010 and 2012. 4. M.G.L. c. 40A, §6 provides a six (6) year statute of limitations tor- enforcement action for signage which has been erected with a building permit and a ten (10) year statute UI limitations for signage which has been erected without a building permit. In evaluating the course of enforcement action to be taken, it will be necessary to review catch property in question to determine the following: Dues the sign/signage in quCStion predate: the adoption of the provisions of the Bylaw under which enti)rcemCnt is to be sought? If the sign is properly subject tO zoning entOrccinent, what, if any, further outreach efforts should be undertaken to secure N-Oltlntar-V eumphanee? i. 11' the property is subject to enforcement, without concern for nonconforming protection, should a new enforcement order be issued by the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer? 4. if no appeals to the Z13A are taken from enforcement actions, what should be the method of court enforcement (i.e. Civil injunctive relief [Superior Court), application for- criminal complaint [District Court])? I will be prepared to address these issues with you and the Selectmen at Tuesday's meeting. Please call me if you have any questions in the interim. Very yruly yours, Gary S. 3rackcu GSB.'dsh Enclosure ec: Jean Delios, Town Planner (via email) ~~2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gary FROM: Greg DATE: 10, 19; 2012 RE: Reading - Fantasia Building Sign I am writing this memo in response to the questions that have been raised regarding the nonconforniance ofthe Fantasia Building sign that was built in 1977 to the current Reading Zoning Bylaws. This question has been raised due to the fact that the Town of Reading had previously adopted a coning bylaw, Section 6.2.2.3 concerning non- conlorming signs, which required all signs to be removes] or he in conformlance by 2010. The Concept of Amortization The Reading Sign Bylaw ("Bylaw"), in place from 1993 through 2010, purported to create all amortization scheme, which required all signs to be removed or be in contorniance by 2010. The concept behind such amortization schemes is that where the community has chosen to enact new zoning restrictions, the law should grant sufficient deference to such decisions as to provide for a scheme of gradual coil l'on-nance. One method for achie~ in., such goals is the implementation of amortization schemes, which attempt to circumvent the Takings Clause of 5'1' Amendment by allowing existing uses to continue until the user has had a reasonable opportunity to amortize his investment, such that the user has been afforded the opportunity to fully realize the value of the investment. However, regardless of the purpose behind such schemes, their inherent constitutionality is far from settled law ill the United States with 16 states permitting various levels of land use amortization and seven states declaring such schemes to be unconstitutional or inconsistent with state law. Moreover, Massachusetts has yet to consider the legality Of such schemes in light of the federal and state constitutions and G.L. 40A § 6. As such, it is difficult to predict whether the Bylaw would survive judicial scrutiny if challenged upon enforcement. Amortization and the Current Status of State Law Despite the lack of relevant state jurisprudence, there are some indicators we can look to in order to determine how the courts in Massachusetts are likely to examine amortization schemes. Principally, we can look to ]low Massachusetts has historically treated non- conforming protections provided under G.L. c. 40A, § 6. Von-CO17%ornrint= Stru(ture and U'se f'rotecoon S°V3 G.L. c. 40A, § 6, generally provides that "a zoning by-law shall not apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully begun..." but shall apply to any change or substantial extension of such use, including reconstruction, extension or structural change Of such structure and to any alteration of a structure after the publication of notice of a hearing to consider the proposed by-law. The third paragraph of G.L. c. 40A, § 6 further provides that "A zoning ordinance or by-law may define and regulate nonconforming uses and structures abandoned or not used for a period of two years or more." A review of the legislative history of the third paragraph, indicates that the first grant of Icgislative authority to towns to adopt zoning ordinances and by-laws extinguishing pre- existing uses occurred in 1033, in [then] G.L. c. 40, § 261, the second sentence of which provided that "[s]uch an ordinance or by-law may regulate non-use of non-conforming buildings and structures So as not to unduly prolong the life 01'11011-conforming uses. - That language persisted until the effeCtke date of the present G.L. c 40A, § 6 on Jul), 1, 1975.' Subsequently, it became common for cities and towns to adopt ordinances and by-laws directed to the extinguishment of nonconforming uses which spoke in terns of "discontinuing" such a use for a stated period, In the first case before the SJC, it was concluded that "discontinued" was equivalent to "abandoned," the court concluding that .'we think-that the discontinuance of a noncontbrrning use results from the concurrence of two factors, ( I ) the intcnt to abandon and (2) voluntary conduct, whether of fir iati~e or negative, which carries the implication of abandontnerlt.-` This conclusion was readdressed in Bartlett v. Board ofAppeeds of'Lakerille, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 664 (1987), in which the Appeals Court reexamined the language contained in the third paragraph of G.L. c. 40A, § 6, which provides that "[a] zoning ordinance or by-law may define and regulate nonconforming uses and structures abandoned or not used for a period of two years or more." In doing so, the court concluded that by this language the Legislature had for the first time provided express criteria which to be employed by towns for the extinguishing of nonconforming uses. Accordingly, the court indentified that the only criteria to extinguishing nonconforming uses were: (I ) the already recogniied principle of "abandonment", as recognized in Pioneer Horne Insulation, and (2) the statutory prop ision of "not used for a period of two years or more." The court concluded that such language, taken on its face, was intended to authorize towns to extinguish otherwise protected nonconforming uses if'particular premises are not in fact used for the protected purposes for a minimum of two years, without consideration of the intent of the owner.' Constitutional I" Arnendrnent Proteclions LaAlontagne P Kenner, 2BS Mass. 363, 368, (1934) Planning Bel. of Reading r. Board of Appeals of Reading, 333 Mass. 657, 655-659 (1956). Bmdelt I, Board UI Appced of LAkevil1r, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 664 (1987). ' Pioneer Ins6dalion & Aloderrnizi ng Corp v Lynn, 331 Mass. 560, 565 (1954). Burden, at. 666. SDK That pre-existing nonconforming uses can only be extinguished by the two methods mentioned above, particularly in light of zoning ordinances or bylaws that purport to grant grace periods for compliance, is further supported by the conclusion of the I" Circuit Court of Appeals in Acke>rler Connntunlcalions of Mass., frlc. 1% Crrn oJ. Cambridge, 88 F.3d 33 (1" C'ir. 1996). Ackerlev was a billboard company maintaining signs in the City of Cambridge, all of which became nonconforming when Cambridge amended a zoning ordinance in 1991 to tighten the restrictions on the height, size, number and location of signs that may be displayed in the city. Specifically Article 7.000 of the Zoning Ordinances provided that four categories of nonconforming signs had to be removed within four years from the statute's enactment, or from the first date that the sign became nonconforming. in examining the legality of such an ordinance, the court noted that while G.L. c. 40A, § 6 mandates grandfather protection t1or all nonconforming uses, including signs, that are in existence at the time a zoning ordinance is enacted or amended, the statute excludes from such protection, billboards, signs and other advertising devices subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board (OAB). The OAB regulates so-called "offsite" signs." However, the court concluded that the combined effect of the local ordinance and G.L. c. 40A, j 6 resulted in the discriminatory granting of grandfather protection only to "onsite" signs, the designation of which is based purely on the content carried on the signs. As such, the court determined that the Cambridge ordinance was unconstitutional as it violated I" Amendment free speech protections, permitting some speech but not others based upon content. Attorney General Opinions Finally, the last source ofpotential intbnnation regarding how Massachusetts courts may interpret amortization provisions are opinions issued by the Attorney General in approving or rejecting potential bylaws or ordinances. As the Bylaw was approved by the Attorney General's Office prior to going into effect in 1993, it is presumed to pass constitutional muster. This presumption however is subject to legal challenge and represents only the opinion of the Attorney General's Office at that time. Approval of more recent bylaws and ordinances referencing the application of amortization to nonconforming uses indicates that, while the Attorney General's approval of such schemes are still being granted the presumption of constitutionality in light of the fact that the issue has yet to be decided by the courts, there are numerous areas where such schemes may conflict with G.L. c. 40A, § 6. In particular, in 2002 Brookline attempted to recodify its zoning bylaws and added a clause concerning amortization to Section 8.02 concerning "Nonconformance." Section 8.02 (1)(d) stated "No change shall be permitted which tends to lengthen the economic " An onsite sign carTies a message that bears soli relation;hip to the acu%itie5 conducted Un the premises where the sig❑ is located. ix. identitymg a blUlneJ$ or agCnC) or ads ertising a product of set%ice at'ailable at that location. An offsite sign CLlr1le5 a meesaUe unrelatcd to its particular location. fhese signs also may display eithci conmwrc ial of noncor inicicial messages. Cal J00110ri illy. S78 1~ 2d at 513 1 19891. life of the nonconformity lonuer than a period reasonable for such amortization to the initial investment as to make possible the elimination of the nonconformity without undue hardship." However, in approving the text, the Attorney General cited baron C herrolei v. Danvers and Berliner v. Perlman, stressing that "changes that increase efficiency or modernize a use do not necessarily result in the loss of Section 6 protections," and cautioned the town to apply the nonconformance section of its bylaw in accordance with the recognized protections of G.L. c. 40A, § 6.' This warning would thus seemingly contravene any application of an amortization schedule as the entire effect of such schedules is to completely eliminate nonconfonming protections after a certain number of years sufficient for the owner to fully realize the cost of his investment (for it to fully depreciate). Conclusion If the Fantasia Building sign qualifies as an "onsite" sign, then it is likely that it retains its grandfather protection as a pre-existing nonconforming use under G.L. c. 40A, § 6. As described above, the only means recognized by Massachusetts courts at this time to remt-We such protection is via one of the two methods identified in Bartlett, either (I ) by "abandonment", as recognized in Pioneer Home Insulation, or (2) by the statutory pro\ ision of "not used for a period of two years or more." This conclusion is supported by the 1" Circuit's decision in Ackerh•, recognizing that onsite signs are protected under the provisions of G.L. c. 40A, § (i despite the fact that the Cambridge ordinance granted a 4 year ,grace; amortization period for compliance. Finally this conclusion is also supported by recent Attorney General opinions noting that amortization clauses must be applied in accordance with nonconforming protections granted under state law. Despite this, the Bylaw was approved and there is a presumption of legality. It is entirely within the Town's right to attempt to enforce: the provisions of its bylaws. In making a decision, the Town must weigh the likelihood that enforcement will be challenged and the costs associated with litigating the matter. Tile Town should also note that under G.L. c. 40A there is a six year statute of limitations for zoning enforcement. As such, any attempt to enforce Section 6.2.2.3 of the former Bylaw would necessitate an identification of those signs that purportedly lost their grandfathered protection within the last six years. Attorney General Opinion. Case ?i 2173, May 2S. 2002, so-( Building Inspector/ZEO Town Manager Town Manager Address 2010 1 Jun-12 Oct-12 x / July free standing sign 70 Walkers Brook Drive illumination x / non-compliant x / free-standing sign special 9 Chapin Ave permit needed x / non-compliant x / window sign illumination, A frame sign special permit 32 Lincoln St. needed x / non-compliant 124 Walkers Brook Drive ~x / window size area Ix / compliant 35 Lincoln St. x /too many wall signs x / non-compliant x / background not opaque 48 Walkers Brook Drive x / non-compliant 175 Haven St. Ix / window sign location Ix / compliant x / free-standing sign 162 Main St. background not opaque & x / non-compliant x / background not x /free-standing sign 212-214 Main St. (3 opaque / number wall background not opaque & businesses) signs / window sign area windows x / non-compliant x / free-standing sign 216 Main St. background not opaque & x / non-compliant 273 Salem St. I x / window sign area Ix / non-compliant 1287 Lowell St. (x / wall sign location Ix / non-compliant x / free standing special 288 Grove St. permit x / non-compliant x / illuminated window signs 648 Main St. x / non-compliant x / illuminated window signs x / size complaince verification 672 Main St. 749 Main St. Ix /wall sign removal Ix / non-compliant 11321 Main St. ~x / window signs Ix / non-compliant x / free standing sign background, setback, area, 1331 Main St. height x / non-compliant 1454 Main St. ~x /window sign area Ix / non-compliant 1505 Main St. Ix / window sign area Ix / non-compliant 1580 Main St. Ix / window sign flashing Ix / compliant 591 Main St. Ix / window sign location Ix / non-corpliant x / window sign size/location x / non-compliant 607 Main St. 1583 Main St. Ix / too many awnings Ix / compliant 1454 Main St. Ix / window sign size Sa'l x/ banner/window sign size/ 413 Main St. lawn signs x / non-compliant x / window sign Too many wall and free size/number/opaque standing signs / not opaque / window sign 357-367 Main St. coverage and lettering x / non-compliant 1323 Main St. Ix / window sign location Ix / non-compliant 126 Main St. (x / wall sign number x / non-compliant 142 High St. Ix / window sign location x / non-compliant x / wall sign number / free standing sign setback / A- 1337 Main St. Pram sign permit x / non-compliant 250 Main St. Defunct Sign Removal Defunct Sign Removal / 258 Main St. real estate 670 Main St. Window sign area 1612 Main St. Defunct Sign Removal Window sign area / free standing sign number and 110 Main St. (3 businesses) opaque Permanent Banner / window sign area / number of free-standing signs / setback 45 Main St. too many wall/free signs 83 Main St. too many wall/free signs / window sign area / flag 117 Main St. Window sign area / free standing sign opaque 150 Main St window sign area / number of free standing 164 Main St. signs window sign area / free standing sign setback 163 Main St. window sign area / number of free standing 172 Main St. signs / opaque wall/free standing sign / window sign area / sign 228 Main St. not opaque 56 ^1 free standing sign setback 262 Main St. 274 Main St. (window sign location Window Sign dimensions and lettering / two wall signs/ wall sign dimensions 288 Main St. free standing sign setback 294 Main St. free standing sign setback 346-348 Main St. / not opaque free standing sign setback 360 Main St. / not opaque Too many wall and free 369 Main St. standing signs 1374 Main St. (not opaque Address 1 2010 1 Jun-12 I Oct-12 70 Walkers Brook Drive 9 Chapin Ave 32 Lincoln St. 24 Walkers Brook Drive 35 Lincoln St. 148 Walkers Brook Drive 175 Haven St. 162 Main St. 212-214 Main St. (3 businesses) 216 Main St. 273 Salem St. 287 Lowell St. 288 Grove St. 648 Main St. 672 Main St. 1749 Main St. 11321 Main St 1331 Main St. 454 Main St. 505 Main St. 580 Main St. 591 Main St. 607 Main St. 1583 Main St. 454 Main St. 413 Main St. x / background not opaque / number wall signs / window sign area x / July free standing sign illumination x / non-compliant x / free-standing sign special permit needed x / non-compliant x /window sign illumination, A frame sign special permit needed x / non-compliant Ix / window size area Ix / compliant x / too many wall signs x / non-compliant Ix / background not opaque jx / non-compliant Ix / window sign location Ix / compliant x / free-standing sign background not opaque & x / non-compliant x /free-standing sign background not opaque & windows x / non-compliant x / free-standing sign background not opaque & x / non-compliant Ix / window sign area Ix / non-compliant Ix / wall sign location Ix / non-compliant x / free standing special permit x / non-compliant Ix / illuminated window signs Ix / non-compliant x/ illuminated window signs x/ size complaince verification Ix /wall sign removal Ix / non-compliant Ix / window signs Ix / non-compliant x/ freestanding sign background, setback, area, height x / non-compliant Ix / window sign area Ix / non-compliant Ix / window sign area Ix / non-compliant Ix / window sign flashing Ix / compliant Ix / window sign location Ix / non-compliant x / window sign size/location x / non-compliant Ix / too many awnings Ix / compliant Ix / window sign size x / banner/window sign size/ lawn signs x / non-compliant sue/ 357-367 Main St. 1323 Main St. 1126 Main St. 42 High St. 1337 Main St. Too many wall and free standing signs / not opaque / window sign coverage and lettering x / window sign size/number/opaque Ix / window sign location Ix / wall sign number Ix / window sign location x / wall sign number / free standing sign setback / A- fram sign permit 250 Main St. Defunct Sign Removal 258 Main St. 670 Main St. 1612 Main St. 110 Main St. (3 businesses) 95 Main St. 183 Main St. 117 Main St. 150 Main St. 164 Main St. 163 Main St. 172 Main St. 228 Main St. 262 Main St. Defunct Sign Removal / real estate lWindow sign area Defunct Sign Removal Window sign area / free standing sign number and opaque Permanent Banner/ window sign area / number of free-standing signs / setback too many wall/free signs too many wall/free signs / window sign area / flag Window sign area / free standing sign opaque window sign area / number of free standing signs window sign area / free standing sign setback window sign area / number of free standing signs / opaque wall/free standing sign / window sign area / sign not opaque free standing sign setback 1274 Main St. 1window sign location Window Sign dimensions and lettering / two wall signs/ wall sign 288 Main St. dimensions free standing sign setback 294 Main St. x / non-compliant Ix / non-compliant Ix / non-compliant Ix / non-compliant x / non-compliant sa' free standing sign setback 346-348 Main St. / not opaque free standing sign setback 360 Main St. / not opaque Too many wall and free 369 Main St. standing signs 374 Main St. knot opaque -5,~ 2 rOF P repared By: Town of Readina: Housing Production Plan Town of Reading Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Services Director/Town Planner Jessie Wilson, Staff Planner George Zambouras, Town Engineer Kim Honetschlager, GIS Coordinator Consults= Robert P. Mitchell FAICP, Planning Consultant November 1, 2012 .5131. Contents Introduction ....4 Executive Summary ....5 A. Summary of Demographic and Housing Characteristics and Trends ....5 B: Goals for Affordable Housing Production ....6 C: Summary of Housing Production Strategies ....7 D: Next Steps for the Housing Production Plan ....9 Section 1: Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment .10 A. Total and Projected Populations: . 10 B. Household Types: . 10 C. School Enrollment and Projections .14 D. Race and Ethnicity: . 15 E. Residents with Disabilities .15 F. Income Analysis: . 16 II. Housing Stock Analysis .20 A. Housing Units and Types .20 B. Housing Tenure .20 C. Year Housing Units Constructed .20 D. Housing Market Conditions: . 22 E. Housing Affordability Analysis: . 24 F. Housing Needs based on Current Housing Supply .31 III. Affordable Housing Efforts .32 A. Adoption of Smart Growth Districts (40R) .33 B. Challenges and Constraints to the Development of Affordable Housing .34 Section 2: Affordable Housing Goals .43 Section 3: Housing Plan & Implementation Strategies .45 1. Housing Production Plan Implementation Requirements .45 A. Characteristics of Residential and/or Mixed-Use Developments Preferred by Reading .45 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 2 5 b2 B. Zoning districts or geographic areas in which Reading proposes to modify regulations to encourage SHI eligible housing .....46 C. Identification of potential sites and areas for affordable housing .....50 D. Municipally owned land with potential for affordable housing .....51 E. Participation in Regional Collaborations Addressing Affordable Housing .....52 II. Housing Production Plan Strategies .....52 A. Expand Housing Opportunities .....53 B. Regulatory & Zoning Changes .....54 C. Capacity Building & Education .....55 D. Local & Regional Collaborations .....56 Appendix I: Maps .....59 Appendix 2: Online Survey - Housing Plan .....64 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 3 SL 3 Introduction The Town of Reading's Housing Plan was approved on January 3, 2007 in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD") requirements under 760 CMR 31.07, Planned Production. Reading's 2007 Affordable Housing Plan expired after a 5-year term and as such, the Town of Reading has developed a new HPP in accordance with 760 CMR 56.03(4). The Town of Reading, Community Services Department, began the process of updating the Housing Plan in early 2012. Local housing plans, including updates, are subject to approval by DHCD. DHCD regulates Housing Production Plans ("HPP") under 760 CMR 56.00, promulgated on February 22, 2008. HPP's must now be designed to create strategies to meet affordable housing needs that are consistent with Chapter 40B requirements. In order for the HPP to qualify for approval from DHCD, the plan must be comprised of three components: (1) Comprehensive Needs Assessment; (2) Affordable Housing Goals; and (3) Implementation Strategies. (1) Comprehensive Needs Assessment -an evaluation of a community's demographics, housing stock, population trends, and housing needs. The assessment will include a review of the development capacity, as well as constraints, to ensure that current and future needs can be met. (22) Affordable Housine Goals - defined housing goals consistent with both community character and the local housing market. This section will identify strategies that can be used to produce the required number of annual housing units needed to obtain certification from DHCD. The regulations allow communities to secure a one year or two year certification if stated minimum production requirements can be met. To qualify for an annual certification affordable housing production must meet a minimum of 0.5% of year-round units. For a two year certification, affordable housing production must be equal to at least 1.0% of year-round units. 11 Imolementation Strategies -targeted areas for future development that will enable a community to reach the affordable housing goals. This may include identifying sites for development or redevelopment, investigating re-zoning options to encourage the production ofaffordable housing units, and establishing other tools such as regional collaborations that can foster the development of affordable housing. Upon DHCD approval, a HPP is valid for five years. Even if a community does not reach its 10% under MGL Ch. 40B, it may be eligible to receive certification from DHCD (either one year or two year). Upon certification, The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) may deny a Comprehensive Permit application. ZBA denial of a Comprehensive Permit is not subject to further action by the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), and may not be overturned. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 4 Sb 9 Executive Summary The Town of Reading continues to be a desirable place to live and work. It is characterized by a traditional New England center, surrounded by family-oriented neighborhoods. It has evolved over time from largely an outlying community with a strong agricultural presence to a modern residential suburb just north of Boston. Reading's proximity to Boston has added to its attractiveness. The Town has worked to manage housing development and growth through thoughtful and well planned development that complements its historic and rural traditions. The HPP identifies tools for Reading to use that will encourage the development of affordable housing while maintaining the distinct town character. A. Summary of Demographic and Housing Characteristics and Trends The following summarizes the notable findings from the needs assessment (U.S. Census, 2010): Population - Growth has not substantially increased in the past 20 years. Current projections indicate that the population will continue a slow increase through 2030. Projections show more households; but smaller sized households. Reading is primarily comprised of family households. • Reading's population in 2010 was 24,747, an increase of 4.4%from 2000. This is comparable to the 5% increase from 1990 to 2000. • In 2010 Reading experienced a 7% increase in total households from the previous decade. In 2000 there were 8,688 households in Reading, an increase of 10% from 1990. Approximately 72% of households were family households; 34% were family households with children under 18. • The largest age group in Reading in 2010 was residents aged 35-59 (39%), followed by the child-aged cohorts (age 0-9, age 10-19). However, the group comprising the elderly population (age 60+) increased by 25% in 2010 and is expected to grow by 57% from 2010 to 2030. • The majority of Reading Residents are white (93.5%). Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 5 Income - Reading has a higher than average median household income, which exceeds that of the region and the country. Reading's 2010 median household and family income was the highest among all of the neighboring communities, and exceeded the median income for both the Boston Metro Region and for median income in the US. In Reading, over the last decade there was an increase of 135% of households earning $200,000 or more. Approximately 44% of households in Reading earned less than $50,000. Assuming a 3 person-household, this would mean these households earn less than the area median income of $58,000 enabling them to qualify for some form of subsidized housing. Housing Stock, Sales and Prices - Predominantly single family, owner occupied with strong market values. • The latest census data show that the total number of housing units increased slightly by 4.5% in the past five years. Likewise, the housing stock continues to be dominated by single-family homes; 75% of all housing units were single-family homes. • Reading experienced a decrease in owner-occupied and an increase in rental-occupied housing in 2010. Approximately 78% of all housing units were owner-occupied and 22% were renter occupied 117.5% in 2000 were renter-occupied). This increase in renter- occupied housing could be associated with increase in multi-unit structures as structures containing 20 or more units increased from 6.8% in 2000 to 9.3% 2010. Another reason may be a result of the latest economic recession. • In 2006, Reading experienced a total of 241 sales for single-family homes. This number has since decreased and in 2010 only 193 sales were documented. • The median sales price of a single-family home in 2006 was $420,000 and decreased to $400,000 in 2009. However, Reading has seen some recovery and prices in 2010 were just slightly above prices experienced in 2006 at $422,000. Condo sales and prices experienced similar trends. • In 2010, approximately 38.3% of households with a mortgage and 23.7% of households without a mortgage were paying more than 30% or more of their annual household income on housing related costs. These households are considered to be moderately burdened by their housing costs. • Renters experienced similar housing cost burden. In 2010, approximately 39% of households paid 30% or more of their annual household income on housing related costs and were considered moderately burdened by these costs. B: Goals for Affordable Housing Production The following goals were developed by the Town of Reading, based on the findings from the Needs Assessment: Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 6 5,3(,, Reading has identified six housing goals that are the most appropriate and most realistic for the community. These goals were developed by reviewing previous studies and documents including the Reading Housing Production Plan of 2006, analyzing the current housing situation in Reading, and through public input from town citizens and officials. The goals are as follows: 1. Reach the 10% affordable housing goal while also focusing on the specific housing needs of Reading residents. 2. Preserve existing affordable housing to ensure thev remain affordable and oualifv for listing on the subsidized housing inventorv. 3. Integrate affordable housing into the community while preserving the oualitv and character of existing residential neiehborhoods. 4. Revise and update the existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a means to fund affordable housing development and activities. 5. Create a mechanism for outreach to owners of affordable housing to ensure maintenance and upkeep 6. Educate the publiC on affordable housing issues and strengthen relationships with other local entities and regional oartners on the topic. C: Summary of Housing Production Strategies The Town of Reading has developed strategies for meeting the affordable housing production goals. These goals were developed through the evaluation of the 2007 Housing Plan, the development of the Needs Assessment, examining local housing goals, and studying the responses from the Housing Plan Survey. The following is an outline of strategies. For a full description of the strategies, see Section 3. Expand Housing Opportunities Issue: Based on the information contained in the 2007 Reading Housing Production Plan, other town documents including the Reading Master Plan, a survey of town residents, discussions with town officials and the analysis of housing needs that was conducted as part of this plan, the goal of expanding housing opportunities to ensure a continuing diverse housing stock while also providing additional affordable units was identified as a goal of the town. Strategies/Actions: Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 7 Comment [W71I: Based - ca-M Rom the CPDC. S4 1. Conduct a review of the existing Reading Affordable Housing Trust. 2. Seek contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust. 3. Use the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create a loans/grant program for housing rehabilitation activities. 4. Amend the existing 40B permit to allow the construction of additional units at Peter Sanborn Place. 4. Identify opportunities to acquire tax title or foreclosed properties. S. Acquire the rights of first refusal on housing units in order to place an affordability restriction on such units prior to resale. 6. Manage on-going inventory of group homes and identify potential future group home plans in Reading. 7. Assist elder Reading residents in remaining in their own homes. 8. Encourage infill development with mixed housing in appropriate locations. 9. Identify potential unused or underutilized residential, commercial and/or industrial properties for housing development. 10. Identify surplus non-town public properties for affordable housing potential. 11. Identify opportunities for the town to partner with the First Time Homebuyers program 12. Partner with the Reading Housing Authority in seeking potential housing units. Regulatory & Zoning Changes Issue: While Reading has made numerous updates and changes to its zoning bylaw over the years, a comprehensive review of that bylaw as well as other regulations is a logical goal after adoption of the Housing Production Plan. Such regulations can inadvertently become an impediment to providing housing opportunities. A thorough review with the objective of discovering and changing any regulations that are seen as impediments can be a significant improvement toward creating opportunities for successful affordable housing creation Strategies/Actions: 1. Conduct a thorough review of zoning and other land use regulations. 2. Adopt a cluster bylaw, or similar, zoning provisions, to encourage affordable units. 3. Amend and update the Comprehensive Permit (40B and LIP) policies and guidelines of the Board of Selectmen and Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. Ensure the preservation of the character of Reading's existing residential neighborhoods 5. Create incentives and guidelines for new housing development as part of the State's and Reading's Climate Actions Plans. 6. Identify incentives for new development in appropriate locations. 7. Expand the current 40R district to include additional appropriate locations in town. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 8 5138 Capacity Building & Education Issue: As part of a comprehensive approach to creating affordable housing in Reading it is necessary that the local community, including public officials and citizens, be informed regarding these issues. Providing regular occasions whereby the town can meet to be informed regarding housing issues, information and recent activities, as well as being able to identify and discuss future strategies and goals can build support for the strategies identified in the others categories. Stratus: 1. Conduct housing forums every two years. 2. Inform town officials of the goals and objectives of the 2012 Housing Production Plan 3. Research and access housing resources at the federal, state, regional, local and non- profit level. 4. Create a monitoring mechanism to use in tracking affordable housing. 5. Create a benchmarking system to regularly review housing progress. Local & Regional Collaborations Issue: The housing issues that affect Reading are not found solely within the town borders. The potential resources available to assist in addressing housing needs are also not found solely within its borders. Reading, as well as surrounding cities and towns and regional organizations and non-profits devoted to housing issues, should look to strengthening their coordination and cooperation. Within the community, there may be as yet unidentified potential partners in addressing housing needs, such as the religious community or others. Strategies: 1. Establish the Reading Planning Division as the point of contact on housing issues. 2. Work with MAPC to identify housing data for use by the town. 3. Use the current District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) grant to identify the appropriate mechanisms to provide regional housing services. 4. Initiate a dialogue with the religious community to identify housing issues. 5. Establish a dialogue with entities such as EMARC and Habitat for Humanity. D: Next Steps for the Housing Production Plan A Public Meeting will be held with the Board of Selectmen to solicit input from residents of Reading. The plan will then be amended (as needed) and submitted for adoption to the Community Planning and Development Commission at a Public Hearing. The final Housing Plan will then be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development for final approval. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 9 5 f>f I. Demographic Analysis The purpose of analyzing demographics is to look at quantitative and qualitative trends and use the data for future planning. This section provides an overview of Reading's demographics and how they have changed over time. As the demographics change in the future, the housing needs of the community can also change. The size and type of families as well as householder age and economic status all influence the needs of the community. The analysis of the Housing Needs Assessment will provide a guide to identify goals and strategies for this plan. A. Total and Projected Populations: In the last ten years, the Town of Reading has only had a 4.4% increase in population. Over the next 10 years, the population is expected to experience a slight decline before having a minor increase by 2030. The total number of households in Reading has increased from 2000 and is expected to only have minor increases through 2030. Similar to the national trend, Reading's average household size has decreased in the past ten years. In 1999 the average household size was 2.84 and decreased to 2.71 in 2010. Smaller household size is consistent with communities experiencing slow but steady growth. Table 1: Total and Projected Populations: 1990-2030 Year , Population %Change Households %Change 1990 22,539 7,932 2000 23,708 5% 8,688 10% 2010 24,747 4.4% 9,305 7.0% 2020 24,342 -1.6% 9,707 6.0% 2030 25,189 3.4% 10,346 6.5% Source: 2010 US Census and MAPC MetroFuture 1035 Update, March 2011 B. Household Types: There were a total of 9,305 households in Reading in 2010, the majority of which were comprised of family households (72%). However, there is a strong prevalence of non-family households in Reading. Over one-fourth (28%) of households are non-family which includes Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 10 s15r1 b The Housing Needs Assessment examines demographic and population data and trends from available sources such as the Census, regional planning agencies, media, etc., that illustrates the current demographic and housing characteristics for the Town of Reading. Assessing needs will provide the framework for the development of housing production strategies to meet affordable housing goals. single person households or persons living in the same household who are not related. Of the non-family households with persons living alone, 10.3% are 65 and older. The presence of a mix of family and non-family households indicates that there is likely a need for a variety of housing types that may not fit the traditional single-family home model. The data reflects 2,620 non-family households. This may suggest a need for affordability options for non-family households who may have special housing needs. Table 2: Households Types: 2010 Household Type 2010 Percentage Family Households: 6,685 71.8% With own Children under 18 years 3,205 34.4 Married, Husband-wife family: 5,695 61.2 With own children under 18 2,791 30.0 Male householder, no wife present 2,43 2.6 With own children under 18 years 89 1.0 Female householder, no husband 747 8.0 present _ With own children under 18 years 325 3.5 Nonfamily households: 2,620 28.2 Householder living alone 2,189 23.5 Householder 65 and over living alone 962 10.3 Average household size 2.64 Average family size 3.18 Total Households 9,305 Source: 2010 US Census Other important factors to consider when assessing housing needs are household size and the age composition of residents. Household size is an important factor as it can help determine the demand for certain types of housing. Similarly, analyzing the age composition of a community over time can help develop trends for housing needs. For example, established families with children living at home have different housing needs than an empty nester and or someone who is over 65. MetroFuture is a regional plan developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPQ that address future growth in the Boston metropolitan region until 2030. Figure 1 summarizes Reading's age composition from 2000 and includes Metrofuture projections until 2030. Table 3 illustrates this in more detail. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 11 Figure 1: Age Composition of Residents, 2000 - 2030 12000 V 10000+ ~'m 6000 4 6000 ~w «O pyff W j(WJ ttpp N N N ~ 4000 p~NN _QT JvUt O VW JN r r ~ W N Ol,Wjmm O 2000 m~ , v, clog years 10 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 59 60 to 74 75+ years years years years years years Age Group Source: 2010 US Census and MAPC MetroFuture 2035 Update, March 2011 Table 3: Current and Projected Age Distribution of Residents: 2000-2030 ■ 2000 • 2010 2020 • 2030 Change 2000 2010 2020 2030 from Age Cohorts 2010- 2030 I % I I % I I I % I I I % I Number Number Change Number Change Number Change OtO9 I 1 I 1 years s 3,464 14.6 3,297 13.3 I -4.8 I 2,717 1 11.2 I -17.5 I 2,865 1 11.4 I 5.4% I -13.1 to 19 10 I 1 years 3,141 13.2 3,349 13.5 I 6.2 2,947 12.1 I -12.0 I 2,940 1 11.7 I -0.23 I -12.2 101014 I yea rs 830 3.5 1,053 4.3 26.9 1,012 4.2 I -3.9 I 905 3.6 I -10.6 -14.1 25 to 34 1 I years 2,671 11.3 2,433 9.8 -9.0 2,627 1 10.8 I 8.0 I 2,522 1 10.0 -4.0 3.7 35 W 59 1 I 1 I years 9,309 39.3 9,661 39.0 I 3.8 I 8,525 35.0 -11.8 I 6,613 1 32.4 I -22.5 I -31.6 60 to 74 +I years 2,676 1 11.3 I 3,134 1 12.7 I 17.1 4,816 1 19.8 I 53.7 I 5,353 1 21.3 I 11.2 71 75+ years 1,617 6.8 1,820 74 12.6 1,699 6.9 -6.6 2,438 9.7 43.5 34 Total Population 23,708 100 24,747 100 24,343 100 25,189 100 Source: 2010 US Census and MAPC MetroFuture 2035 Update, March 2011 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 12 313)7' MAPC's MetroFuture plan suggests that Reading's population will have a minor increase in overall population for the next 20 years. However it is anticipated that a significant change in the composition of the age groups will occur. Based on the MetroFuture projections, the younger age groups are expected to decline by 2030; ages 0-9 (-13.1%), ages 10-19 (-12.2%), ages 20-24 (-14.1%) and ages 35-59 (-31.6%). However, the 35-59 age group is expected to remain the largest age group in Reading and is projected to comprise 32.4% of the population in 2030. In 2010 Reading's population had the highest concentration of people aged 35-59 (39%). People in this age group are likely to be in an established family household with a larger home than the younger age groups. The next concentration was a much younger age group; those aged 10-19 years (13.5%) and aged 0-9 years (13.3%). These age groups, with the exception of 0-9 years, experienced an increase in population between 2000 and 2010. The elderly population also increased from 2000 to 2010. Persons aged 60-74 experienced a population increase of 12.7% and those aged 75+ increased by 7.4%. The data shows that the second largest age group will be those aged 60-74 with an increase of 71% in 2030 from 2010. Even though the childhood age groups of 0-9 and 10-19 are expected to decrease by 2030, collectively they will make up almost one-fourth of the population (23.1%). The young adult population (age 20-24) is expected to decrease by 2030 and become the smallest age group in Reading. Adults who will be aged 25-34 are expected to grow slowly by 2030, only increasing by 3.6%. By contrast, the elderly population (ages 75+) which comprises 9.7% of Reading is expected to increase by 34% in the next 20 years. The 60-75+ age group will be approximately 31% of Reading's population. This is not surprising as the "baby-boomer" population is contained within this age group. It is important to be aware of this trend as this population tends to prefer smaller housing units with less upkeep. Elderly residents could have special housing needs such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Adults aged 20 to 24 years and age 25 to 34 years are expected to make up approximately 13.6% of the population in 2030. These age groups are more likely to make up younger families who will purchase a starter home that is smaller and more affordable. In the next twenty years, as the 35-59 age group moves into the next age group, the stock of larger traditional family homes (detached, single-family units) may become more available. This may allow the younger population to trade up or take advantage of the larger homes. The analysis of population projections is vital for planning and determining future housing needs. With the expected increase in the older population, planning efforts should consider the need for smaller housing units with less maintenance, senior housing or assisted living facilities. As the middle-age population shifts into the older age groups the demand for larger, traditional family housing units will be reduced and will increase the opportunity for younger families looking to trade-up to more to those homes now available. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 13 5133 C. School Enrollment and Projections Figure 2 below illustrates the public school enrollments from 2000 to 2010. Overall, Reading school enrollment has remained fairly stable over the past 10 years with a modest increase of 3.8%. The highest increase in enrollment is with the middle and high school students at 5.4% and 8.5% respectively from 2000 to 2010. Figure 2: School Enrollment: 2000-2010 2500 2000 - - d 1500 Y N w O y 1000 E 0 Z 500 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ■ Kindergarten 342308 321 ; 300 337 282 325 324 324 280 348 ■ Elementary Total 2037 1995 1986 1977 2010 2019 2050 2059 2078 2045. 2041 Middle Total 1027 1033 1026 1 1044 1005. 969 922 1033 1052 1038 1083 High Total 1148 1209 1222 f 1176 1211 1222 1223 1259- 1222 1242 1246 Source: Reading School Committee FY 2013 School Budget Table 4 below identifies the enrollment projections for public schools in Reading out to 2015. The District total for enrollment is anticipated to increase by 3.1% with a majority of the increase within the high school totals. Enrollment rates for middle school students are expected to decrease by 2015. Although enrollment projects and population projections predict a decrease in school aged children by the year 2030, this age group will still comprise 23.1% of the total population. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 14 SAIq Table 4: School Enrollment and Projections: 2010-2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Actual) Elementary 2,041 2,065 2,049 2,045 2,042 2,073 Tota I Middle Total 1,083 1,050 1,067 1,024 1,069 1,018 High Total 1,246 1,262 1,314 1,378 1,362 1,416 District Total 4,370 4,377 4,430 4,447 14,473 4,507 Source: Reading School Committee FY 2013 School Budget D. Race and Ethnicity: According the 2010 U.S. Census, the majority of Reading residents are white (93.5%) and the largest racial minority group in Reading is the Asian population (4.2%) followed by the Hispanic or Latino population at 1.5%. There were no respondents in the 2010 Censures that identified themselves at Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders. E. Residents with Disabilities According to the 2007 American Community Survey (2005-2007)1, 2,376 people in Reading reported living with some type of long lasting condition or disability. Of those people, approximately 46.4% were aged 65 and older. As this population continues to increase, it is assumed that the number of disabled individuals within this age group will also rise. Many disabled residents require special housing needs, including certain accommodations for housing design (physical accessibility) and reasonable access to goods and services. Consideration for these types of housing options is necessary as the demand will continue to increase. Table 5: Residents with Disabilities, 2007: Age Number Percent of All Disabled Residents 5-15 243 10.2 16-64 1,031 43.4 65+ 1,102 46.4 Total 2,376 100 Population of Disabled Residents Source: 1007 US Census ' 2005-2007 American Community Survey for the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population. Data is not available from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey due to the changes in the questionnaire in 2008. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 15 Change, 2010- 2015 1.5% -6.0% 13.6% 3.1% Sg/'5~ F. Income Analysis: 1. Median Household Income: In 2010 Reading's median household income of $99,130 represented an increase of 28% from 1999. Median household income in Reading was the highest median household income among adjacent neighboring communities and exceeded the median for Boston- Cambridge-Quincy Metro area, as well as the median for Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the US. All the adjacent neighboring communities also experienced increases in household income from 1999. Table 6: Median Household Income: 1999 and 2010 1999 2010 % Increase 1999- 2010 Reading 177,059 I 99,130 I 28.6 North Reading 76,962 96,016 I 24.8 Wilmington 70,652 94,900 34.3 Woburn 154,897 I 71,060 I 29.4 Stoneham 156,650 76,574 35.2 Wakefield 66,117 89,246 35.0 Lynnfield 80,626 87,590 8.6 Boston- 55,183 68,020 233 Cambridge- Quincy, MA Metro Area Massachusetts I 50,502 64,509 I 27.7 US 41,994 51,914 23.6 Source: 1000 US Census and 2006-1010 American Community Survey 2. Median Family Income: Reading's median family income in 2010 was $117,870 and was the highest of all the adjacent neighboring communities, the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA Metro area, the state of Massachusetts, and was almost double the median family income of the US. This was an increase of 32.3% from 1999. Median family income also increased for the neighboring communities from 1999 to 2010 with Woburn experiencing the largest increase and Lynnfield with the smallest increase in median family income. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 16 Sa16 Table 7: Median Family Income: 1999 and 2010 1999 2010 % Increase 200-2010 Reading 89,076 117,870 32.3 North Reading 86,341 103,269 19.6 Wilmington 76,760 102,345 33.3 Woburn 54,897 84,538 54.0 Stoneham 71,334 98,182 37.6 Wakefield 77,834 111,638 43.4 Lynnfield 91,869 95,804 4.3 Boston- 64,341 85,825 33.4 Cambridge- Quincy, MA Metro Area Massachusetts 61,664 81,615 32.4 US 50,046 62,982 25.8 Source: 1000 US Census and 1006-1010 American Community Survey 3. Income Distribution: Table 8 below identifies and compares the distribution of Reading household incomes from 1990 and 2010. In 1999, nearly half of all households (48.2%) earned less than the household median of $77,059. Of the households earning over the median income in 1999, 34% of households earned more than $100,000. Reading households earned much more in 2010. Approximately 49.5% earned more than $100,000 which is just over the median income of $99,130. Of those earning more than $100,000 approximately 13% earned more than $200,000, a 135% increase from 2000. However, there were several households who earned less than $50,000 in 2010. Approximately 1,958 households (44%) earned less than $50,000. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 17 ~lt3l ~ Table 8: Income Distribution: 1999 and 2010 Income Category I 1999 # Of Percent Households Less than $10,000 286 3.3 $10,000 to 351 4.0 $14,999 $15,000 to 564 6.5 $24,999 $25,000 to 590 6.8 $34,999 $35,000 to 786 9.1 $49,999 $50,000 to 1,608 18.5 $74,999 $75,000 to 1474 17.0 $99,999 $100,00 to 1,892 22.0 $149,999 $150,000 to 626 7.2 $199,999 I 2010 # of Households 231 251 386 470 620 1,214 1,327 2,158 1,086 $200,000 or more 492 5.7 1,157 Total Households 8,669 100.0 8,882 Source: 1000 US Census and 1006 -2010American Community Survey 4. Area Median Income % Change Percent 2.4 -19.2 2.8 -28.5 4.3 -31.6 5.3 -20.3 7.0 -21.1 13.7 0 -24.5 15.0 I -10.0 24.3 1 14.1 12.2 1 73.5 13.0 135.0 100.0 One way to determine the need for affordable housing is to evaluate the number of households that qualify as low/moderate income by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Area Median Income (AMI) is a number that is determined by the median family income of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and thresholds established by HUD are a percentage of AMIs. Reading is included in the Boston- Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Fair Market Rent (FMR) area. FMRs are gross rent estimates that include the rent plus the cost of tenant-paid utilities. Section 8 of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Office of Policy Development & Research July 2007 (rev.) Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 18 Sg~ ~ United States Housing Act of 1937 authorizes housing assistance to lower income families and the cost of rental homes are restricted by the FMR thresholds established by HUD. Typically, thresholds are 80%, 50% and 30% of AMI and vary depending on the household size. HUD defines low/moderate income as follows: • "low income" - households earning below 80% of AMI; • "very low income" -households earning below 50% of AMI; • "extremely low income" -households earning lower than 30% of AMI. Table 9: Adjusted Income Limits by Household Size, Boston-Cambridge-Quincy FMR: 2010 Income Limit Median FY 2010 1 2 3 4 S 6 Area Income Income Person Person Person Person Person Person Limit Category Low $45,100 $51,550 $58,000 $64,400 $69,600 $74,750 (80%) Income Limit Boston- Very Low $32,150 $36,750 $41,350 $45,900 $49,600 $53,250 Cambridge- (50%) Quincy $91,800 Income Metropolitan Limit FMR Area Extremely $19,300 $22,050 $24,800 $27,550 $29,800 $32,000 Low (30%) Income Limit Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmenthtto://www.huduser.oro/aortal/ As shown in Table 9, the AMI for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy FMR area in 2010 was $91,8003. Using this number, the income thresholds for various household sizes were determined. For a 3-person household, household incomes lower than $24,800 are considered extremely low income, household incomes lower than $41,350 are considered very low income, and household incomes lower than $58,000 are considered low income. The Reading income category data presented in Table 8 is not available by household size, but assuming a 3-person household at least 21% of households would be eligible for subsidized housing according to HUD. 3 AMI data for 2010 was used in this plan to compare to 2010 US Census and ACS income data. AMI data for 2012 can be found at: www.huduser.org/nortaidatasets Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 19 53 iq II. Housing Stock Analysis A. Housing Units and Types The most predominate housing type in Reading continues to be single-family homes. In 2000, there were approximately 8,823 total housing units, 74.3% of which were 1-unit, detached homes (single-family homes). Only 6.8% of housing structures contained 20 or more units; however this type of housing was the second largest in Reading in 2000. Similarly, in 2010 single unit detached homes remained the predominate housing type. Reading did experience an increase in the percentage of 20 or more unit structures from 6.8% to 9.3% in 2010. Table 10: Total Number of Housing Units by Structure: 2000 and 2010 Housing Units Per 2000 2010 Structure Number Percent Number Percent 1-unit, detached 6,553 74.3 I 6,923 75.0 1-unit, attached 257 2.9 304 3.3 2 units 565 6.4 458 5.0 3 or 4 units 246 2.8 210 2.3 5 to 9 units 214 2.4 185 2.0 10 to 19 units 381 4.3 ( 290 3.1 20 or more units 601 6.8 862 9.3 Mobile Home 6 0.1 0 0 Total 8,823 100 9,232 100.0 Source: 2000 US Census and 2006 -2010 American Community Survey B. Housing Tenure According to the 2000 US Census, there were a total of 8,688 occupied housing units, 82.5% of which were owner-occupied and 17.5% was renter-occupied. In 2010, the percentage of owner-occupied housing units decreased to 77.9% and the percentage of renter-occupied housing units increased to 22.1%. The increase in renter-occupied could be attributed to the increase in ages 20 to 24 in 2010, an age group more likely to rent. Although this age group will not be as prevalent in next 10 years, rental unit demand may also increase as the population continues aging and there may be more of a demand for those looking to down-size in housing or spend less on housing related costs. C. Year Housing Units Constructed Reading has a large stock of older and historic homes. Over half of the housing units were constructed prior to 1960 and of that 33% were constructed prior to 1940. There is roughly an even distribution of units constructed from 1969 to 2000. As these homes contribute to the Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 20 S8 to town's character, many of them are also in need of repairs and renovations. Many residents in Reading indicated they have difficulty in affording repairs to their homes only adding to the cost burden experience by some residents4. Figure 3: Year Housing Constructed 1989, 4 ■ 1990 to March 2000 ■ 1980 to 1989 79, 10 1970 to 1979 ■ 1960 to 1969 • 1940 to 1959 0 1939 or earlier Source: 2010 US Census Table 11 identifies the number of building permits for residential structures from 2006 to 2010. The number of permits for single-family structures decreased from 2006 to 2007 which is consistent with the market at that time . Reading saw an increase in building Table 11: Building Permits Issued 2001-2009 permits in 2008, but the numbers Year declined again in 2009 and have not 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 yet returned to the totals experienced Single-family 30 12 22 11 13 in 2006. Reading does not have a 2 Family 0 0 0 1 3 large stock of multi-family structures 3 & 4 Family 0 1 0 0 0 and not many new multi-family Building 1 1 0 0 0 structures have been constructed Total 31 14 22 12 To 16 since 2006. However, as described in the sections to follow, Reading has Source: MossBenchmarks, Building Permit data 2000- several projects in the "pipeline" 2009 which will involve the construction of several multi-unit structures. Town of Reading Housing Survey 2012 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 21 S (3 2I D. Housing Market Conditions: 1. Median Selling Prices Home sales have been impacted by the latest economic recession, but have recovered. Figure 4 indicates, the median single-family home sales price in 2006 was $420,000 and decreased to a low point of $400,000 in 2009 due to the economic recession. Prices began to rise after 2009 and in 2010 the median single-family home sales price was $422,000, slightly more than what was experienced in 2006. Although condominium sales dipped below the median of $319,000 in 2006, median sales prices have only increased and by 2010 were at $277,450. In 2008 the median sales price of condominiums in Reading reached a low point of $250,000. Figure 4: Median Sales Price of Single-family Homes and Condos 2006-2010 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 5300,000 $250,000 5200,000 $150,000 $100,000 550,000 $0 Source: The Warren Group 2. Home Sales ■ Single Family ■ Condo Reading also experienced a decrease in the total number of sales of both single-family homes and condominiums. As shown in Figure 8 below, the number of single-family home sales in 2006 was 241. The number of sales continued to decrease and in 2010 the total number of sales was 193. Condominium sales experienced the same trend, decreasing from 91 sales in 2006 to 53 sales in 2010. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 22 /rj 2- 2 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 5: Total Number of Single-family Home and Condo Sales 2006-2010 300 250 241 228 194 203 193 200 150 ■ Single Family 100 91 71 ■ Condo 50 0 LLL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: The Warren Group 3. Rental Prices: The cost of rental units is an important factor to consider when evaluating the housing market. Back in 2000 the median rent in Reading was $739, the second lowest of the neighboring communities that abut Reading. In, 2010 median rent increased by 39.6% to $1,032. One possible reason for this increase may be due to the increase in the population group more likely to rent, creating more demand for rental units. Economic conditions may force more households to rent. This trend is also seen with the other neighboring communities. Table 12: Median Rent 2000 and 2010 for Reading and Neighboring Communities Median Rent 2000 2010 %Change Reading 739 1,032 39.6 North 756 1289 70.5 Reading Wilmington, 948 { 1567 65.3 Woburn 881 1187 34.7 Stoneham 827 1161 40.3 Wakefield 795 1042 31.1 Lynnfield 572 623 8.9 Source: 2000 US Census and 2006-2010 American Community Survey Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 23 ~ 6 23 E. Housing Affordability Analysis: 1. Cost Burden One way to evaluate housing affordability is by evaluating the ability of a household to pay a mortgage or rent as a percentage of annual income. Households which pay 30% or more of their annual income on housing costs (mortgage or rent) are considered to be burdened by their housing costs. This analysis is useful when assessing how many households experience this cost burden and may help determine how "affordable" a community may be. Table 13 identifies the monthly housing cost for homeowners as a percentage of annual household income in 20105. Approximately 38.3% of households with a mortgage are paying more than 30% or more of their annual household income on housing related costs. This number is a little less at 23.7% for households without a mortgage. Of the 7,814 households in Reading, about 2,687 households or 34.4% may have difficulty paying their housing-related costs and are considered moderately burdened by their housing costs. able 13: Monthly Housing Cost as a Percentage of Annual Household Income: 2010 Households with a mortgage Households without a Households in Less than 20% Reading Number Percent 5,747 1,872 32.6 2,067 1,315 64.2 20% to 29% Number Percent 1,673 29.1 248 12.1 30% or more Number Percent 2,202 38.3 mortgage Source.: 1006-1010 American Community Survey 485 23.7 Table 14 below identifies rent as a percentage of income for Reading in 2010. Approximately 61.0% of renters in Reading paid less than 30% or more of their annual incomes on rent in 2010. Although this may seem like a large amount of the renters in Reading, there was still 39% or more households who paid 30% or more of their annual household income on housing related costs and would be considered `moderately' burdened by their housing costs. However, the rental costs do not include other housing costs such as utilities, real estate taxes or insurance and may not be a true reflection of housing costs for renters in Reading. s Costs for homes with a mortgage include all forms a debt including deeds of trust, land contracts, home equity loans, insurance, utilities, real estate taxes, etc. Source: US. Census Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# aLy Page 24 Table 14: Rent as a Percentage of Income 2010 Rent as a Percentage of Occupied Rental Units Income paying rent Less than 15% 137 15% to 19% 280 20% to 24% 139 25% to 29% 74 30% to 34% 58 35% or more 345 Not computed 35 Total 1,033 Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 2. Home Ownership Affordability - Gap Analysis Percentage of Occupied Rental Units 13.3 27.1 13.5 7.2 5.6 33.4 NA Another way to measure the affordability of a community is to access the affordability of home ownership. To do so, the income of the buyer must be evaluated against the sales price of the home. The gap between the sales price and the purchasing ability of a potential home buyer is called the "gap analysis". To afford the median sales price of a single-family home in Reading of $422,000 in 2010, a household would have to earn approximately $117,3506, which is above the median household income of $99,130 in 2010 and higher than the area median income of $91,800 by just over $25,000. This income is based on the ability of the potential buyer to provide $50,000 for a down payment. Conversely, a household would only have to earn approximately $73,500 to afford the median sales price of a condo. A household earning the median income of Reading in 2010 at $99,130 can afford a single- family home priced at $362,653 resulting in an "affordability gap" of $59,347, nearly $60,000. The gap widens for low income households. A 3-person household earning 80% of AMI or $58,000 could afford a home costing no more than $225,083. A 3-person household earning 50% of AM[ at $41,350 could afford a home costing no more than $165,703 and a 3-person household earning 30% of AMI at $24,800 could afford a home costing no more than $80,450. Table 15 below shows the affordability gap for low income households. e Figures based on $50,000 down payment, 30-year mortgage at 5.0% interest (PMI of 0.5% for <10% down payment). Other monthly debt of $500; 1.4% property taxes; 0.2% homeowners insurance. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 25 Table 15: Low Income Gap Analysis - Single-Family Home Income Level Income (3-person Affordable Gap from Median Sales household) Purchase Price Price Low Income $58,000 $225,083 $196,917 (80%) Very Low $41,350 $150,584 $271,542 Income (50%) Extremely Low $24,800 $76,461 $345,539 Income (30%) Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development htto:11www.huduser.oro ortal 3. Rent Table 16 below identifies the 2010 Fair Market Rents (FMR) for the Boston-Cambridge- Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro FMR Area. In order for a 1-bedroom to be considered affordable and qualify on the State Housing Inventory (SHI) the rent would have to be $1,156. The median rent paid by Reading households in 2010 as reported by the 2006-2010 American Community Survey was $1,032, indicating that households are paying less than the FMR for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy area (assuming a 1-bedroom). However, according to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, 19.7% of Reading households were paying $1,500 or more in rent, more than the FMR for a 1-bedroom apartment. Table 16: Fair Market Rents, Boston-Cambridge Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro Area Efficiency 11-Bedroom 12-Bedroom 13-Bedroom 14-Bedroom Fair $1,090 $1,156 $1,357 $1,623 $1,783 Market Rent 2010 Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development httn://www.huduseroroZ2ortolZ Table 17 below identifies the median rent for Reading and the neighboring communities that abut Reading. The median rent in Reading was the second lowest of all the communities at $1,032. Although this average does not account for apartment size (number of bedrooms) it does indicate that the median rent in 2010 is lower than the FMR for 1-bedroom and efficiencies rental units. The Fair Market rent for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,357. Approximately 40% of those respondents to the Housing Plan Survey indicated that a 2- bedroom priced between $1,000 and $1399 per month is considered affordable. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 26 Comment [W72]: Revised numbers based m a I 5% interest rate. 5a2.& Table 17: Median Rent in 2010 for Reading and Neighboring Communities Median Rent 12010 Reading $1,032 North Reading $1,289 Wilmington 1 $1,567 Woburn 1$1,187 Stoneham 1 $1,161 Wakefield 1 $1,042 Lynnfield 1 $623 Source: 2010 US Census Using the median rent in 2010, ($1,032) Reading households would have to earn at least $41,280 to afford to rent a home. Although median income in 2010 was much higher than $41,280 there were at least 1,320 households (14.8%) that earned less and would be considered 'moderately' burdened by costs associated with renting a home in Reading. 4. Affordable Housing Stock Within the past 10 years, Reading has made great progress with increasing the number of affordable units within the Town. According to the state's Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), approximately 7.1% of year around housing units in Reading are considered affordable as of June 2011. As such, "comprehensive permits" under Chapter 40B through the Zoning Board of Appeals are still available until Reading reaches the 10% low-to- moderate income housing requirement. It should be noted that in March 2011, MassHousing denied an application for a 40B project within Reading based on the Town's effort in reaching the affordable housing requirements through the adoption of two Smart Growth Districts under MGL Chapter 40R. Table 18 below illustrates the status of subsidized housing in Reading from March 2004 to June 2011. In September of 2009, 63 units from Longwood Estates were removed from the SHI as the project never moved forward. In that same year, the Longwood Estates project was re-designed and permitted without a Comprehensive Permit under the project name Johnson Woods and seven units were included on the SHI and two additional group home units were added for a net decrease of 54 units. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 27 ,5-,6-0 Table 18: Total Housing Units on the Subsidized Housing Inventory 2004- June 2011 Time Period Total SHI Difference in Units Percent Units from Previous Period Affordable March 2004 I 682 NA I 7.74 March 2005 I 687 +5 I 7.8 February 2006 I 719 +32 8.2 February 2007 I 738 I +19 8.4 February 2008 I 738 I 0 8.4 September 684 -54 7.8 2009 April 2010 I 683 I -1 7.8 December 684 0 7.8 2010 June 2011* 684 0 I 7.1 Source: Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development * Totals may change pending the completion of the biennial update Table 19 below compares the number of SHI units with neighboring communities that abut Reading. As identified in the table, Reading has a higher percentage of affordable housing units than three of the neighboring communities. North Reading and Lynnfield both experienced a significant increase in their subsidized housing stock from 2004 while Woburn and Wakefield experienced decreases in subsidized housing stock from 2004. able 19: Total Subsidized Housir Community Year Around Housing Units 2010 Reading 9,584 North Reading Wilmington Woburn Stoneham Wakefield Lynnfield Source: Department Inventory (SHI) 5,597 7,788 16,237 9,399 10,459 4,319 of Housing and C g Units for Reading and Neighbo ring Communities Total Subsidized Housing Percent SHI Units Units March June Percent March June 2004 2011 Change 2004 2011 682 684 0.3 I 7.74 I 7.15 83 536 I 553.7 615 711 I 15.6 1489 1137 -23.6 494 502 1.6 729 602 -17.4 78 313 301.3 ommunity Development, Chapter 4C Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# 1.72 8.61 9.72 5.35 7.35 1.84 e Subsidize 9.16 9.1 7.0 5.3 5.8 7.2 d Housing Page 28 ~tj z8 S. Existing Subsidized Housing Stock Table 20 below identifies the existing subsidized housing units currently included on the SHI list (through April 24, 2012). This information is regularly gathered and reported by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). able 20: Existing Subsidized Housing Stock Project Name Address Type Total Affordability Build w/ Subsidizing SHI Expires Comp. Agency Units Permit? n/a Frank Tanner Rental 40 Perp No DHCD Drive n/a Frank Tanner Rental 40 Perp No DHCD Drive n/a 74 Bancroft I Rental 8 Perp No DHCD Avenue n/a I Oakland & Rental 6 Perp Yes DHCD Waverly n/a Pleasant & Rental 4 Perp No DHCD Parker Cedar Glen 2 Elderberry Rental 114 Perp Yes MassHousin Lane g EMARC 6 Pitman Drive Rental 12 2036 No HUD Longwood 75 Pearl Street Rental 86 2046 No MassHousin Place at g Reading Peter Sanborn 50Baystate Rental 74 Perp Yes HUD Place Road Reading 40 Sanborn Rental 3 2037 No HUD Community Street Residence EOHHS Summer/Main 173 Main Rental 6 2014 No FHLBB Street/505 Summer Avenue Schoolhouse 52 Sanborn Rental 4 2013 No FHLBB Street Gazebo Circle 401,501,901 Rental 3 2016 No FHLBB Gazebo Circle Pleasant Pleasant Street Rental 2 2020 No FHLBB Street Wilson Street Wilson Street Rental 2 2021 No FHLBB Archstone 40-42, 70 West Rental 204 Perp Yes FHLBB Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 29 513 v! Project Name Address Type Total Affordability Build w/ Subsidizing SHI Expires Comp. Agency Units Permit? Street I I I I Hopkins 159 Hopkins Rental 4 2042 No HUD Street Street Residence DDS Group Confidential Rental 42 N/A No DDS Homes DMH Group Confidential Rental 4 N?A No DMH Homes Summer 1357 Main Owners 1 Perp Yes FHLBB Cheney Street hip George Street 23 George Owners 3 Perp Yes FHLBB Street hip Maplewood 201-275 Salem Owners 9 2054 Yes DHCD Village Street hip Governor's Governor's Owners 2 2103 Yes DHCD Drive Drive hip Johnson 468 West Owners 11 Perp No DHCD Woods Street hip Total 1 684 Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) Reading also has several projects in the permitting phases or "pipeline" which will generate additional affordable housing to the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI). The first phase of the Johnson Woods development is still under construction and will generate an additional 6 units to the SHI when completed. The second phase of the project will add an additional 19 units to the SHI. Both the 30 Haven Street project and the Reading Woods project were developed under the Smart Growth District (40R) regulations which will generate 54 SHI units. The Peter Sanborn Place project was developed in 1982 and is expected to expand the facilities adding 47 units to the SHI. The MF Charles Building and the 45 Beacon Street project will each generate 3 units. With completion of these projects, Reading will have 132 additional units on the inventory to bring the percentage of affordable units in Reading to 8.52%. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 30 ,5~3° Table 21: Upcoming Projects for SHI Inclusion Project Name Address Type Built with a Total SHI Comp Units Permit? 30 Haven Street- 30 Haven Rental No 31 Oaktree Street Reading Woods 1 Jacob Way Ownership No 43 Johnson Woods 468 West Ownership No 6 Street Johnson Woods 468 West Ownership No 19 Phase II Street MF Charles 600-622 Unknown No 3 Main Street 45 Beacon Street 45 Beacon Ownership Yes 3 Street Peter Sanborn Place 1 50 Baystate Rental Yes 47 Road Total I I 132 Source: Town of Reading Community Services Department In order to maintain compliance with the approved Housing Production Plan, a certain number of affordable units must be produced. A community will be certified in compliance if the number of affordable units produced is to 0.5% of the total year round housing units in each calendar year and will be certified in compliance for two years if that number is increased to 1.0% of the total year round housing units. In other words, Reading will have to produce at least 48 units each calendar year for the next five years to maintain compliance with the Housing Production Plan. F. Housing Needs based on Current Housing Supply The housing need assessment above illustrates the gaps between what Reading households can afford for housing and what housing is available to them. Although Reading can be considered an affluent community, there are still residents and households struggling to afford their monthly and annual housing (ownership and rental) costs. 1. Households with lower than median income In 2010, the median household income for Reading was $99,130, the second highest of all neighboring communities. This amount was also higher than the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA Metro Area ($91,800). However, about 50% of Reading households earned less than $99,130 and at least 35% of households earned less than the AMI. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 31 S~ 3~ 2. Housing Costs that Exceed the Affordability Thresholds Many households in Reading are considered burdened to some degree by their housing costs. Approximately 38.3% of households with a mortgage and 23.7% without a mortgage are paying more than 30% of their annual income on housing related costs. Those households who rent in Reading experience the least amount of burden; however, approximately 14.8% of renters do not make the minimum income to comfortably afford the median rental price of $1,032. Those households wishing to purchase a single-family home would have to have an annual income of $103,500 in order to afford the median sales price of $422,000 in 2010. This is just over the median income of $99,130 in 2010, but it does not take into account securing the amount of down payment and upfront costs associated with purchasing a home. 3. The Aging Population It is anticipated that Reading will experience a significant shift in population demographics The elderly population (age 60-74) is expected to increase by 71% in 2030 and will be the largest age group in Reading. The 75+ age group is also expected to increase to make up approximately 9.7% of the entire population. This trend is reflective of the aging "baby- boomer" population. It is also important to note that in 2010, 10.3% of residents aged 65 and over who are in non-family households were identified as having some form of disability. The percentage of disabled residents is likely to increase, as this population continues to grow. An aging population will probably require special housing needs such as smaller and more accessible housing units. Likewise, more demand for senior housing, assisted living facilities and nursing homes are probable. III. Affordable Housing Efforts The previous housing plan for Reading was developed and adopted in December of 2002 and subsequently updated and approved January 2007. In 2002, Reading housing stock consisted of 404 affordable units which accounted for 4.6% of all housing units. The update of the Housing Plan identified several goals and strategies to achieve the 10% affordable housing goal. Since that time, Reading has made great strides reaching that 10% goal and currently has 684 units on the inventory increasing the percentage of affordable units to 7.15%. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 32 _~e3Z A. Adoption of Smart Growth Districts (4011) Gateway Smart Growth District (GSGD) In December of 2007, Reading adopted the Gateway Smart Growth District under MGL, Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.05(4). The overlay district is located at the southern town line, near Interstate 95/Route 128 and Route 28 (Reading's Main Street). The Reading Woods project is currently under construction and will create 424 housing units, 200 of which are within the GSGD. Of those 200 units, 43 will be affordable and eligible for inclusion on the SHI. This site, formerly known as the Addison Wesley site, was identified in the previous Housing Plan for future housing opportunities. Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) In November of 2009, Reading adopted the Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) under MGL Chapter 40R and CMR 59.05(4). The DSGD overlay district is located in the downtown area but does not encompass the downtown in its entirety. The DSGD will allow for 203 additional housing units by right. The first project to be permitted within the DSGD is the Oaktree Development located at the former Atlantic Market site. This project is a mixed use development with retail uses on the ground floor and 53 residential units above. At 53 units, this project exceeded the maximum density requirements and was granted a waiver from the CPDC to allow 73 units per acre. A total of 11 units will be affordable and eligible for listing on the SHI. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 33 5eJ3 The 2006 Housing Plan identified a few additional sites in the downtown area for future housing opportunities including properties just west of the train station and properties along Haven Street. As mentioned in the Table 21 above, the MF Charles Building project is located in the downtown area and is in the pipeline to be developed under the Downtown Smart Growth District zoning requirements. B. Challenges and Constraints to the Development of Affordable Housing 1. Existing Housing Allowances Reading is predominately zoned for residential uses as shown in Table 22 below which is taken from the Reading Zoning By-Laws. The table identifies which types of residential uses are allowed in each zoning district. Uses allowed by right are denoted as "yes" and those denoted as "SPP" require a Special Permit from the Community Planning and Development Commission. "No" denotes a use that is not allowed in that particular district. Table 22: Table of Uses PRINCIPAL USES RES RES RES BUS BUS BUS IND 5-15 A40 A-80 A B C S-20 I 5-40 ~ I I I I I ~ I IResklential Uses 10neFami!, D'Ae'bng res I as No 1 as No I No No 1 17 o Foray owe kng No I as No I Yea No I No No I 1Aparmert No 1 /aa "es 1 Yes I No I No° No 18oardirgHouse I No I Yes No 1 Yes + No I No I No I IP`anned Residertia Devebomerl I SPP^ I No SPP" 1 No I No I No I No I IPJD-R I SPP' I No I No I No I No I No I No I Source: Town of Reading Zoning By-Law, Table 4.2.1 Table of Uses, March 2012 Although Reading is primarily zoned for sing-family homes, other zoning districts including A-40, A-80 and Business A allow for other forms of residential development such as apartments or multi-unit homes. Table 23 below identifies the base zoning districts in Reading. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 34 s,a 3 H Table 23: Reading Base Zoning Districts Zoning District Short Name Area (sq Acreage ( Percent miles) Single Family 15 District 5-15 I 3.3 I 2,120.1 I 33.2% Single Family 20 District 5-20 I 4.1 I 2,643.2 I 41.3% Single Family 40 District 15-40 I 1.9 I 1,235.1 I 19.3% Apartment 40 District I A-40 I 0.0 I 30.8 I 0.5% Apartment 80 District I A-80 I 0.0 12.8 I 0.2% Business A I BUS A I 0.1 48.4 I 0.8% Business B I BUS B I 0.1 55.2 I 0.9% Business C I BUS C I 0.1 I 38.8 I 0.6% Industrial IInd I 0.31 209.11 3.3% Totals I 10.0 I 6393.4 100.0% Source: Town of Reading Zoning By-Low, last updated March 2012 In addition to the base zoning districts, Reading has several overlay districts. Table 24 below is a comprehensive list of all the zoning districts, including overlays within the Town of Reading. Table 24: Town of Reading Zoning and Overlay Districts Type I Full Name I Short Name Residence Single Family 15 District 15-15 Residence Single Family 30 District 5-20 Residence I Single Family 40 District 15-40 Residence I Apartment 40 District A-40 Residence I Apartment 80 District A-80 Business I Business A District Bus A Business I Business B District Bus B Business I Business C District Bus C Overlay Flood Plain District I F Overlay Wetlands Protection W District Overlay Municipal Building Reuse NR District Overlay National Flood Insurance NF Management District Overlay I Aquifer Protection District AQ Overlay I Planned Unit Development PUD Overlay Planned Residential PRO Development Source: Town of Reading Zoning By-Law, last updated March 2012 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 35 5-,s 3 2. Development Capacity and Constraints: Residential development is constrained by many factors including availability of land, land use regulations, natural resources such as wetlands & threatened and endangered species, and limitations on infrastructure capacity. In order to evaluate the potential development capacity, the availability of land must be evaluated against potential development constraints. Available Land: The Town of Reading is approximately 10 square miles in size and contains 6,394 acres of land. Using a GIS analysis it was estimated that 1,756 acres (27.5%) of land in Reading is undeveloped or Chapter 61 Land. Of that, 372 acres are potentially developable, and, only 139 acres of developable land remain after regulatory constraints' are applied. This results in approximately 262 buildable lots based on the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet required in the S-15 residential zoning district. However, this build- out is for undeveloped land and does not take into account previously developed land that could be subdivided to yield more homes. Using the same GIS analysis and regulatory constraints, it is estimates that a potential of 513 new homes could be built on currently developed land. This estimate does not take into account infrastructure costs, lot shape, or other geological conditions, so the actual number is likely to be significantly less. As identified in Table 24 above, Reading has several overlay districts. Overlay districts are zoning districts which may be placed over the underlying districts. The provisions for the overlay district may be more stringent or flexible based on the purpose of the particular overlay. The following are overlay districts which relate to housing development and the provision of affordable housing in Reading. Some of the overlays allow for other forms of development, increased density in development and may have requirements for affordable housing. Planned Unit Development- Residential Denoted as PUD-R this overlay district allows, by a Special Permit from the CPDC, single family, two family, apartments, elderly housing, among other uses. At least ten percent of all residential units in the PUD-R must be affordable. The affordable percentage requirement increases to 15% for property within 300-feet of a municipal boundary. It should also be noted that the Planned Unit Development - Industrial (PUD-1) overlay district also allows residential development when the proposed development is within 200- feet of another residential district. Planned Residential Development (PRD) ' Only residential-zoned parcels were included in the analysis. Constraints include FEMA 100 year flood zones, 100' buffers around wetlands, streams, and vernal pools, and 200' buffers around perennial streams. Aquifer protection district and slope were not included as constraints. Infrastructure needs were not considered in calculating potential lots. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 36 563(- A PRD district is an overlay zoning district which may be applied to parcels within the S-15, S-20, S-40 and A-80 residential zoning districts and must be approved through Town Meeting. Upon approval of the overlay, the CPDC may issue a Special Permit for residential development. In Reading, there are two types of PRD districts; General (PRD-G) and Municipal (PRD-M). The PRD-G requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet and encourages affordable unit development. PRD-M development is allowed on current or former municipally owned land of at least eight acres and requires a certain percentage of affordable units. Municipal Building Reuse District The Municipal Building Reuse District is an overlay district that allows for the redevelopment or reuse of surplus municipal buildings. At least ten percent of the residential units must be affordable. Smart Growth Districts (40R) Reading has adopted two Smart Growth 40R Districts. The Downtown Smart Growth (DSGD) District which is an overlay district that allows for mix-use residential by right within the downtown area. This overlay district requires a minimum of 20% affordable units and a minimum of 25% affordable units if the development is limited to occupancy of elderly residents. The Gateway Smart Growth District (GSGD) is also an overlay district located at the intersection of Route 28 (Main Street) and Interstate 128/95. This district is currently being fully developed and will provide for 43 affordable units (20%). Reading's Business A zoning district also allows for residential development that is not mixed-use. Natural Resource Limitation: Wetlands and other natural resources such as endangered species habitats can place constraints on development. As mentioned above, many lots are considered unbuildable due to the presence of some of these resources. Almost one-fourth of the land in Reading is considered wetland or within the jurisdictional buffer zones of resource areas. Another 6% of land is within the 100-year flood zone. Reading is located within the Aberjona, Ipswich and Saugus river watersheds and many of Reading's wetland areas are located in associated floodplains. Rare and Endangered Species: There are three areas in Reading which contain rare or endangered species. These areas are protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Any development within these areas is subject to review by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The three areas of designation include a large tract of land within the western side of the Town Forest and two separate tracts of land within the Cedar Swap near the Burbank Ice Arena located on the eastern side of the town. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 37 51337 3. Infrastructure Public Water: The Town of Reading's water distribution system is comprised of 110 miles of distribution main and 2 storage facilities; one 0.75 M gallon elevated tank located at Auburn Street and one 1.0 M gallon standpipe located at Bear Hill. Presently Reading purchases all drinking water from the MWRA which is supplied into the Town's distribution system via a 20" water main located on Border Road. A second 36" redundant supply pipe line is under design by MWRA which will provide a second supply source to the Town's distribution system at Leech Park on Hopkins Street. The construction for the redundant supply main is expected to be completed in 2016. The Town also has 5 emergency water connections with 3 of the bordering communities. Prior to purchasing water from MWRA, Reading operated a water treatment plant adjacent to the Town Forest which drew water from nine wells within the Town Forest and Revay Swamp, all within the Ipswich River Watershed. Following the temporary closure of wells as a precautionary measure to avoid contamination from an overturned petroleum vehicle on Rte. 93 and to aid in relieving stress to the Ipswich River aquifer, the Town decommissioned the treatment plant in 2006 and began purchasing 100% of the Town's drinking water from MWRA. Reading continues to maintain the wells as a backup water supply until the redundant MWRA water supply main is completed. In 2003 Reading established a strong water conservation program offering residents rebates for the installation of low flow devices fixtures and appliances, irrigation sensors and rain barrels. The program has been extremely success full and has lowered water consumption by 10% over a 10 year period. In 2011 the average daily water consumption equaled 1.7 MGD with a maximum daily demand of 2.2MGD. All water purchase from the MWRA is metered at the supply mains through meters owned by the MWRA and the Town of Reading. Residential and Commercial meter reading is modern and efficient, with an automatic system that uses radio transmitters for optimal accuracy and efficiency. Water rate changes are established by the Board of Selectmen based on recommendations from staff. Reading's water distribution system is maintained on a GIS mapping and database system. The operation of the water system, is overseen by the Department of Public Works, and is on an enterprise basis, by which the full costs of operations is borne by the water users, and not through local property taxes. Public Sewer: The sewer system is owned and operated by the Town and serves approximately 98% of all properties within the Town. While approximately 200 individual properties throughout the Town are not yet connected to available public sewer, the only major unsewered areas are portions of Main Street north of Mill Street, and the westerly portion of Longwood Road. The system consists of 116 miles of sewer main, 11 wastewater pump or lift stations, and approximately 7,800 local service connections. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 38 S~ 3S All sewage from the Town's system discharges into the MWRA's regional collection system through 2 major outfalls; one along the Rte. 93 in the west adjacent to Arnold Avenue, and one at the end of Summer Avenue in the south. An isolated collection system servicing Border Road and a small portion of West Street area, discharges into the regional sewerage system via the City of Woburn. The regional sewerage system is operated by the MWRA, with principal treatment at Deer Island facility. Each of the outfalls flows are metered and discharges from the isolated Boarder Road system based off of water usage meters. Sewer rate changes are established by the Board of Selectmen based on recommendations from staff. Town connection policy requires all new development to tie into the public sewer system and to require conversion to public sewer when residential septic systems fail. In addition the Town sewer connection policy requires all new development perform system Inflow/Infiltration improvements or provide equivalent contributions to twice the new flow to be added to the system. Reading's sewer system is maintained on a GIS mapping and database system. The operation of the sewer system, is overseen by the Department of Public Works, and is on an enterprise basis, by which the full costs of operations is borne by the sewer users, and not through local property taxes. Stormwater Svstem: Reading is located in the upper reaches of three (3) separate drainage basins; the Ipswich River basin to the north, Saugus River basin to the southeast and Aberjona River basin to the southwest. All stormwater is collected through a series of approximately 3500 catch basins, 100 miles of piped system, numerous open water bodies and 450 outfalls. The GIS mapping of the stormwater system is under development and is expected to be completed in the spring of 2013. The town is currently evaluating problematic areas of the Abejona and Saugus River basins. A draft report has been prepared and the final report containing recommended improvements is expected by the end of 2012. Once finalized, a capital plan for the improvements will be developed. The system is operated and maintained by the Department of Public Works and is funded partially through local property taxes and the balance through enterprise funds. Following the authorization of the MS4 permit program by the EPA in 2003, the Town established a stormwater enterprise in 2006 to fund the additional operation and maintenance of the stormwater system mandated by the MS4 permit. The enterprise funding is apportioned based on the extent of impervious area within the parcel. Through the policies established under the Town's MS4 permit program, all new developments are required to install and maintain stormwater management systems. Each system must include a longterm operation and maintenance plan which includes annual reporting to the Town. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 39 51539 Roadwav Network: Reading contains approximately 102 miles of streets and roads, however, Town only maintains approximately 92.5 miles. The remainder of roadways not maintained by the Town consists of state owned and privately owned roadways. The Town is bordered by interstate Highway 95 (also known as state Route 128) on the south and southeast, and Interstate Highway 93 on the west. Reading's roadway system is consists of several arterial, collector and local roadways. Arterial streets, carrying large traffic volumes and serving as principal local routes as well as regional routes, include: Main Street (Route 28), Salem Street and Lowell Street (Route 129). These three main arterials intersect at the Common in the middle of Town, and are lined almost uninterruptedly with commercial and densely developed residential uses. Minor arterial streets include: Haverhill Street (residential), Walkers Brook Drive (commercial and industrial), Washington Street (residential), Woburn Street (commercial through Downtown and otherwise residential) and West Street (almost entirely residential). Collector streets, collecting traffic from neighborhood streets and feeding into the arterial streets in Town, include: Franklin Street, Grove Street, Forest Street, Charles Street, Washington Street, High Street, Summer Avenue, South Street, Hopkins Street, and Willow Street. Since 2000, Reading has utilized a computerized pavement management system to assist in developing a roadway capital improvement plan. In 2011 the system was converted to a GIS based management system. The system enables the Town to reliably develop cost effective roadway maintenance plans. Based on roadway inspections, each roadway is given a pavement condition index (PCI) which is used to identify the overall condition of the roadways. PCI values range from 0 to 100 and the 2011 average PCI of all roadways is 74. Every 3-4 years, each roadway is physically inspected to update the database for pavement distresses factors which are used to determine pavement longevity in the program. Through the use of the computerized program, state Chapter 90 roadway funds and the general operating funds (which is a result of a proposition 2 % override), the Town's planned annual expenditure of roadway maintenance will insure an overall increase in the roadways PCI value for the next 10 to 15 years. Commuter Rail: Reading is served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Commuter Rail system. The current MBTA schedule has 19 commuter rail trains each weekday inbound to North Station in downtown Boston. A total of 23 commuter trains travel outbound to Reading each weekday from North Station and of those 13 continue on to the final destination of Haverhill. The Reading train station is located in the heart of downtown at the "Depot". There is a mix of MBTA/Town parking available at the Depot. The 113 MBTA-owned spaces are available for a rate of $4.00/day and there are Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 40 513 q O also several Town-Owned parking spaces available to residents only for a one-time fee of $25. The typical weekday boarding counts for the Reading station in February of 2009 was 927 commuters, a 20% (184 commuters) increase from February of 2004. The 2009 ridership in Reading was higher than any other station on the Haverhill/Reading MBTA line. Wakefield had the second highest ridership at 773. Bus Service: The MBTA operates two bus routes from Reading to Malden Center train station. Bus 136 service begins at the Depot to and travels east on Salem Street onto Lowell Street, through Wakefield then continues south on Main Street with service in Melrose and eventually terminates at the Malden Center train station. Bus 137 also departs from the Depot. This route travels south on North Avenue through Wakefield and continues south through Melrose on Main Street and terminates at the Malden Center train Station. The entire route from Reading to Malden takes approximately 40 minutes. Electrical - Readine Municioal Lieht Deoartment IRMLDI: In 1891, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law enabling cities and towns to operate their own gas and electric plants. Following several years of study and Special Town Meetings, Reading began producing electricity for 47 streetlights and 1,000 incandescent lamps on September 26, 1895. Special legislation was enacted on April 8, 1908, authorizing the Town of Reading to sell and distribute electricity to Lynnfield, North Reading and Wilmington. As a result, RMLD began delivering power to Lynnfield Center on December 10, 1909; to North Reading in 1910 and to Wilmington in 1912. There have been decades of advancement and achievement since those early days of electricity, but some things have remained constant. After more than 110 years, RMLD is still committed to reliable service at competitive rates, maintaining that commitment requires astute planning, innovative ideas and close attention to detail. The Gaw substation on Causeway Road in Reading, constructed in 1969-1970 allowing RMLD to connect to the grid and purchase power from almost anywhere on the northeast power pool. In June 2000, construction was completed on a distribution substation connected to 115,000-volt transmission lines in North Reading, designed to accommodate growth and enhance the entire system's efficiency and reliability. To ensure reliability, RMLD has an ongoing preventive maintenance program aimed at solving problems before they occur. Today, RMLD serves more than 27,000 customers in its four-town service area. A professional staff of 80+ employees brings a broad scope of utility experience to RMLD's daily operation, including an up-to-date understanding of the evolving energy market. With its peak demand for electricity at more than 155 megawatts, RMLD purchases electricity from a number of different sources through long-and-short-term contracts. Recent technological advances at RMLD include a fiber optic cable network that links all substations for state-of-the-art system monitoring and control. Computer systems are Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 41 Sa yj also state-of-the-art, and now include a sophisticated website. Meter reading is modern and efficient, with an automatic system that uses radio transmitters for optimal accuracy and efficiency. RMLD supports in-lieu-of-tax payments, community development and energy education programs. This includes energy conservation programs, school safety projects, school-to- work partnerships, out-reach to senior groups, community support, and active memberships in local civic groups. Infrastructure Caoacitv for Planned Production: Reading's overall infrastructure contains adequate capacity and capital facilities for existing build out and anticipated future development. The Town also periodically reviews and assesses its 10 Year Capital Plan to insure that infrastructure will be maintained and sustained for projected growth. The Town expects to continue the policy and practice of requiring mitigation from developers, financial or otherwise, for the impacts of their proposed projects, including infrastructure improvements. Therefore, as needs are identified through staff level and consultant review of individual permitting applications, the Town expects to require, as conditions for approval, adequate improvements and upgrades to systems, resources and capacity to allow for development under this Housing Plan, while protecting and enhancing natural, cultural and historical assets consistent with the 2005 Master Plan. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 42 5O4Z 1. Reach the 10% affordable housine goal while also focusing on the specific housing needs of Reading residents. 2. Preserve existing affordable housing to ensure thev remain affordable and aualifv for listing on the subsidized housing inventory. 3. Integrate affordable housing into the communitv while Dreservine the auality and character of existing residential neighborhoods. 4. Revise and update the existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a means to fund affordable housing development and activities. 5. Create a mechanism for outreach to owners of affordable housing to ensure maintenance and upkeep 6. Educate the oublic on affordable housing issues and strengthen relationships with other local entities and regional partners on the topic. (Comment [W73]: Based on commema from the I CPDC. The table below lists upcoming projects or projects in the "pipline" as well as other feasible [Formatted rnnc Not eoie projects that will result in additional affordable units on the SHI. eased on this list, it is anticipated the Town will reach eligibility for certification by the end of 2013. Projections also assume the Town will receive certification through 2016 when it is anticipate Reading will have reached the 10% affordable housing goal. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 43 S~ y 3 In reviewing the previous Reading Housing Plan of 2007, other Reading related documents, analyzing the current housing situation in Reading, and in discussing housing issues with town citizens and officials, the Town has identified six housing goals that are the most appropriate and most realistic for the community. They are identified below. Table 26: Certification Timeline Certification 0.5% = Addition of 48 u nits/year 1.0%= Addition of 96 units/year (total year around housing units = 9584) Project Timeline I Number of Affordable Units Oaktree Spring 2013 11 Reading Woods - Building 9 Spring 2013 I 10 Reading Woods - Building 8 Spring 2013 I 11 Reading Woods - Building 7 Spring 2013 I 11 Johnson Woods, Phase II - Building 1 Summer 2013 '6 Subtotal 49 Total Affordable Units 733 Percent Affordable = 7.6% Certified for 2014 Reading Woods- Building 6 Summer 2014 11 Bare Meadow Residences - Building 1 Summer 2014 30 Johnson Woods, Phase II - Building 2 Fall 2014 7 Subtotal 48 Total Affordable Units i 781 i Percent Affordable = 8.1% Certified for 2015 45 Beacon Street I Spring 2015 3 Bare Meadow Residences - Building 2 + Spring 2015 30 Peter Sanborn Expansion Spring 2015 47 MF Charles Building Summer 2015 3 Johnson Woods, Phase I I Summer 2015 6 Johnson Woods, Phase II - Building 3 i Summer 2015 6 Subtotal 95 Total Affordable Units 876 Percent Affordable = 9.1% Certified for 2016 Downtown Redevelopment -Other 40R Summer 2016 10 projects "Friendly 40B"/Private Development Summer 2016 I 100 Subtotal 110 Total Affordable Units 986 Certified for 2017 New Crossing Road Redevelopment District I Fall 2016 100 Subtotal 100 Total Affordable Units 1086 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 44 ~~YY I. Housing Production Plan Implementation Requirements Introduction: This section responds to DHCD requirements regarding five elements of the housing production plan. These are: A) Characteristics of residential and/or mixed-use developments preferred by the Town of Reading; B) Zoning districts or geographic areas in which Reading proposes to modify regulations to encourage SHI eligible housing developments; C) Identification of potential sites and areas for affordable housing; D) Municipally owned land with potential for affordable housing; and E) Participation in regional collaborations addressing affordable housing. A. Characteristics of Residential and/or Mixed-Use Developments Preferred by Reading Reading has taken a number of actions over the past decade to encourage the provision of affordable housing in the community. It has seen numerous housing developments proposed and completed many of which have included affordable units as part of the project. Based in part on this history, it becomes clear the characteristics that are most important to the town. A summary of these characteristics include the following: The Board of Selectmen has adopted a policy on the Local Initiatives Program. Within that policy there is language related to design and siting issues, including the design and siting of the affordable units within a development for any proposed LIP development. The Town has identified amending and updating this policy to add further design guidelines as a strategy under the Regulatory & Zoning Changes category. • Mixed-use development. Reading adopted a 4011 district to include part of its downtown near the train station. This was done to encourage mixed-use, transit- oriented development, either as in-fill or as redevelopment. As a result, a new mixed- use development, Oak Haven has just opened less than a block from the train station. This includes retail, and market rate and affordable housing units. The Town intends to examine the feasibility of expanding the 40R district to encourage additional mixed-use developments in the downtown. An existing historic commercial building - the MF Charles Building - in the heart of the downtown has recently filed plans to renovate the entire building. The first phase will Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 45 renovate the first floor for retail space while the second floor will renovate the upper stories for residential units under the Downtown Smart Growth Regulations. Phase 2 will include a number of affordable units that will qualify for the SHI. Within these districts the Town's design preferences include the following: o Design - Design of new and or developed buildings for mixed uses should reflect existing design elements of buildings in the neighborhood rather showing substantial differences from those elements. Architectural features should provide visual interest and form. o Reuse - Since most of the land within the Town is either developed or protected, the Town encourages reuse and adaptation of existing buildings for mixed-use that includes affordable units. o Local Initiatives Program -The Board of Selectmen already have regulations encouraging the use of the LIP program and thus the Town prefers that comprehensive permits be submitted under the LIP program and guidelines. o Type of housing - The Town seeks to encourage a mix of housing types. This includes ownership and rental as well as units to accommodate individuals, families, and seniors. In addition, a mix of single-family, townhouses, condos and apartments would provide diverse options for meeting multiple housing needs. o Phasing - The Town encourages phasing of moderate or large sized developments so as not to place undue burdens on town resources in a short amount of time. o Public benefits - The Town prefers developments that provide public benefits in addition to affordable units. Such benefits could include infrastructure such as off-site sidewalks, improvements to adjacent intersections, traffic lanes and/or signals; enhanced landscaping; preservation of a historic building or features; community facilities or contributions thereto; contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund or similar offer deemed by the Town to be a public benefit. B. Zoning districts or geographic areas in which Reading proposes to modify regulations to encourage SHI eligible housing The Town intends to examine both its zoning bylaw and zoning map for potential changes that would allow for affordable housing opportunities. The Town has identified as a strategy the development of a cluster/open space residential development bylaw or similar to provide flexibility for parcels that in the future might be the subject of a subdivision proposal. The Town will study how best to provide incentives and/or inclusionary provisions in such zoning that would encourage SHI eligible housing. As part of examining this technique the Town will also identify the most appropriate areas and zoning districts in the community where this would suitable. Reading has also identified three areas within the community that will be examined for zoning changes to encourage the development of affordable housing. Those areas are: 1) An expansion of the existing downtown 40R district to additional downtown parcels; 2) The New Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 46 S~ ~6 Crossing Road Redevelopment District near the Rt. 128/Walkers Brook Drive interchange; 3) an area along Rt. 28/Main Street from Washington Street south to Summer Street. These areas include the following zoning categories: a) Business A - Along Rt. 28 b) Business - B - Downtown c) Industrial - PUD - Planned Unit development in the New Crossing Road Redevelopment area d) S-40- apartment zoning on Rt. 28 e) S-15 Single Family -on both Rt. 28 and west of the Train station The Town will analyze whether these existing zoning categories can be straightforwardly amended to allow for additional housing while protecting these neighborhoods or whether a new type of zoning category, such as an overlay zone, would be more appropriate. Within these districts, the Town will review the existing zoning district categories for appropriate amendments to provide incentives for in-fill and redevelopment opportunities. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 47 S_6 y-7 Area for Potential Affordable Housing and Potential Zoning Changes (Map 1) t c er i, t ~ c: • pc"nt f E.- W D.WAU u` Smartt3tuw!•DsfrwtBw.Mxk+ ~.{~M N t A Anla ADrPekenaN Uxed U. Disbtot ~ i II d Am of pCO." N-C-M Reed RetlMlopawn Dbtnoi Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 48 Pere Sanhom Plane 4ar+wnE.W.0- Sja yB Legend Map oy Town of R-np y,y ~ar;rs Trap Map aau. ParcNS yahd IltN9. t Q Town B-nay eubrps Fence r~ Roads, oryodmps. sidewalks. S Railroad Sww.Jks • • • Hedge eves. trails. etc °fpn aMa Ronda Driveway .'`e Trues ;robs ta*en spnng:Wa. 6,..'._..'.j Sn a Da -for panning i-- Ratainirp Wall S__ pypoyrs-y 0 WaN Open water S:A 11rYJ ITK Unpaved Path ""-.y Wnpnds Area for Potential Affordable Housing and Potential Zoning Changes (Map 2) 4th Agut~&t {O,bty 3S f1 1. i PRO- , VAt )Puts Cf 6fA3. i4: 3 20 5 Le end MaP W Tmsn or Rr ny g PM 6s _ Trail Map 6ax. Town Boundary 8.1d P-K vxd l/VN tt R.Wrpsd Sidewalks +r • Hedge stdmaks, amen. P.IS re~Wk-aerial Roaft ® D.-y j j Trees plrolp6 taken spnrp.2D06. -d . D- are for 0-9 Q nmr Retmnnq Wa ll Streams purposes ordy. L_ Paved WaB open waxy p a55 sx +rnc 'Jnpmied Path WO .6 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 49 _~bya C. Identification of potential sites and areas for affordable housing Reading has already adopted two 40R zoning districts as indicated in previous sections of the plan. The Gateway Smart Growth District (GSGD), located on the southern side of town, will provide for 424 housing units, 43 of which will be affordable. The project currently under construction will result in the full build-out of the GSGD. The other 40R district is the Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) and is located within parts of the downtown area, adjacent to the MBTA train station. The adopted Downtown Smart Growth zoning regulations encourage mixed-use development, transit-oriented development and in-fill development. The inclusion of affordable housing within this district is an important element of those regulations. The first project within the DSGD was the 30 Haven Street/Oaktree mixed-use development. This project includes just less than 20,000 square feet of retail on the first floor and three floors of residential above containing a total of 53 units. A total of 11 units will be designated affordable. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 50 ~-BS e 5 As noted in the previous section, the Town has identified three additional areas within its boundaries for targeted activities to allow for affordable housing development. These are the expansion of the downtown 40R district, the New Crossroads Redevelopment Area, and a portion of the route 28 corridor, from Summer Street to Washington Street. In addition, as part of a mapping project led by MAPC, Reading is in the process of identifying priority development and priority preservation areas. Preliminary discussions for that project have identified Camp Curtiss Guild, a 275-acre site use for training by the Army National Guard, as a priority development and preservation area. Although no specific plans were identified for this site, it is worth noting the Town suggested that this site would be used for a regional mixed-use development that would also be considered for recreation uses. Also as part of the mapping project a privately owned piece of land along Haverhill Street was identified as a potential site for senior housing. However, both Camp Curtiss Guild and areas along Haverhill Street contain many wetlands which may present additional challenges for housing development. D. Municipally owned land with potential for affordable housing The Town of Reading has conducted a survey of publically owned properties within the community with the goal of identifying potential sites for affordable housing production. All the available municipally owned sites have been precluded from being used for affordable housing because they fall into one or more of the following categories: o Land restricted for conservation and/or park purposes o Land already developed with town facilities (schools, fire station, library etc.) o Land already identified for use for a public facility (possible Early Childhood Development Center) o Parcels that are simply too small or oddly shaped to be built upon o Parcels that are unbuildable due to wetlands In addition, there are no town buildings available for adaptive reuse for housing purposes. Also, the Reading Housing Authority has stated that there is no additional land within their ownership available for additional units. Nevertheless, the Town will continue to consider opportunities for housing development municipally owned sites that become available as well as future tax-title properties. As these sites do become available, the Town will identify any constraints on these properties that would preclude their use as well as potential opportunities for housing development. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 51 S&.<1 E. Participation in Regional Collaborations Addressing Affordable Housing Reading is currently participating in a regional study to investigate the creation of a Regional Housing Services office. The study is being conducted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and is funded through a DLTA grant. In addition to the Town of Reading, other communities in this study include the towns of Danvers, Lynnfield, North Reading, Saugus and Wakefield and the city of Peabody. This study is similar in scope to the successful study that MAPC conducted in its MAGIC subregion. Among the tasks envisioned by this resources office would be administering, monitoring and preserving affordable housing in this subregion. It will work with the individual consortium members to assist them in understanding their housing needs, provide information and reports as needed as well as seek opportunities to create additional affordable housing within this area. It may also administer local housing funding programs, provide ready rental/buyer lists for developments, and help to update SHI inventory activity. The study is intended to identify specific tasks that this office could provide for the towns and city and how the office could best be administered. The Town of Reading also cooperates regionally regarding housing for Veterans. The Reading Veterans Agent works with other communities in cases where a Reading Veteran is in need of housing as the Town does not any housing specifically dedicated for veterans. The Town will also continue to coordinate with the Reading Housing Authority in preserving its existing stock of housing as well as taking advantage of any future opportunities to increase that housing stock. Reading also collaborates with regional non-profit housing organizations, such as EMARC and Habitat for Humanity in examining opportunities for actions that respond to a variety of housing needs within the Town. II. Housing Production Plan Strategies Introduction: Based on the review of the 2006 Reading Housing Production Plan, the information developed for this 2012 Housing Plan and discussions with various town officials and citizens, Reading has identified four broad categories of housing plan and implementation strategies. These categories are intended to address, in a comprehensive manner, the expansion of the affordable housing stock as it relates to its quality, quantity and location. The categories are: 1) Expand Housing Opportunities; 2) Examine Regulatory and Zoning Changes; Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 52 ss.'~Z 3) Expand Local Capacity and Educational Efforts; and 4) Collaborative Local & Regional Housing Efforts A. Expand Housing Opportunities Issue: Based on the information contained in the 2006 Reading Housing production Plan, other town documents including the Reading Master Plan, a survey of town residents, discussions with town officials and the analysis of housing needs that was conducted as part of this plan, the goal of expanding housing opportunities to ensure a continuing diverse housing stock while also providing additional affordable units was identified as a goal of the Town. Strat ep, i es/Actions: 1. Conduct a review of the existing Reading Affordable Housing Trust to examine possible restructuring of the Trust to allow greater flexibility in addressing housing needs. 2. Negotiate with developers of future projects for possible contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust. 3. Study the feasibility of using the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create a loans/grant program for housing rehabilitation activities. 4. Work with the current owner to amend the existing 40B permit to allow the construction of additional units at Peter Sanborn Place. 4. Identify opportunities for either the Town and/or a housing organization to acquire tax title or foreclosed properties for potential use as affordable units. 5. Study the feasibility of the Town acquiring the rights of first refusal on housing units in order to place an affordability restriction on such units prior to resale. These strategies/actions help to achieve Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 by creating addressing town-wide housing needs, identifying alternatives to create additional affordable housing, and evaluating ways to utilize the AHTF. 6. Establish a dialogue with the appropriate housing organizations to identify current and potential future group homes in Reading. 7. Seek funding mechanisms to assist elder Reading residents to remain in their own homes 8. Encourage infill development with mixed housing in appropriate locations, particularly within the 40R districts near the train station. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 53 5(30 9. Work with private sector to identify potential unused or underutilized residential, commercial and/or industrial properties that may be appropriate for housing development. 10. Identify surplus non-town public properties for potential sites for affordable housing. 11. Work with organizations involved with the First Time Homebuyers program to identify opportunities for the Town to partner with and support that effort. 12. Partner with the Reading Housing Authority in seeking potential housing units that can be purchased and then restricted for affordable housing. 13. Fund regional housing services from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. B. Regulatory& Zoning Changes Issue: While Reading has made numerous updates and changes to its zoning bylaw over the years, a comprehensive review of that bylaw as well as other regulations is a logical goal after adoption of the Housing Production Plan. Such regulations can inadvertently become an impediment to providing housing opportunities. A thorough review with the objective of discovering and changing any regulations that are seen as impediments can be a significant improvement toward creating opportunities for successful affordable housing creation Strategies/Actions: 1. Conduct a thorough review of zoning and other land use regulations with the objective of identifying impediments to the production of affordable housing. 2. Look into adopting a cluster bylaw, or similar, zoning provisions, that would encourage the provision of affordable units and/or contributions to the affordable housing trust. These strategies/actions help to achieve Goals 1, 2 and 3 by maximizing housing opportunities through the evaluation of current regulations and zoning for changes that are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. 3. Amend and update the Comprehensive Permit (40B and LIP) policies and guidelines of the Board of Selectmen and Zoning Board of Appeals to guide the review process for future 40B and LIP developments. Such guidelines should include the identification of the types, locations, siting criteria and character of housing desired by the Town. This strategy would allow the Town to be proactive in the creation of projects that would be more compatible with the Town's objectives for affordable housing. 4. Examine methods to ensure that the character of Reading's existing residential neighborhoods is preserved while promoting diversity in new housing development. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 54 Comment [3W4]: Suggestion from PH. S135`q 5. Study the potential of creating incentives and guidelines for new housing development as part of the State's and Reading's Climate Actions Plans. 6. Identify potential additional incentives for new development in appropriate locations such as the 40R districts in town. 7. Expand the current 40R district to include additional areas in the downtown and identify other potential suitable 40R districts. C. Capacity Building & Education Issue: As part of a comprehensive approach to creating affordable housing in Reading it is necessary that the local community, including public officials and citizens, be informed regarding these issues. Providing regular occasions whereby the Town can meet to be informed regarding housing issues, information and recent activities, as well as being able to identify and discuss future strategies and goals can build support for the strategies identified in the others categories. strategies: 1. Conduct housing forums every two years with local organizations, public officials and citizens to These strategies/actions help to reviews housing issues, actions taken to date and to achieve Goals 2, s and 6 by identify strategies for moving forward. educating public officials and the community, soliciting 2. Work with town boards and commissions to feedback on ways to best inform them of the goals and objectives of the 2012 increase affordable housing in heading and develop a way to Housing Production Plan and to consider aligning track progress on the steps their policies and plans with the goals of the taken to achieve the goals of the Housing Plan. HPP. 3. Actively research and access housing resources at the federal, state, regional, local and non-profit level to identify opportunities to use such resources for actions related to housing in Reading. 4. Create a monitoring mechanism for the Town to use in tracking affordable housing strategies and production. This could include expiring uses, production goals and achievements, identification of potential sites and properties, identification of tax title and foreclosed properties, and similar. 5. Create a benchmarking system that would allow the Town to regularly review its progress in accomplishing the goals, strategies and actions of the Housing Production Plan. I Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 55 i D. Local & Regional Collaborations Issue: The housing issues that affect Reading are not found solely within the town borders. The potential resources available to assist in addressing housing needs are also not found solely within its borders. Reading, as well as surrounding cities and towns and regional organizations and non-profits devoted to housing issues, should look to strengthening their coordination and cooperation. Within the community, there may be as yet unidentified potential partners in addressing housing needs, such as the religious community or others. Strategies: 1. Establish the Reading Planning Department as the point of contact and liaison with regional housing entities as well as developers interested in building These strategies/actions help to housing in the Town. achieve Goals 1, 3 and 6 by establishing a direct contact to the town for potential housing 2. Work with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council developments and tapping local in identifying housing and demographic data as it is and regional resources that can made available for implications related to housing in identify opportunities to expand the Town of Reading. affordable housing within Reading. 3. Work with the other town partners and MAPC through the current DLTA grant to identify the appropriate mechanisms to provide regional housing services. Support the creation of a proposed regional services office and/or a regional housing consortium. 4. Initiate a dialogue with the religious community to identify housing issues from their perspective and the potential for that community to be involved in addressing Reading's housing issues. 5. Establish a dialogue with entities such as EMARC and Habitat for Humanity regarding opportunities to partner on the provision of affordable housing in town. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 56 S~~ Table 27: Implementation Responsibilities & Timeframes Strategy/Action I Responsibility Timefranne Expand Housing Opportunities Review & modify Affordable Housing Board of Selectmen Short term Trust Developer negotiations Town Manager Ongoing Sanborn Place 40B expansion Town Manager, Planning Short term Division Opportunities for tax title/foreclosed Town Manager, Planning Ongoing property acquisition Division Examine potential for town right of Town Manager, Planning Mid-term first refusal actions Department Examine group home possibilities Planning Division Mid-term Examine funding opportunities for Community Services Mid-term senior Reading residents to remain in Department- Elder and their homes Human Services Division and Planning Division Encourage in-fill development in 40R Planning Division Ongoing districts Identify under/unused properties for Planning Division Ongoing housing development Identify future surplus town properties Town Manager Long-term for housing opportunities Examine opportunities for town to Planning Division Mid-term partner with First Time Home Buyer programs Partner with Reading Housing Town Manager, Planning Ongoing Authority to obtain units that can be Division restricted for affordable housing. Fund regional housing services through Town Manager, Board of Mid-term the Affordable Housing Trust Selectmen Regulatory & Zoning Changes Review zoning & other land use regs. Planning Division Mid-term for impediments to housing production Adopt a cluster bylaw or similar with CPDC, Board of Selectmen & Longterm inclusionary housing provisions Town Meeting Update local 40B/LIP guidelines Planning Division, Board of Mid-term Selectmen, Zoning Board of Appeals Examine methods to preserve Planning Division Ongoing neighborhood characteristics Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 57 SIBS? Use Climate Action Plan to create Planning Division, Board of Long term housing incentives Selectmen, Climate Action Committee Identify additional incentives for Planning Division Mid-term housing development in 40R districts Expand 40R districts I Board of Selectmen, CPDC Longterm Capacity Building & Education Conduct housing forums every 2 years I Town Manager, Board of I Long term/ongoing Selectmen Inform boards & committees on the Board of Selectmen, Town Short term plan, goals and strategies of the 2012 Manager, Planning Division Housing Production Plan Research housing resources at federal, Planning Division I Ongoing state and other levels to assist Reading Create monitoring mechanism for I Planning Division Mid-term tracking housing activities Create a benchmarking system to Planning Division Short term regularly review progress in implementing HPP Local & Regional Collaborations Establish Planning Division as the Town Manager, Planning Short term central point of information, contact Division resource on housing issues Work with MAPC in identifying new Planning Division Ongoing housing data that can be used for housing related purposes and studies in Reading Complete the DLTA grant study of Planning Division, Board of Short term/ongoing regional housing opportunities and Selectmen, Town Manager follow-up by implementing recommendations from that study Initiate dialogue with the religious Town Manager, Planning Short term community regarding housing issues, Division needs and potential partnerships in Reading Establish a dialogue with non-profit Town Manager, Planning Mid-term housing providers regarding Division opportunities in Reading NOTE: Short term = within 6-8 months; Mid-term = 6-15 months; Long term = 15 + months Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 58 6 G-58 NORTH READING T di x "a'en m r' S q+ * ~ D 2R~'"~, ^,x d u N ~ nqurer 4 oum.aua'° 'a 1' ` 5t flu. ° n=} a = oau+re ~..r wa saa ~ urtv " a i ti '°„4'n V W a y>~'1''" y»h.-a'4. ya l+ ' » J` e'rTi»~;.t A'v. y, d' *q~y f r Ex l..mw~r.~ T Tyy g. O! f 1 :w"'4 ir. pvW s. dMet aJw 1 Y 4 j 1 S N3a»a ya I-M ? 4 Yy a tf Or +J tia. \eool ft e t R ~ ' ral f I i • iu + } yp ~ ~ ~ F WOBURN ~ t STONEHAM LepeM WAKEFIELD wu bw+.e»+iuw nw.. rx w!»iw.w:awm rrn rem n.p.rq tl~tw!» w.r.. .wc yrlw aowr o.u... YA ltlMi4YY GvwW i• iYrIYIIUIf4 IrY~ f6C MUwICIYU Yw M. IdrYw' InrlY ap nyN.Aw.~I tYYU <In.Yr W WWp18iyw Ml.4wl +.lW W 144tY 4w.MlYl, tivuYr ria0 rM.w NdvwClrl.!».Ow.p V.lp Yha! tw.llN:.wws. a ..n-W.» . Ii a k4e [.allw Clr~l1-!!r!! M W Anl1! VtW +Yw1Urti»n~!!i-WtY Cw:Yr ww u.+.r wnu.o:nla ZONING MAP TOWN Of READING MASSACHUSETTS Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 20124 MW Page 60 5 64,° ' 11 n i 1 i s~« zz ~ N d X U0 J ~k I 1 i i a ~ ` LYNNFR_l.'. WOEJR. L~ s rc ~ A f t.k 'far- • ypt%_elE_6 y 1 1._.. ."aTOIafNN 1 WETLAND MAP TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 61 50 Area for Potential Affordable Housing and Potential Zoning Changes (Map 1) t 'x F ° ~ , ~ e u Pater Sanborn Warn f d Rtum Ex ansion p L ♦ v'r ' Xy Exrsonp O o w n orxr Saws r ~ i r i r M ralgNtf Dbakt ° Boa MSry 0 .t~ M i Pblarauial txpamion r# C . "f,.=.. p. SmW GnYOM Distr kt Br WA" "-i ►»afor pabntW MWW U.Obtkt -`t eA a `y k M d n -7, N 13SGO ! Ind. j _ Legend Map oy Tom of Reading Parsecs Trap Map Q Town Boundary S Wings Pence P-Is -d W to Roans, b~3dmpc sfdewaits J i Railroad S,d-Nk. . • • H"gc W-s. irals, eW tom aNal Roods Dd-Y Trees p,yaare iw p-g 2W6 Bndge m..r R.--g Wall Swains V✓ooses only. PaYld Wall Sr' Op- water iN fiK 12S Jnp-d pvM =y Weoands c Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# >:<< A-. fPQftI&QI tiar...._....... RoW w~ Radesebprnars Ikstrgt Page 62 Area for Potential Affordable Housing and Potential Zoning Changes (Map 2) Legend =arms Tan QT-B.-I.'y Buildings %ence -H Railroad Sidewalks • • , Hedge Roads D--y T'.- E 7 Bndpe rrrrrr Re9amnp Wa11 Streams Pa'xd Wall open wafer Unpaved Pam TMy Wevads Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Map vy T.- of Reading $AaP late. ParcalS V.d V1,0p Roads. b..:d:nps. sgevatks. a^vK. trash. et'ran+aenal Gatos taken spmtp c'OQB ^D,xa are to oU^nmp Py'ry05K only ~ c aes wo &x Page 63 5715&3 Question 1 De you k. awn papery in Reedr47 Check d gut sppy. Armwar Optima R*mcne* Response tiro 8433 113 Own Propert2 776% 104 None of the above 0.7%. 1 . peeom 134 WMed4mmem 2 Do you lm rdlm amn Wop" in Reenn97 Check al that appyr. 900, Soo, lac W t~ 40 G' NU ,4Ai v c 7?v. 1 xe e 10.0 & 0 0 -1 - lave Own Propert,• Question 2 Now wmm you Met Vie blesii g PapMfan Wows on vb* newd br elknleble hawkp7 Ans-Opfi- No need Nm verY newly Ek d y 7 11 1 L Disabled 8 5 Fe.a- 16 27 Yaws Wmkeg Ad kc 32 24 Sego Parente 16 12 Nacre of the above Needy Very Needy Relkg Awu>,pe 34 50 30 3.64 132 28 64 22 3.69 127 4a 28 9 2.90 124 39 20 11 2.63 128 42 37 21 317 128 .e ew ed?.- en 132 ~ y~ s4~PWVAWWn 4 How would you nnkiM blowup popu4son prouR on tl»e newdfm dlordWNhouenp7 Question 3 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 65 513 Mid, bad daxml m yors rr*q siiaion7 Own yi:mx hame 912-4 Rent your hmrm 517. Live with pawns 1.571 00- (0- vecif") 2 27. 9uareiw d w ' ~go+ 9u+s + + NAdch bmtdoambes your Wng siimion7 Question 4 Rmpmne coved 124 7 2 3 136 0 .ID- - home e?em vwr'+cme L_lye WIVI pirenfS QQ!fW Ip1eL34 vflN.'d;'I Mal type of housing do you believe would beet servo Rmd'inp7 Answer. OWW Response Resperm Petard CaNd Apartment: 11.2-1- 15 Duplexes 16.4% 22 Single Far* Homes 55.2"x. 74 Townho=e. 172•%,. 23 , ,FOWSOb" 134 What type of hawing do you believe wexdd bast Sam Rea&ng7 Question 5 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# nApae - ■ D~k yzs QSingle F-4, O TOwnn-- Page 66 ~13 ~ W For a 2•bstroom unit wharf price would you aansider'a/fadabls'to pay each month 0,014,4111 Ut"-)? Answer Options Response F Paoat Count'. S700-$999 28.97%. 37 $1000 - 21399 39 8-k 51 $1400-1799 21 9`i. 28 $1800 or more 94x 12 .pnarAbn 128 Atppsd9rwadbn 8 For a 2-bedroom unit what price would you consider'OordaW to Pay each month (including ulifities)? a470)- $999 ■S1000 51399 0514.~p!0-1794 0S1 W0 0! mare Question 6 Have you or someone in your family had difficulty in to Wlbwmg?- CMdr all that apply Answer Options Response Response PelCemt Count Frnding affordable houerng 380% 30 Finding the right type of housing 29.1% 23 Staying in Your home 21.5% 17 Affording renovations to your home 684% 54 , gr-Obw 79 Skopedprernbv 57 Have you or someone in your family had difficulty in the following?- Check all that apply Question 7 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 67 The updvb m the Reading Housing Plea oil set Twin Polides and QeeOa r b guide dewiopmant of of sad bla housing Oyer"-A fiw years. Pleeee r,~ack yv aasw.r O t mist rt , . r. . , p i percent count Create a greeter variety of housing types try developing 35.6% 47 Encourage development now village cantors and existing 49.2% 65 Encourage aew housing unde do located near public 59.1% 78 Preserve the wnent arrlaura of dwelling unify in existing 46.2% 61 Encourage the reuef, of existing larger buildings to create 52.3% 69 enw weradgwAM" 192 sk (tped q-w t n 4 The update to the Rearing 70.0% 60.0°'u I 5001. 40 0°« 309/ .~.0 0 t0 09 Crr W . greater variety of h.udnxy types by devel.0.9 mae alternatives to traditional auxpo- family housing such as apertinent and condos and duplexes. p~8 ~Ao A 6 Encourage development new mllaye camera and existing ..ghb-f-ch, as much es P-ibl.. order to avoid mnaunxng open space and r.turol resources. Encouraya new housing units be fo w,A near pubic transport.,.. and meat ---1 arena to mim u- mno rail-- P ~ 4RJ" . PX.. Preserve the Erxrourage die reuse amount of dwelbrig lhny of existing larger units in existing Innldmgs to..at. neighborhoods and muifffenily I -ing canmerciel.reas unns Question 8 In iha peat Readng ha wad mnitg m vfwnals th. hawatp da~ptaaM and tl» araation d a(krda6ia tats. SmartGrnwtlr aoiting albav ircroaaed dtvaily as a btaas for Affinem, Options Percent Cetatt Yea 28.V, 38 No~„ 37.6'4 50 No Opimnf Not aura 33 V, 45 WAPO n 133 etppad9w,bbn 3 In the past RefW has wad zonifg b Promote the h-viN i _ ,...aid and tM createttn of sBordable mils. Smart CraxNh.a.q a8owa increased dandify m a bones are. ■rro nNO Owrion :for c.re Question 9 Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 68 r-A`F The 2006 Meow Plat idenOW ob(KCro to 11 ft horning needs in Reading Please chock which objedivee you hdrrs the town has been suacaekt in edtevfng. e.....w Mi..,.. Response Reep- Pursue and increase in town tnvoNwn ent wd tnestigate 30.9% 34 Communkate housig goals to rasidenn. 39.1% 43 E-mge new deve4ment and the rehabAitatan and 51.8% 57 Inuodnce mired use zoning in the Downtown and wound 723% 80 Veee, 110 The 2006 Meta Plan identified objective to adds the housing needs m Rewkrg. Plasse drek which objecii- you hollw the tewn has bwn sucraeskd in . i s You may aeied more than one. 80 0% 70 0% 601Y, d a _ 30.0"b 1110% OR k PA ce.a "i x K Ri¢z 3 d PiRalle and atCrease m town Comnwnlcate hot" goals mvo1-M and. nvestigate to -dent. addd-l fondug=,cl.. to sch-a housing goats. Encourage new dovtop-M Inbaduce axed use -gm and the rehatowtn and tkl Do+m and -nd the _,t"" of exist" Dept btWdmgs consistent with the T-'s chareder and denbdy and meeting State mondeted afhxdabb t-,q goals i 10%) Question 10: Please share any other thoughts you have regarding affordable housing in Reading. Response: Stop using my outrageous tax payments to promote politically correct social engineering. If only the well-to-do can afford to live in Reading, let it be.... Response: Concerned that recent changes have increased housing density without allowing for increased traffic. Disappointed that the old Atlantic site promised brick facade to blend in but put on really ugly salmon-colored siding! Response: This Town has had no success in achieving the goals listed above. What little housing was created that claims to be affordable is still too expensive. The Town's number one goal is clearly to increase its property tax base. If this town really wanted young families to be able to afford Reading we would be developing small single-family homes and not making every new home as large as can fit.on the lot. Consider a tax break for first time home buyers for the first 5 years of ownership, a tax break for developers that build houses under 2000 sf, or an assessment system based on the house more than the size of the lot. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 69 5~~9 Response: Do not touch the town forest Response: Kudos on the Atlantic Supermarket redevelopment -very well done. Would like to see more mixed -use (housing) in downtown Response: KEEP READING AS READING !!11!!11111 Response: I disagree strongly with State mandates to communities on "affordable housing". Let the free market answer the need. Response: Please stop building apartments and low income housing, we need more single family homes! The town is getting congested. Response: I think the town is doing a good job with affordable housing. I think the town should be encouraging ownership of homes whenever possible. Response: The addition of condos and townhouses has put an increased strain on the school systems. The focus should turn to supporting and encouraging new business in Reading. There is enough affordable housing in Reading at this time. Minimally - new affordable housing should be dispersed across neighborhoods that don't already have it. The Addison area project and housing on West Street on Woburn line are both in Joshua Eaton district as far as I know. Response: I do not see other towns meeting the state requirements as readily as we have. I have lived in many large multifamily dwellings and I do not believe that the residents share in a sense of community as much as in single family neighborhoods. Response: Tired of large developments on outskirts of town, eating up former farm land and animal/plant habitats. Need to change zoning to allow some reasonable amount of new two- family homes. Response: We need affordable single family houses, not more "McMansionsl Response: I would like to see a slowing down of the building of apartments, condos, and multifamily units. Reading is getting too densely populated. Response: none Response: need appropriate housing for the elderly: independent, single floor, garage in small clusters with community center and senior services provided Response: We moved to Reading for many reasons, the small town fee!, the safeness, and the good school system. All the condos and new development concern me. You are adding more traffic to a small town, putting increased wear and tear on roads that are in great need of Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 20124 Page 70 40 70 repair now, and will increase the populations in the schools as well as increasing class size if new schools are not built. as you can see I have a GREAT number of concerns. Response: http://www.bostonheraId.com/news/regional/view/20220704bromley- heat h_res idents_see k_more_pol ice_a id/s rvc=home&pos ition=3 Response: NO MORE "Section 8" housing. These residents that come in from poorer areas are ruining the town and tax the police department. Their children create problems in the school system. Many people in the years past have moved to Reading to get away from the poor cities and their problems. Section 8 housing brings more problems to the town. Drugs, Crime etc. Please no more Section 8 housing. Response: Affordable housing should not be an objective of town government. Making conditions favorable for development and growth of small businesses should be the priority and main objective of town government. Response: I think the town is cramming in apartments. This attracts a more transient population and one that is not invested in Reading. We are losing our charm of a great family community. I am horrified what will happen once the Addison site is finished. More trouble for Reading) Response: The town has taken on many communication initiatives -folks who'don't know what's going on' aren't TRYING to listen to what's being said. Keep up the good work - we might not always agree but I appreciate your good work. MORE public transport (including town bus/trolley like availability) would reduce density of traffic downtown and would get the sedentary population moving!I I Consider an initiative that would have a round the town transportation route/routes to include downtown/walkers brook/High School/Library/Senior Housing and would make existing affordable housing MORE affordable by removing need for folks to have their own transportationI Response: No more apartments) l Response: Reading should re-consider allowing the creation of in-law units to service a family's needs. Other towns have done so requiring an annual family certification and limitations on size of additions for use by family members rather than limiting the kitchen. An aging parent can be well served and the family can benefit from shared housing but it should allow both parties their independence. Response: there is too much development around town. Keep open space and reduce the number of apts. and condos in town. No more low income units as it is bringing increased vandalism, drugs, crime. With the boom in housing near 28/95 I'd like to also see more retail/business options as well. The shopping center that was previously proposed there would have done a lot for our town. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 71 5 6'1 Response: I feel the town has been completely overtaken with large scale housing projects that have impacted various aspects of town negatively... crime, school overcrowding, character, open space, and property values. Response: All affordable units should be part of mixed-use commercial developments. We NEED to increase our commercial footprint first and foremost. Response: I think that we need to be careful not to overwhelm the school system with affordable housing for families. Response: I AM SICK OF SEEING MORE AND MORE "AFFORDABLE" HOUING INCREASE THE BURDENS ON THE SCHOOLS, POLICE AND FIRE DEPT. I HAD TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR MY HOUSE AND AM ANGRY THAT OTHERS HOME COSTS ARE SUBSIDIZED BY MY TAX DOLLARS AND THEY GET TO PAY LESS FOR THEIR HOUSING. IT IS NOT FAIR. IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FULL MARKET VALUE TO LIVE IN READING, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT LIVE IN READING. Response: I think we have enough Response: I do not believe in 40B housing of any kindl I grew up in poverty and proceeded to dig myself out of poverty, and that's the American way; not free housing, not free food, not free school, not free medical, etc. etc. let people who are collecting these kind of benefits get off their rear ends and get a job, or two or three whatever it takes to stand own their own two feet, and not rely on me and other taxpaying citizens like me to provide for them. In short 40B housing along with all the other handouts is un-American and encourages dependency and laziness. Response: Simply adding apartment complexes tends to increase the property tax burden because apartment dwellers use more town services (police, schools, recreation) than their units contribute in property taxes. So, simply increasing the number of apartment units has a negative financial effect on the Town, its economy, and its taxpayers. Smart, value-added development of existing buildings, especially downtown, can add to the tax base while it increases traffic (potential customers) for downtown businesses. Don't blindly build cheap apartments just because they bring in more Democrat voters - think of the other costs. Look at the police call records for current subsidized housing units, as part of your decision process. Response: Diversity of races/SES levels would be wonderful in Reading. Response: Putting apartment complexes on all the edges of town makes for a crowded and unattractive looking town as well as backing up traffic when trying to get to work. The new Atlantic site is looking like it is going to be really ugly, I hope they do something with those balconies, not much they can do with the cheap vinyl. Response: would prefer not to see any more huge developments like Archstone/Reading Commons. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 72 517 Z Response: I believe the need for affordable housing is going to be a greater need than expected. The economy of the world will have an impact on the US and we may find ourselves in extraordinary circumstances. If we have a vision now of the need that's coming we will be better prepared to handle it. Response: Affordable housing should not equal rental housing. Affordable can also mean for purchase. 1 do not enjoy seeing our town fill with condo/town-house developments, I believe that detracts from the character of the town and increases the burdens on our infrastructure. We are neighbors with Stoneham and Woburn, both have higher densities and both have more affordable housing--it brings sets of problems that are already faced with, why increase the burden by promoting development of affordable housing? I'd prefer to see lower taxes. Response: I have been out of Reading for a long time now, but grew up there 1949-1976. My family and I lived on Meadowbrook Lane, and one thing that interested my parents was the golf course being so close. I hope that that will never ever, turn into housing of any kind. That would be a horrible nightmare especially on Grove Street. I would like to see more elderly/disabled building available not just for Reading residents, but for former Reading Residents (I'd be there in a flash-) I do think such developments should be either on main street, or near the sq, rr station, or on Charles, Haverhill streets near St Athanius etc I loved Reading, and that's why I signed up for the newsletter/s. My best friend is after me to move back, and I'd consider it if I could get an apt in an elderly/disabled bldg very soon, and if it were in a newer building at least a 1 bedrm.\with rent based on income. So since there is a long wait as I heard (5 + years) it doesn't look promising. Thank you Response: I believe "Affordable Housing" is a euphemism for bringing undesirables into the Town of Reading - IE, people without a stake in society who are more apt to commit crime and draw on town resourcesl Response: I think communicating to residents in general is a problem. I no longer get a local paper so I feel out of the loop when it comes to town affairs. A quarterly mailing or something of that nature would be helpful to get caught up on important issues. Response: 1 think affordable housing is important, but the town already seems congested/dense in population. I think it would be better to convert existing buildings to affordable housing rather than build more new buildings. Response: Meet the minimums required by the state, no more. The market will dictate rents/values; inserting "affordable housing" only skews the market. Conversion of existing older buildings to medium/high density housing must be carefully weighed with increased burden on schools, roads and other infrastructure which must play "catch-up" over many years to the increased revenues available, in the meantime current and new residents suffer. Slow growth is better. Proximity to commercial centers in a town like Reading has trivial value as many residents will still work and shop elsewhere--in Reading this means cars, you need parking and better traffic handling; Proximity to public transport is only useful for those Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 73 S6-7 3 working in Boston, overall it has value for a small group, many will still choose to drive--do a survey on where people work & shop and how they get there, I'm guessing you will single digit percentages vs. total population for those who utilize public transportation on a daily, or even weekly basis--it's not because the train is too far, it's because it costs too much, the schedules aren't convenient, and our wonderful proximity to Boston makes driving there not so bad (as long as you have parking at destination). Reading Woods and the other "...Woods" condo developments increasing being built DO NOT re-use existing buildings, and they are not consistent with the town's character (in my opinion). I worked hard to get into Reading, please don't dilute the Response: I am really concerned about the strain that all of this housing is putting on the schools in Reading. We have growing class sizes, except at Wood End, which is far from the center of town. The other elementary schools are beginning to be overcrowded and at times it is very frustrating to see our kids in increasingly overcrowded classes and then see the town lining up even more housing for families. Can you somehow line up affordable housing for the elderly, who would like to stay in town but may not be able to afford the taxes? Response: It would be nice if Main Street was more good looking beyond Dunkin Donuts Block. Can we insist on better architecture choices for burger joints and lube oil convenience marts and roast beef places? Yeuk! Town Center looks lovely. Can we extend trees out to 128? on main st tree lawns? MOST importantly, can we put the power lines there underground? What an eye sore!!!!M!IM Response: Simply put, we need more of it. Housing prices and rent have been too high for too long in Reading. Response: Very concerned with high density housing such as former Addison Wesly site and its affect on school enrollment and police/fire resources. Response: Better communication to residents is needed to help avoid the Not In My Back Yard mentality. Affordable housing can be concentrated in commuter areas, but should also be sprinkled around town to improve the economic diversity of neighborhoods and even out the impact to schools. Response: Use existing surplus property such as the land on Oakland Road across from the High School to build duplexes designated as "affordable", amd managed by the housing authority (like the ones at the bottom of Oakland Road). Also, use properties taken by tax title for possible designation as affordable housing. Response: we need more commercial to keep the taxes lower.. it is getting out of hand between taxes and the mwra bills. Response: Supply restrictions (most importantly zoning) across the entire Boston area are adversely affecting affordability and threating our long term growth. Unfortunately, there is a Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 74 -7 q collective action problem in getting the various municipalities to coordinate, especially more desired locations. Ideally, there would be a target for the total housing unit growth in each town (e.g., 10%), which in turn would allow the market to do the work of correcting this imbalance. In an ideal world, mandated absolute growth in housing units for every municipality could displace 40B, as increasing the total supply would do much more to correct this problem. But in the interim, Reading should seek to promote housing development generally. Lowering the SF land requirements and allowing more non-traditional developments (especially duplexes and townhomes that will appeal to families) are consistent with this aim. I would add that the affordability problem in Reading primarily affects young families. Senior low-income housing (e.g., Tannerville) is a worthwhile endeavor. But I do not support extending tax incentives, etc., to keep seniors overhoused in large single-family homes. For the most part, they have experienced a huge increase in the value of their home, and to the extent they are having financial difficulty, they should be guided towards selling the property and realizing the gain. Likewise, 55+ housing development does not promote regional affordability, but rather is a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to development that seeks to attract "low-cost" residents and keep out "high cost" ones i.e., families with small children. Response: #7 -1 DO support preserving the current amount of dwelling units in existing neighborhoods. I DON'T support preserving the current amount of dwelling units in existing commercial areas. That should have been 2 different choices in #7 Response: Affordable community housing is critical to diversity that is typically lacking in major metropolitan suburbs. One of the issues I have recognized through direct experience with other residents is resistance to the stereotype of "affordable housing people". It is of utmost importance to deal with the "culture" of "us and them". The key to successful mixed use plans in neighboring metropolitan suburb communities has been the integration of ALL socio- economic groups in the plan. Response: The Downtown Smart Growth area is perfect. I'd like to see more projects of this type in downtown. I'd like to see a modest effort at independent affordable housing for disabled through EMARC or a similar organization. I'd like to see some effort to provide a modest amount of housing for homeless veterans. Response: therein a need for affordable, garden-style condos, which square footage greater than that of Tannerville. Response: It is nice that you are making an effort for affordable housing but the taxes in Response: Honestly we did not move here because the Town was considered affordable, because it definitely was not. Having less expensive housing brings in a lower class of citizen and will ultimately bring our home values down. Case in point: Reading Woods. Our Schools are already getting over-populated, how can more building be a benefit to our town and children? Shouldn't the two new buildings already meet the State's 10% goal - I thought it was previously stated that it did. Town of Reading Housing Plan, Update 2012# Page 75 S,31 3f Open Space & Recreation Plan - 2012 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 December, 2012 12113112 Draft S~ Table of Contents Section 1 Plan Summary 4 Section 2 Introduction 5 A. Statement of Purpose 5 B. Planning Process and Public Participation 5 C. Accomplishments ................6 D. Plan Authors 8 Section 3 Community Setting 9 A. Regional Context 9 B. History of the Community 9 C. Population Characteristics ..............10 D. Growth and Development Patterns ..............11 Section 4 Environmental Inventory and Analysis 17 A. Geology, Soils and Topography ..............17 B. Landscape Character 17 C. Water Resources 19 D. Vegetation 20 E. Fisheries and Wildlife 22 F. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments 22 G. Environmental Problems 23 Section 5 Inventory of Lands of Conservation and Recreation Interest 25 A. Description of Process 27 B. Statement of Open Space and Recreation Goals 28 C. Consistency with the 2005 Master Plan 29 Section 7 Analysis of Needs 30 A. Summary of Resource Protection Needs 30 B. Summary of Community's Needs 31 C. Management Needs, Potential Change of Use 38 Section 8 Goals and Objectives 41 Section 9 Five-Year Action Plan - 2013-2017 44 Section 10 Comments 50 Section 11 References .............50 12/13/12 Draft 2 '5_G2 Appendices Appendix A- Section 5 Inventory Appendix B - Survey Analysis Appendix C - Community Preservation Act Information Appendix D - Biodiversity List Appendix E - Green Dog Rules Appendix F - ADA Policy Appendix G - ADA Access Self-Evaluation Appendix H - Public Meeting Minutes Appendix I - Public Meeting Presentation Appendix J - Ipswich River Greenway Feasibility Study Appendix K - Mattera Cabin Open House Flyer Appendix L - Walkable Reading Surveys Appendix M - Park Master Plans 12/13/12 Draft 3 _~-c3 OPEN SPACE AND RECREA TION PLAN - 2012 TOWN OF READING Section 1 Plan Summary Reading's Open Space and Recreation Plan - 2012 is a formal inventory and planning document developed from existing Town, State and Federal information, from citizen and nonprofit organization input, and from the results of a town-wide survey. The 2012 plan is an update of the Town's prior plans, the most recent written in 2007. The current plan concludes that the overarching open space and recreation goals of the community are to have and maintain a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons and for those opportunities to be distributed throughout town, to provide physical connections and community connectedness, to protect natural resources, and to preserve the character of the town. Reading has continued to lose open space over the last five years, though not at the rate seen in the mid 2000's when the Town's two remaining farms were developed for housing. The Town's challenge now is to meet the demand for passive and active recreation opportunities for the residents who have moved into the many new apartment, condo, and townhouse units. Reading must also strive to meet the needs of long-time residents and to preserve what open space it has left. Citizen groups and surveys express a desire to preserve the Town's character as a family-friendly community where citizens can gather for recreation and community building. Reading must remain vigilant to slow the rate of landscape change of in order to maintain the quality of life in Reading. The major goals formulated in this plan are: 1. Maintain and enhance existing open space for passive recreation 2. Maintain and enhance existing recreation facilities and programs 3. Make Reading pedestrian and bicycle friendly, improve connections, encourage climate protection and personal health 4. Protect open space for wildlife habitat and watershed protection 5. Preserve the character of the town 6. Develop a strong financial plan and seek new sources for funding 12/13/12 Draft 4 ,5"G q Section 2 Introduction A. Statement of Purpose The purpose of the open space and recreation planning process is to understand the town's open space and recreation needs and assets and to develop a plan for meeting these needs in the future. On a practical level, updating the Plan maintains the Town's eligibility to apply for certain grants from the State. On a philosophical level, the process of updating the plan ensures that we as a Town look at our needs and our assets prior to and independent of considering a particular open space or recreation initiative or land acquisition. Equally important, is to consider recreation and open space needs as closely related rather than competing. The process requires us to take the pulse of the community, to sit back and listen to what the community has to say rather than assuming an advocacy stance telling the community what its needs are. An effective open space and recreation planning process starts with listening, then synthesizes what the community has to say, sets out a plan for the future and ultimately advocates for that plan. As you read this plan, we hope you will follow the same process. Listen with an open mind, then struggle with us to balance the competing desires of the community and the competing needs of Town government. Finally, work to meet the open space and recreation goals of the Town of Reading and ensure its continued high quality of life. Reading's first Open Space & Recreation Plan was written in 19951. It was updated in 2001; an update completed in 2007 was submitted to the state in draft form, but never finalized. B. Planning Process and Public Participation In January 2012 the Town Manager assigned the update of Reading's Open Space and Recreation plan to a staff working group. The group's first task was to create an on-line survey, Open Space and Recreation Survey, Town of Reading, 2012 (Attachment A-1). The survey was launched in time for Reading's Friends and Family Day, a major community fair held in June 2012. The survey was also publicized on the Town's website, in a digital newsletter, in two local papers, and in an on-line paper, Reading- North Reading Patch. Open space and recreation groups were encouraged to publicize the survey, the Recreation Division sent an email notice to over 4,000 email addresses, and a notice of all three surveys was posted in the Town Hall entrance and included in a weekly employee newsletter. Finally, an intern spent parts of eight days in the Town Forest during the first two weeks of July asking walkers to fill out the Town Forest and Open Space surveys on a tablet or to do so at home. One hundred sixty five responses were received over ten weeks. There may be versions predating 1995. Planning Board minutes from 8/17/1983 indicate that they had received a copy of "the updated Open Space Plan" and would submit it to the State. 12/13/12 Draft 5 _5-G .S' A public meeting was held on October 30, 2012. The Staff Planner facilitated the discussion. About two dozen people attended. Meeting minutes and presentation slides can be found in appendices H and I. Finally, comments on the draft plan were solicited from members of the committees listed above, from the Historical Commission, and from members of the 2007 Open Space & Recreation Task Force. C. Accomplishments What has the Town of Reading accomplished since the last published plan was approved by the state's Division of Conservation Services in 2001? Two additional open space purchases were made, each adjacent to existing open space, and an important connecting parcel was acquired by the Reading Open Land Trust (ROLT). Dividence Meadows, a 10.4-acre parcel abutting the Town Forest and in the aquifer protection district was purchased in 2006. The Town made a strategic acquisition in 2007 purchasing approximately 2.5 acres of abutting land to Bare Meadow. This would later be named the Mattera Conservation Area after the former owner. The land features a quaint 900 square foot log cabin that is under the care and custody of the Conservation Commission and administrated by the Recreation Division for the purpose of rentals and programming. Finally, life-long resident Benjamin Nichols (now deceased) donated his family's colonial era wood lot to the ROLT in January 2007. This 6.5-acre parcel connects Kurchian Woods with Sledge Woods, both under the control of the Conservation Commission. The Town has purchased no new land for open space or recreation since 2007. Other accomplishments are listed below are. The Mattera Cabin was renovated by students from Northeast Metropolitan Vocational School with funding from citizens and several non-profit organizations. It is now used for Town events and is rented to private parties. It is managed by the Recreation Division. A task force completed a proposal for the Ipswich River Greenway in December 2007. This 2.7 mile greenway would connect multiple conservation areas from the Town Forest to Haverhill Street. An Ipswich River Greenway Feasibility Study (Appendix J), funded by the Massachusetts Riverways Program, was completed in June 2008. Its focus was a proposed .87 mile boardwalk section of the greenway. In 2008 the Town established a Trails Committee based on a recommendation of the greenway task force. The Reading Trails Committee and many volunteers have completed the following projects: • Established an Adopt-A-Trail program in 2008 and completed several adopter training events. • Built a 400 foot accessible trail connecting the Mattera Cabin to Bare Meadow Conservation Area. RE[ hosted a 2008 National Trails Day to complete the 12/13/12 Draft 6 SG ~ project. Considerable help was received from Reading DPW on this and the following two projects. • In 2008 a viewing platform was built at the end of the accessible trail. Funding was provided by a grant from REI in collaboration with Friends of Reading Recreation. • Trail improvements including 180 feet of boardwalk were completed connecting Bare Meadow trails to Haverhill Street. Funded by a state Recreation Trails Grant, the project completed a missing portion of the planned Ipswich River Greenway. The project was completed in 2010. • 380 feet of boardwalk is being replaced in Kurchian Woods Conservation Area funded by a second Recreation Trails Grant. Work began in 2011 and will be completed in fall 2012. A Fishing and Boating Access Site was established at the Lobs Pound Mill site in 2010. There is now parking, a sign kiosk, several picnic tables, and an informal canoe landing at the site. Multiple Boy Scout and Girl Scout trail projects have spruced up trail entrances and signage, blazed trails, and built bridges and boardwalks. The Town Forest Committee was enlarged from three to five members. Under their leadership a Forest Stewardship Plan was completed in 2010. It was funded under the DCR's Forest Stewardship Program. A Natural Resource Inventory & Conservation Vision is currently being conducted by the Massachusetts Audubon Ecological Extension Service. In the area of recreation, since 2007 the Recreation Division has continued to enhance the overall use of recreational facilities in town. Parker Middle School field, otherwise known as Collins Field was completely renovated in 2009. The new field is synthetic field turf. The field is lined specifically for high school soccer and girls' lacrosse play. The other large enhancement was the complete renovation of the Bancroft Ave tennis courts at Birch Meadow. The courts were in dire need of replacement and that came in 2009. The courts now feature professional lighting, beautiful black vinyl fencing and hitting court for practicing. Six courts in total have made the Reading Community Tennis Courts the top municipal courts in the state. Additionally, the Town continued its renovation of playgrounds. Over the past five years the town has completely overhauled playgrounds at Killam Elementary School, Barrows Elementary School, Joshua Eaton Elementary School and Washington Park. Master plans for most of the Town's parks can be found in Appendix M. Finally, the Town has also continued to install sidewalks as funding permits. A seemingly simple step, sidewalks are powerful neighborhood connectors. 12/13/12 Draft 7 5-C7 D. Plan Authors John Feudo, Recreation Administrator Kim Honetschlager, GIS Coordinator Chuck Tirone, Conservation Administrator Jessie Wilson, Staff Planner 12/13/12 Draft ,j Gg Section 3 Community Setting A. Regional Context The Town of Reading occupies 9.98 square miles of land (6,388 acres) in the east central portion of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 12.5 miles north of Boston. Reading's borders are delineated by distinct barriers: Interstate 93 to the west, Interstate 95 to the south, a series of swamps and wetlands to the east, and the Ipswich River to the north (see Map 1 - Regional Context). The land occupied by the Town is part of the Seaboard Lowland of New England, a region characterized by low rolling hills of less than 500 feet, gradually sloping eastward and southeastward toward the Atlantic Ocean. Reading is located within three watersheds: Ipswich, Aberjona (part of the larger Mystic River watershed), and Saugus (part of the larger North Coastal watershed). The protection afforded around these rivers and headwaters contributes to the water quality and flood control for downstream communities. Reading has no lakes or ponds of sufficient size for recreational purposes. The Ipswich River is navigable only in times of high water. Reading is a member of the North Suburban Planning Council, one of eight subregions of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). The North Suburban Planning Council is a group of communities north of Boston that meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest. Although Reading benefits from the easy accessibility offered by the closeness of two major interstate highways, these same road systems, coupled with extensive wetlands, serve to cut Reading off from its neighbors. Reading is currently working with MAPC on a subregional priority mapping project. The project is designed to increase coordination of open space planning and economic development. Reading's accessibility and proximity to Boston is also the source of most of its open space and recreation challenges. High traffic volume cuts neighborhoods off from each other and makes it difficult to access open space and recreation areas. Despite the Great Recession, land prices remain high, making it expensive for the town to acquire land, and privately owned undeveloped land all but non-existent. Accessibility and high quality schools bring school-aged families to town, ensuring continued high demand for recreation space. B. History of the Community Prior to its settlement by English emigrants, the Reading area was largely "meadow" (defined in modern parlance as "swamp") used as a hunting ground, but probably not as a living area, by the Quannapowitt Indians who inhabited this part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This characteristic remains, with much of the remaining open land in town classified as wetland. 12/13/12 Draft 9 SG -Q 1 EOT Roads CT) Com. Rail Stations Limited Access Highway Multi-lane Hwy MAP 1 Open Space Other Numbered Hwy r Comm. of MA Major Road, Collector REGIONAL Municipal Minor Road, Ramp CONTEXT K Land Trust Passenge Railroads Non-Profit Amtrak/MBTA READING MA MBTA Private STR - SALEM, ^EF T Q . z j + NORTH, s; i 2 A J s Y READING R • I i NORTH y r a X WILMINGTON , li STATION a i W r y, m , ff~ *+w~ LYNNFIELD J r '<L(MELL: STREE ~L A., F r 129 T r J r~ s c a Y ~ ' , ` ,per r t=` ~R~ n O , s Q WILMINGTON 2 '0 ,••C ~ i READING t r A ~ TION 38 `#A ~ •'t, tj 2 i ~t I t ° h ANDERS`ONIWOBURN .2 , o WAKEFIELD ~QC STATION, P SA(r 4111- + 12 MISHAWUM Tf'1:.~ „ STA.I` N 1 ♦ o STR N z ~~..r 1►'_ WAKEF4IELD , 12 VA: Oy' VE,,:- / ✓ G'tSTATION ue 8 l Map by Town of Reading 0 1,0002,000 ~---WOBURN s p Feet Date: 11/2012 r R ► STONEHAM' Data from Town of Reading 0 300 600 and MassGIS. Data are for Meters uiyyMpTRFc~> ` ~ ~'l~•.. t planning purposes only. s'G10 Reading's early settlers were farmers whose agricultural work and animal husbandry provided for most of the needs of their families. The Reading area was first settled in 1638, when residents of the Lynn land grant were awarded additional land that comprised the areas of present-day Reading and Wakefield, which they first called "Lynn Village." In 1644, they renamed this area "Redding," and in 1647, they elected their first Board of Selectmen. Land encompassing present-day North Reading was added to this grant in 1651. In the decades that followed, various areas of the resulting plantation petitioned to form separate parishes, each with its own Meeting House. North Reading was the first to do so in 1713, followed by Wood End (present-day Reading, the West Parish) in 1769, and South Reading (South Parish) in 1812. Reading and North Reading incorporated as towns in 1853, and South Reading was renamed Wakefield in 1868. The West Parish's (i.e., Reading's) meeting house was located on the town common near the site of the current Town Hall. A 1790 census identified 1802 people living within what became the three communities. In the 18th century, many farmers augmented their incomes by doing piecework at home, such as "cordwaining" ("shoemaking" in modern parlance). In the later 18th and 19th centuries, Reading businesses included a pipe-organ factory and many greenhouses. The town's first straight thoroughfare - then called the Andover Turnpike, now Route 28 - was laid out in 1806. The railroad to Boston was opened in 1845, leading to Reading's development as a commuter suburb. The Town of Reading had an open town meeting form of government until 1945 when it was changed to representative town meeting. The Charter adopted by Town Meeting in March 1986 was amended through 1990 to allow for a Town Manager with a five- member Board of Selectmen. z C. Population Characteristics In 2010, the US Census documented Reading's population at 24,747 which is an increase of 4.4% from 2000. The Town Clerk's office reports that by the end of September 2012 the population was 24,945. Population projections from MetroFuture3 indicate Reading's population will remain fairly stable through 2020 and then increase to 25,189 by 2030 (3.5% increase). The number of new apartments, condos, and townhouses being built suggests that these projections may be low. The number of households in Reading in 2010 was 9,305 representing an increase of 10% from 2000. MetroFuture projections indicate the number of households will continue to increase at a moderate rate and there will be approximately 10,346 households by 2030, an increase of 10.7%. 2 See At Wood End: Reading Massachusetts 1644-1994 A Pictorial History, by Reading 3501" Anniversary Celebration Steering Committee, 1994 for a more detailed history. 3 MetroFuture is a regional plan developed by the Metropolitan Planning Commission that addresses future growth in the Boston metropolitan region 12/13/12 Draft 10 r 1 Although the number of households is expected to increase, the average household size has decreased over the past 10 years. In 2010 the average household size was 2.71 a decrease from 2.84 in 1999. The relatively stable population growth and the moderate increase in the number of households is reflective of a national trend suggesting that the number of households is increasing as the size of households is decreasing. Assessing the age composition of Reading residents is a good tool when planning for the future needs of the community. In 2010, the largest percentage of Reading's population was people aged 35-59 (39%). The second largest groups are persons aged from persons aged 0-9 years (13.5%) and 10-19 years (13.5%). These groups, with the exception of 0-9 years, experienced an increase in population between 2000 and 2010. As mentioned above, it is anticipated that Reading's population will experience slow growth over the next 20 years, but it is anticipated that a significant change in the composition of the age groups will occur. Based on the MetroFuture projections, four age groups are expected to decrease by 2030; ages 0-9 (-13.1 ages 10-19 (-12.2%), 20-24 (-14.1%) and ages 35-59 (-31.6%). Although the younger age groups will decrease over time, ages 0-19 will still comprise nearly one-fourth of the total population. Ages 25-34 are expected to increase slightly by 3.7%, while ages 60-74 is expected to increase by 71% and will become the second largest age group in reading (21.3%). Although we can expect a decrease in the number of persons age 35-59 to decrease by 31%, this group will still remain the largest age group in Reading comprising 32.4% of the population in 2030. This is likely due to one age group shifting into the next age group over time. An important factor to note is that the 75+ age group is also expected to increase by 2030 resulting in the elderly population (60-75+) comprising 31% of the total population in 2030. Recreational facilities and program will need to be planned and designed to accommodate the needs of this large population group. According to the 2010 US Census, Reading's median household income was $99,130. Although this number is higher than the Area Median Income (AM 1)4 of $91,800, Reading has approximately 22% of households below the low income limit (making less than) of $50,000 annually. D. Growth and Development Patterns Patterns and Trends a The Area Median Income (AMI) is a number that is determined by the median family income of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and thresholds established by HUD are a percentage of AMIs. Reading is included in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Fair Market Rent (FMR) area. FMRs are gross rent estimates that include the shelter rent plus the cost of tenant-paid utilities. 12/13/12 Draft 11 v SG Reading evolved from an out-lying and isolated collection of farms to a specialized farming community centered on a village center, to a minor center for the manufacture of everyday commodities, to a residential suburb. From 1951 and 1981, Reading's land use changed from only 32 percent urban predominately agricultural, forest, wetlands) to 51 percent urban, predominantly residential. This change continued and in 2011 approximately 61% of Reading's land area was developed. (see Map 2 - Land Use). (Undeveloped land is predominantly undevelopable wetlands.) Reading has a large stock of older and historic homes.5 The town's oldest homes were constructed between 1650 and 1830 and located primarily along the earliest streets (South and West Streets, Walnut, Washington, Haverhill, Salem, Ash, Lowell, Franklin, Pearl and Mill). By 1870 there were approximately 520 homes and 237 barns. Housing construction progressed with the introduction of indoor plumbing and electricity in the early 1900s. Although many homes were constructed prior to 1950, Reading experienced an increase in 3,700 housing units between 1950 and 1980. According to the 2010 US Census, Reading had a total of 9,617 housing units which is an 8.2% increase from 2000. Today, with many of the town's empty lots and wooded areas gone for new housing, trends are moving toward enlarging existing homes and the building of larger residences where smaller ones recently stood. With open land at a premium, many new housing developments are constructed on lots which contain older homes. Recent development has been in the form of smaller subdivisions (in the number of lots if not the size of homes), and large condo, apartment, and townhouse developments at Johnson Woods, Reading Commons, and Reading Woods. With real estate close to Boston at a premium, Reading is pressured with increased density and is acquiring an increasingly urban character. Reading adapted to this change by adopting Smart Growth Zoning (M.G.L. Chapter 40R) which allows for increased density of housing developments within areas of concentrated development, transportation centers, or areas underutilized by current zoning regulations. This type of zoning is to encourage growth in areas previously developed to allow the preservation of natural resources and open space that are integral to Reading's suburban character. 2. Infrastructure a.) Transportation Streets and Roads Reading has approximately 105 miles of streets and roads within its borders. It also contains portions of Interstate 95 (also known as State Highway 128), and Interstate 93. 5 See the 2001 and 2007 (draft) Open Space & Recreation Plans for a detailed discussion of historic housing styles. 12/13/12 Draft 12 3 Land Use (2005) Mufti-Family Residential Forest a High Density Residential t ~v~w Brushland/Successional MAP 2 ; Medium Density Residential Open Land Low Density Residential Water LAND USE Very Low Density Residential Forested Wetland READING MA Transitional Non-Forested Wetland Urban Public/Institutional Orchard Commercial Nursery - Industrial Pasture Transportation Cemetery Powerline/Utility Golf Course Mining Participation Recreation en " Junkyard Spectator Recreation tiny. w \ 1 N C. . 1 Ufa nY f 1 1 N y( 5 p/ lJi, . Mk ) fffyM'YP qfA D ;129 a A h r, 70N'q I LYNv!:ic J t 129 _ ~ n.~ Jl)n 'NOBURN " S A . Y EL WA'I-- D Other principal routes through the Town are State Routes 28 and 129, which intersect at the Common in the Town's center. Reading's street network was established over a long period, and neither its basic framework nor its major streets were designed to accommodate large numbers of fast- moving vehicles. Even if Reading were to experience no further development of its own, impacts from regional traffic traversing the Town is projected to load its street network even more. In May 2007, MA Highway awarded the funding for the Main Street Streetscape Rehabilitation Project. The project was complete in 2010 making Reading's downtown more pedestrian friendly with both visual amenities and traffic calming features. The $5.6 million reconstruction project has enhanced the ease of parking and the ability of pedestrians to access the downtown stores and restaurants. Reading has no designated bicycle lanes or paths, though it has recently added bike- activated traffic signal controls in the downtown area. Commuter Rail The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) operates regularly-scheduled trains between Boston's North Station and Reading's centrally-located depot, with most trains continuing to Haverhill. Oaktree, a high-density condo/retail, transit-oriented project near the depot is nearing completion. It is a Smart Growth success story. Bus Service The MBTA operates two bus routes from the Reading railroad depot through the southeastern portion of Town to the Malden rapid transit station (Orange Line) via Wakefield and Melrose. Recent MBTA budget shortfalls threatened these routes. b.) Public Water Supply The Town's water distribution system has approximately 110 miles of distribution mains serving the entire town. The water was drawn exclusively from groundwater through wells in the Ipswich River watershed until May 2006 when the town received partial supply from the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA). One hundred percent MWRA supply began in September 2006. Water supply is considered adequate for any new development and it no longer impacts the Ipswich River resource. Average Day Water Consumption: 1990 1.91 mgd 1995 1.85 mgd 2000 1.84 mgd 2005 1.88 mgd 2010 1.76 mgd Maximum Day Water Consumption: 1990 3.81 mgd 12/13/12 Draft 13 S 1995 3.00 mgd 2000 2.81 mgd 2005 2.95 mgd 2010 3.12 mgd c.) Public Sewer The Sewer System, owned and operated by the Town, serves the entire Town., As of September, 2012, approximately 195 properties throughout the Town are not yet connected to the available public sewer system. New subdivision and PRD developments are required to connect to the sewer system. This requirement has probably slowed development in several outlying areas of town. Reading's sewage is discharged into a regional sewerage system operated by the MWRA with its principal treatment facility on Deer Island. d.) Storm Water Reading established a storm water utility in 2006. The utility was established at the Annual Town Meeting, authorizing the town to generate revenue by imposing a user fee on owners of developed properties. The impervious surface-based fee was first billed in September 2006 as part of the water/sewer bill. Revenue are used to fund new infrastructure maintenance and public education activities imposed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II storm water regulations. Revenue in excess of $250,000 is generated each year. 3. Long-term Development Patterns The Zoning Bylaws control development in Town through the following zoning districts (see Map 3 - Zoning): Base Zoning Districts Residence Single Family 15 District S-15 Residence Single Family 20 District S-20 Residence Single Family 40 District S-40 Residence Apartment 40 District A-40 Residence Apartment 80 District A-80 Business Business A District Bus.A Business Business B District Bus.B Business Business C District Bus.C Industrial Industrial Ind. Overlay Districts Aquifer Protection District AQ Municipal Building Reuse District MR Mixed Use Overlay District MU Planned Residential Development - General PRD-G Planned Residential Development - Municipal PRD-M 12/13/12 Draft 14 Town Boundary Zoning Roads Paved MAP 3 A-40 Bus. C r___7 Unpaved ZONING A-80 Q S-15 Railroad 0 Overlay District READING, MA Q Bus.A Bus. B S-20 S-40 ® Aquifer Protection District Q Ind. NORTH READING I 'A'LMINGTO KS ~xS-15 0. DR Ttp DV OF ~G PA F~ 5~ t 'NN,' ;El J MR..-..... ~F ~}1 NSA 129 CA O MR ~,P Lip 9WT Qp A-40 ' a* DSGD mot' ST ~n'~ 4. q I.F ''LY ~l'~ (E~P Bus B ENI,+' Z PU ~~~p+r Bus. A N A 0 1.000 2,000 MMMIC= Feet 0 300 600 Meters s RED. GATE LN 0 t1 ` ST6NEHAM I e°-zP ~B. k 11 A-80 "A'AKEFIELO / Map by Town of Reading Date: 11/2012 Zoning approved 11/30/09. Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS. Data are for planning purposes only. SG l*'7 Planned Unit Development - Business PUD-B Planned Unit Development - Industrial PUN Planned Unit Development - Residential PUD-R Gateway Smart Growth District GSGD Downtown Smart Growth District DSGD Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Planned Residential Developments (PRD) allow for closer proximity of buildings to each other but with greater amounts of combined open space. Five PRDs (cluster zoning) have been constructed since 1995. There has been mixed reaction as to their success. There is evidence to suggest the PRD is used in cases where conventional plans would not be possible. The PRD process is also cumbersome due to the initial step of Town Meeting ratification. Changes were made to PRD regulations in the 1990s to strengthen open space set-aside requirements. In 2010, FEMA issued and Town Meeting accepted a new flood plain map (see Map 7). It replaces a previous flood plain map, and was incorporated into the Town's Zoning Bylaw in order to prevent development in flood-prone areas. The Aquifer Protection District was designed to control development in sensitive areas as well as safeguard water recharge. In 2011, Town Meeting voted to amend the Aquifer Protection District regulations. The approved changes allow for a maximum 15% or 2,500 square feet (whichever is greater) of impervious area coverage. Any new construction which exceeds those thresholds is required to provide recharge. The changes were designed to increase recharge while allowing developers some flexibility in doing so. A shift in planning focus has also occurred due to the state's Executive Order 418 in 2000, which requires communities to increase affordable housing. Since then, the Town has made several zoning changes to increase the number of affordable units. Most notably is the adoption of two Smart Growth (40R) Districts, which was a recommendation of the Reading Housing Plan (2006). A 2012 Housing Plans update will evaluate the town's current affordable housing needs and progress towards meeting the state's affordable housing requirements. The Housing Plan also addresses build-out. A GIS analysis based on land use codes and existing zoning, indicated that 1,756 acres (27.5%) of land in Reading is undeveloped or is Chapter 61 land. Of that, just 372 acres are potentially developable and, after regulatory constraints' are taken into account, 139 acres of developable land remain. That yields an estimated 262 buildable lots based on existing zoning. 'Town of Reading MA, Housing Plan, rev. 2012. Only residential-zoned parcels were included in the analysis. Constraints include FEMA 100 year flood zones, 100' buffers around wetlands, streams, and vernal pools, and 200' buffers around perennial streams. Aquifer protection district and slope were not included as constraints. Infrastructure needs were not considered in calculating potential lots. 12/13/12 Draft 15 ' 6 It's fair to say that most residents do not and cannot imagine an additional 262 single family homes in Reading. The majority of those lots (186 of them) would be on what is now Chapter 61 land (Meadow Brook Golf Club and the Lester forestry land on Main Street near Franklin Street). The lot density of these parcels could be considerably higher if developed under PUD-R or Smart Growth overlays or under Chapter 40B regulations. The development of these lands would be a significant loss of open space for the town. Although Chapter 61 lands are not now available for public use, the Meadow Brook Golf Club in particular is of scenic value and contributes to the character of the Town with its stone walls and open vistas. To some extent, the Town controls its fate with respect to these parcels since Chapter 61 land must be offered to the Town before it can be sold to a private entity. That said, the Town has no rainy day fund available for land acquisition. 12/13/12 Draft 16 Section 4 Environmental Inventory and Analysis A. Geology, Soils and Topography The Town of Reading is composed primarily of igneous and metamorphic rock, with glacial deposits on that bedrock. Outcroppings appear generally on hilltops scattered around many parts of the central ridge in the southwest and central part of the Town. As the glacier of 10,000 years ago receded, it left behind debris that varies from boulder-rich till to fine-sorted sand. The glacier also left behind kames, eskers and drumlins. Muck and peat deposits occurred in many areas of the Town, particularly North and South Cedar Swamps and Timberneck Swamp and along what is now the Ipswich and Aberjona Rivers. In general, the overall slope of the Town is from the high land of the south and west toward the low land of the north and east. Within this general orientation, the area encompasses the headwaters of the Saugus River on the southeast, the Aberjona River on the west-central side, and tributaries to the Ipswich River on the north. The Town's soils and topography have shaped Reading's settlement patterns (see Map 4 - Soils - Development Limitations, and Map 5 - Surficial Geology). Early settlement in the Town of Reading was on the high, dry areas, with the lower and wetter areas left to be used as meadows, farms and woodlots. The town was originally referred to as "Wood End" because of the abundance of trees, which ultimately were harvested for timber. Sand and gravel deposits have mostly been mined out or built upon, except the protected areas such as the Town Forest, Bare Meadow and Cedar Swamp. Prior to the 1970s, when state wetlands protection laws were passed, significant portions of the Town were drained and filled to accommodate pressures for residential and industrial development. The Aberjona and Saugus Rivers, in particular, were channelized and riprapped. In many areas they no longer moderate springtime flooding, major storm events or the increased runoff from housing development, ultimately resulting in flooding downstream. Thus, houses built in these low areas now frequently have water problems in their basements and yards. B. Landscape Character Sculpted by glacial activity, the Town is a series of gentle hills split by ravines with a few steep slopes. The town's highest point, Dobbins Hill, is 232 feet above sea level. Surfaces of Reading's woods and meadows are broken by numerous outcroppings of bedrock. Drumlins, kames and eskers dot the landscape and can be seen in the Town Forest and North Cedar Swamp. Swamps, wetlands and floodplains make up more than 30 percent of Reading's land area. Because of Reading's topography and development, major areas that offer opportunities for active recreation are in the south or central part of town, while areas that offer opportunities for passive recreation are primarily in the north sections of Town. 12/13/12 Draft 17 ,5_0 '2`0 _ ! Town Boundary USGS Hydrography su Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream rc"frr Ditch/Canal Pond, River WILMINGTO 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 0 300 600 ag 111111[= Meters MAP 4 SOILS - DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS READING, MA Soils Urban, Urban Land Complex Silt, Sand, Loam 96 Bouldery, Stony, Rocky, Outcrop, Refuse C:3 Muck, Wet, Water 0 Slope GE 15% .g v Map by Town of Reading Date: 11/2012 ' Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS. Data are for planning purposes only. o 0 -LYNNFIELD Q 5CI'l ~J Esker (approx. location) Shallow Bedrock ® Abundant Outcrop and Shallow Bedrock Postglacial Deposits • Artificial Fill Floodplain Alluvium Swamp Deposits MAP 5 SURFI CIAL GEOLOGY READING, MA Glacial Stratified Deposits (OD Coarse • Glaciolacustrine Fine Till Bedrock O Thick Till - Bedrock Outcrop Thin Till .SG22 The headwaters of the Saugus and Aberjona are within Reading's boundaries. The Ipswich River flows along the northern border. The many smaller creeks, intermittent streams and wetlands throughout the Town contribute to these river systems, but there are no significant lakes or ponds. The channels, swamps and tributaries control flooding downstream as well as providing undisturbed habitat for fish, birds, mammals and plants. The Town Forest and well fields (no longer in use) encompass 310 acres along the northern perimeter of town abutting the Ipswich River. Much of this area lies within the floodplain of the Ipswich River. Reforested areas were planted in the 1930s and now form a dense pine forest. There are several access roads and trails for hiking, cross- country skiing, birding, and nature study.. Trails in the Town Forest follow the glacial eskers and drumlins - some of the most unusual geologic features in Town. A private golf club is located to the southwest of the Town Forest and comprises 139 acres. It is within the Zone II of the well fields and abuts wetland resource areas. The club has a Chapter 61 B restriction. It is a scenic resource. North Cedar Swamp (429.1 acres) and South Cedar Swamp (119 acres) stretch the length of the town's eastern boundary. It is one of the few areas in Town where bow hunting occurs. The Reading Rifle & Revolver Club owns 51.9 acres between these areas. Timberneck Swamp (101 acres) is a wooded swamp at the headwaters to the Saugus River. Camp Curtis Guild National Guard Base is located to the south and east of South Cedar Swamp, straddling the boundary line of three communities and containing 275 acres within Reading. A portion of this land is upland (195 acres) and could be developed if the base were to close. The 1990 Master Plan suggested rezoning this area from S-40 to PUD. Current zoning would allow 293 single-family homes, and a zoning change would permit an industrial or commercial area adjacent to Route 128 (Interstate 95). The Town is monitoring the state's actions in its review of future uses for this area. Bare Meadow (84.5 acres) is under Conservation Commission jurisdiction and abuts Fairbanks Marsh (32 acres) owned by the Reading Open Land Trust (ROLT). This area In the northeast quadrant of Town includes marsh, wet meadows, wooded wetlands with vernal pools, forested upland and the only open meadow habitat in Reading. Marion Woods (8.6 acres) completes the public-owned greenway corridor along the Town's northern border abutting the Ipswich River. Together with the Lobs Pound Mill Site, this area is known as the Biller Conservation Area. These riverfront parcels feature bordering vegetated wetlands, an upland pine grove and a certified vernal pool. Kurchian Woods (32.7 acres), an upland open space surrounded by residential development, includes stands of mature trees, rocky outcrops, and vernal pools. The area is crossed by a Tennessee Gas Pipeline easement. It acts as a natural buffer between subdivisions while providing passive recreational options. A total contiguous 12/13/12 Draft 18 GZ~ area of 58 acres of open space is available when combined with town-owned Sledge Woods, a parcel off Pondview Lane, and an adjacent tax-title parcel, and ROLT's Nichols and Fienemann Ice Pond parcels. Kurchian Woods abuts 11 acres of Chapter 61 forestry land. One of the largest changes in landscape character over the last ten years has been the loss of Spence Farm and Longwood Poultry Farm, both on West Street. At completion, 536 apartments, condos, and townhouses will occupy the two sites known as Reading Commons and Johnson Woods. It is worth noting that the town failed to exercise its right of first refusal on both Spence and Longwood farms when they gave up their Chapter 61A status. A second large change in landscape character is the development of Walkers Brook Drive as a major retail, restaurant, and office area just off Route 95. More recently, the former Addison Wesley office site, is being developed as Reading Woods. It will contain 424 apartment, condos, townhouses. In residential neighborhoods smaller, older homes are being replaced by large ones and lots are being combined to be rebuilt as small subdivisions. Old stone walls are removed; the Town is gradually losing its historic feel. Thankfully, the forested area and wetlands of the Town Forest and Ipswich River are unchanged, protected by town ownership. Reading's marshes, swamps and wetlands provide scenic environments, natural buffers for privacy, and visual escape from the stresses of modern life. C. Water Resources Because of its low-lying topography, Reading is dotted with small ponds, swamps, and wooded wetlands. The Town is situated at the drainage divide of three watersheds: the Aberjona, the Ipswich and the Saugus Rivers (see Map 6 - Water Resources). The Ipswich River serves as its northern boundary and provided the town's municipal drinking water supply through 2006. Bare Meadow Brook, which traverses the northeast corner of Town, is a major tributary to the Ipswich River. FEMA updated its Flood Hazard mapping of Reading in 2010 and the flood zones were adopted by Town Meeting (see Map 7 - Flood Hazard Zones). Much of Reading's wetlands Town owned and controlled by the Conservation Commission for the purpose of water supply protection, passive recreation and wildlife habitat (see Map 8 - Habitat & Watersheds). Presently, the Commission has over 900 acres of lands under its jurisdiction. The Ipswich River is especially vulnerable to pollution due to its proximity to Interstate Route 93 and the industrial developments across the river in North Reading. The residents discovered this in 1992 when an oil tanker overturned on Route 93 at the crossing of the Ipswich River, dumping ten thousand gallons of petroleum product into adjacent wetlands. Although contamination did not reach the Town's water supply wells, 12/13/12 Draft 19 /624 ■ Closed Water Supply Well MADEP Haz. Material Site • Tier 1A • Tier 1 B • Tier 1 C v Tier 1 D • Tier II MAP 6 WATER RESOURCES READING, MA CWA Impaired Water Bodies Waters requiring a TMDL CS Watersheds CZ Aquifer Protection District (r, Wellhead Prot. Area (Zone II) Interim Wellhead Prot. Area MYST4/C, RIVER WATERSHED` 0 1,000 2,000 SNOOK= Feet 0 300 600 Meters , FORTH/ COAST 4 WATERSHED izs I✓ e AIA K C Map by Town of Reading Date: 12/5/12 Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS. The Ipswich and Aberjona Rivers are classified as impaired under the Federal Clean Water Act. Both are impaired for one or more uses due to pollutants and require the calculation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Data are for planning purposes only. S& is L_ _ j Town Boundary Streams FEMA Flood Zone MAP 7 Ditch K 100 Year Flood Zone (A, AE) FLOOD HAZARD --Culvert Area not mapped on FIRMS (D) ZONES Lakes, ponds & rivers f.._ READING, MA #0 WILMINGTO ti A A WOBURN 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 0 300 600 ' Meters •KK I'V r VAN Na'6 i ~WL RO C p .f _ r NORTH , 0 READING„. A ~ a 5 lD t 'e ' LYNNFIELD e OR o 0 six of the town's nine wells were temporarily closed due to the potential for contamination. Remediation is now complete. The Ipswich River has been impacted by heavy water withdrawals within its watershed for many years. In 1997, the river was listed as one of the 20 most threatened rivers in North America. A study of the river by the U. S. Geological Survey determined that pumping groundwater wells was the main cause of the low flow problem. Water withdrawals from Reading and, upstream, from Wilmington had contributed to the problem. The town joined the MWRA to supply all of its water in 2006. In the past five years, the Town has been proactive in its attempts to enhance the protection of the Ipswich River, Aberjona River and the Saugus River watersheds. Activities include a water conservation program ($250,000 annually) that offers rebates on rain barrels, low-water use toilets and clothes washers, and moisture sensors for irrigation systems. Low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, hose nozzles, as well as rain gauges are available free to residents. Outdoor water use restrictions remain in effect year round. The Ipswich River in Reading is underutilized as a recreational resource. Canoeing is difficult from Route 93 on the west to Mill Street on the east due to limited access and the narrowness of the channel downstream of the Town Forest. There is no canoe access in the Town Forest and views are limited as well. The Ipswich River Greenway plan envisions a fishing pier projecting into the ponded area, but no specific plan or funding is in place. The Lobs Pound Mill site is now a Massachusetts Fishing and Boating Access facility with dedicated parking, an accessible trail, a barrier to stand or sit behind while fishing, and an informal canoe landing. It can be used during medium to high water as the starting point for a canoe trip downstream. The Lobs Pound Mill site is a popular fishing area in the spring when the State stocks the river with trout. The mill site has not been mowed on a regular basis and is getting overgrown; picnic tables at the site have not been maintained. D. Vegetation In the residential areas of the community, much of the vegetation is ornamental and non-native. The most frequent trees and shrubs are the common white, red, pitch and Scotch pine; Norway, blue, white, red and black spruce; balsam and Douglas fir; tupelo, dogwood, weeping willow; American elm; black cherry; a few American chestnuts; white, gray, yellow and black birch; poplar; linden, white, black, red, swamp and pin oak; sassafras; red, sugar, Norway, silver and mountain maple; American sycamore; shagbark and bitternut hickory; black walnut; box elder; staghorn, smooth and poison sumac; white and mountain ash; catalpa, black and honey locust; witch hazel; buckeye; dogwood; beech; gingko; rhododendrons and azaleas. The swamps abound with skunk cabbage, high bush blueberry; and cinnamon, royal, maidenhair, rattlesnake, New York and marsh ferns. The tree layer includes American 12/13/12 Draft 20 /-1-1 5 larch, black spruce, white pine, eastern hemlock, red maple and sugar maple. The shrub layer includes sweet pepperbush, red osier, viburnum, arrowwood and aster. There is prevalent swamp reed grass, a variety of sedges, moss, holly, ragwort, goldenrod, knotweed, jewelweed, cattails and purple loosestrife. In several locations in town there are areas with beech and tamarack. Invasive species of purple loosestrife, buckthorn and phragmites have spread widely. Reading has continued to survey its Biodiversity since 2000. There have been over 700 species identified as of July 1, 2008 (Attachment D). Ongoing efforts are continuing to add new species to its biodiversity lists. The Town Forest protects 300+ acres and also supplies a buffer zone to the Ipswich River. It has several acres of large pine and includes the floodplain of the Ipswich River, reclaimed sand pits, an old cranberry bog, mature woods and wetlands. Over 114 varieties of lichen have been identified. A forest management plan was completed in 20108 and a natural resources inventory and conservation vision will be finalized in late 2012.9 Both plans were completed under the supervision of the reenergized Town Forest Committee. The Committee hopes to start selective harvesting to improve tree vigor and forest habitat value as recommended in the forest management plan. There is also a cranberry bog in Fairbanks Marsh. In the eastern part of both north and south Cedar Swamp there is a black ash swamp. A white cedar bog at the north end of Cedar Swamp at the Reading-North Reading boundary is about 10 acres in size. There is also a 1-2 acre parcel at the easterly end of Meadow Brook Golf Club of northern white cedar. These areas provide habitat for a variety of insects and wildlife. Bow hunting is allowed in North and South Cedar Swamps as well as in the northern part of Bare Meadow and the adjacent Anderson Meadow. Per state law, hunting is not allowed near homes or roads. No other hunting is allowed in Reading. A private 10-acre parcel of Chapter 61 forestry land abuts Kurchian Woods Conservation Area. Reading was designated as Tree City USA in 1985 and has retained that designation annually since then. The town has a shade tree program to maintain public roadside. Reading Subdivision Regulations include a tree policy governing all new subdivisions and planned residential developments. Each site is walked with the Tree Warden and Town Planner, accompanied by the project proponent, to see what trees can be saved, to minimize clear cutting and to enhance tree lawn plantings. Leaves, branches, and logs may be transported to the town's compost area. Days and times vary throughout the year. Compost materials are windrowed and decomposed a Forest Management Plan, completed by Philip B. Benjamin, CF, 2010 9 Reading Town Forest Natural Resource Inventory & Conservation Vision, Liz Newlands, Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Service, 2012 12/13/12 Draft 21 ` I SG and available to the residents in the spring for yard use and are used for other Town projects. Dumping of yard debris in wetlands and on Town-owned or undeveloped property is a perpetual problem. E. Fisheries and Wildlife Wildlife seen in town includes much of the usual New England wildlife: deer, red and gray fox, raccoons, ground hogs, rabbits, skunks, coyote, fisher, river otter, muskrat, an occasional moose, wild turkeys, opossum, frogs, spotted turtles, dragonflies, damselflies, spotted salamanders, geese, ducks and over 100 varieties of birds. Because of the many acres of swamps, the Town has a large mosquito population. Fish exist in the Ipswich and Aberjona Rivers and the headwaters of the Saugus River. The Ipswich River corridor, the NEPCO high-tension electric lines at the north end of Camp Curtis Guild, and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline through the Cedar Swamp areas provide corridors of undeveloped forested wetlands in an otherwise residentially- populated area for wildlife to live and traverse. There are 65 certified vernal pools in Reading. The Town's Wetland Protection Bylaw, currently under revision, protects vernal pools. The Commission reviews any proposed project within 100 feet of such pools. Species on the Massachusetts Endangered Species List that are found in Reading include the blue-spotted salamander. The spotted turtle and the Mystic Valley amphipod have been delisted. There are two areas of Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Estimated and Priority habitat in Reading - in the Town Forest and in Cedar Swamp. The entire northern border of Reading adjacent to the Ipswich River and Bare Meadow Brook, as well as North and South Cedar Swamps is NHESP BioMap Core Habitat. Several adjacent areas are designated as Biomap Supporting Natural Landscapes (see Map 8 - Habitat & Watersheds). F. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments Nearly 100 Reading properties are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and the Town Common and part of Woburn Street are classified as National Register Districts (see Map 9 - Unique Features). The Town's historic inventory includes 357 buildings, a cemetery (Laurel Hill), a historic site (Lobs Pound Mill on the Ipswich River), and four markers. The West Street Historic District was established in 2005 and, in 1995, Reading adopted a Demolition Delay Bylaw to protect historic properties. It allows up to a six-month demolition delay while alternatives are explored; it is currently under review by the Selectmen and Town Meeting. Three of the Town's more rural roads, Mill, Walnut and South Street, have been designated as scenic roadways. Several other roads in town also retain an earlier New England character. 12/13/12 Draft 22 SG-0 i Town Boundary • NHESP Certified Vernal Pools • NHESP Potential Vernal Pools CS Watersheds VSO NHESP Priority & Estimated Habitat NHESP BioMap Core Habitat BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape i I WILMIN MYST/Cq , RIVER WATERSHED N A WOBURN A~ 0 1,000 2,000 MEEK= Feet 0 300 600 Meters 0 1.11 6 w TONEHAM Map by Town of Reading Date: 12/4/12 Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS. Data are for planning purposes only. JO ~G MAP 8 HABITAT & WATERSHEDS READING, MA ~r Streams Ditch Culvert Lakes, ponds & rivers Wetlands Wet Area Forested Wet Area WAKEFIELD The Town enjoys a green belt along the entire length of the Ipswich River. The Ipswich River Greenway is planned as a system of trails to connect the quilt of open spaces along the northern border of town. It is complete through the Town Forest, and through the Biller, Mattera, and Bare Meadow Conservation Areas. The Town Forest is one of Reading's unique assets. The Reading Town Forest Natural Resources Inventory & Conservation Vision10, prepared by the Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Service in 2012 documents this resource and makes recommendations for its continued use and health. A viewing platform atop Bare Meadow allows visitors to enjoy the meadow. The town's several eskers and bedrock outcroppings (Map 5) are also scenic resources, as is Meadow Brook Golf Course. G. Environmental Problems Environmental problems that relate to open space and recreation include impacts of development pressures and traffic, wetland degradation, and water supply (quantity and quality). Reading recognizes that global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed. Energy saving devices, tree plantings, energy conservation and water conservation are among the many programs that have been used to mitigate the impact of global warming. The Cities for Climate Control Committee work with both the public and with Town officials to bring awareness to global warming impacts. Energy upgrades to Town and school buildings are being done through the Energy Savings Performance Contracting process under MGL Chapter 25A Section 111. Reading's convenient location, its increasing population, its rail station, as well as cut- through traffic all result in high traffic volume on Reading's streets. Old roads that were not designed to carry a large volume of vehicles are under pressure to be widened, straightened and flattened, and denuded of 100-year old trees and stone walls. Fast- moving through-traffic makes these residential streets noisy, unpleasant, unsafe and unhealthy for walkers, joggers, and bicyclists. This, in turn, discourages environmentally friendly modes of exercise and travel such as biking and walking, and encourages even more vehicle use. The shape of new developments, with wide streets, cul-de-sac off cul-de-sac, and few pedestrian rights of way encourages a car-dependent, environmentally unfriendly lifestyle. Planning bylaws adopted over the last fifteen years have restricted cul-de-sac length and made cluster development more attractive in an effort to lessen the environmental impact of new subdivisions. 10 Reading Town Forest Natural Resource Inventory & Conservation Vision, Sept. 2012, Elizabeth Newlands, Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Service. 12/13/12 Draft 23 2 Protected & Unprot. Open Space Chapter 61 Land i- Recent Acquisitions New Developments r Historic Properties West St. Historic Dist. Scenic Road t ~ ~lG WILMINGTO t ~p OBURN 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 0 300 600 Meters MAP 9 UNIQUE FEATURES READING, MA Esker (approx. location) Ipswich R Greenway Streams ? Lakes, ponds & rivers ® Viewing Platform NORTH READING o a FHAM LYNNFIELD 0 a WAKEFIELD v ~ Map by Town of Reading Date: 1213/12 Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS. Data are for \ planning purposes only. X32 7- . w f 1 ~ ` r I._. a Wide roads and sidewalks in new subdivisions increase safety, but also increase impervious surface area preventing infiltration of rainwater and exacerbating runoff problems. Town-wide, the suburban love affair with green lawns increases water demand and causes pesticide pollution of wetlands and streams. Wetlands are threatened by new development as well as by additions to existing houses, by mansionization, and by commercial developments. All-terrain-vehicle use, illegal on Town land, is a recurring problem. ATVs cause wetland and habitat destruction and noise pollution, and are a safety concern for passive users of open space. The American Rivers Association listed the Ipswich River as one of the 20 most endangered rivers in 1997. It flows through densely populated north suburban Boston and provides drinking water for 13 towns, until recently including Reading. Reading's acceptance into the MWRA system has alleviated some of the stress on the river. Reading continues to cooperate with regional planning efforts and with neighboring towns to address watershed issues. The status of the 21E contaminant sites in North Reading (see Map 6), which once threatened Reading's water supply, can be summarized as follows: • Sterling Supply: Sterling Supply was a dry cleaning supply firm handling bulk deliveries of PCE. The PCE, TCE and DCE contamination in Reading's well 82- 20 is believed to have originated there. There is no viable responsible party for the contamination, so DEP is handling the cleanup. • Roadway Express: There is PCE and chlorobenzene contamination in the bedrock at this site, which originated from a discharge to an on-site catch basin. A fracture trace analysis of the site's bedrock showed a fracture zone extending from the contaminated area towards the Town Forest well. • General Electric: This site was responsible for the closing of North Reading's Stickney Well in 1978. PCE and TCE at this site extend towards the Ipswich River. This plume is by far the largest and most complex of the contaminant plumes in the area. In a 1991 settlement with the Town of Reading, GE contributed to the installation of air stripping equipment at the Reading water supply plant. • MSM Industries: The MSM Industries site has introduced 1,1,1- trichloroethane contamination to the overburden and the bedrock. The groundwater recovery and treatment has been ongoing since 1995. A contaminant plume extends beneath the Ipswich River towards Reading wells and is still being investigated. At this time all commercial underground storage tanks have been either removed or upgraded to ensure ground water protection. Propane tanks, however, are now allowed underground outside of the aquifer protection district. 12/13/12 Draft 24 1 Section 5 Inventory of Lands of Conservation and Recreation Interest The Town of Reading must understand its open space assets before it can sensibly plan for their preservation. The inventory of lands that follows (see Open Space & Recreation Plan map as well as Appendix A - Section 5 Inventory) includes both conservation and recreation lands, and both public and private lands. It includes ownership and access information on each parcel and, most importantly, includes information on each parcel's protection status. Not all publicly owned open space is permanently protected from development. Conversely some privately owned open space is protected. Knowing the status of each parcel is critical to understanding the open space opportunities and threats faced by the town. Public land (local, state, and national), private parcels, and land owned by nonprofit organizations are included in the inventory if they are currently protected or have conservation or recreation potential. Protected land, according to the state's guidelines, includes land controlled by the conservation or water departments, by a state conservation agency, by a non-profit land trust (for example, Reading Open Land Trust), or land purchased with state conservation grant money (Bare Meadow, Kurchian Woods, Sledge Woods, Marion Woods, Dividence Meadow). Parcels in these categories are protected under Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the State Constitution. These lands were acquired for natural resources purposes and cannot be converted to other use without approval by the controlling commission, Town Meeting, EOEA, and the state legislature. Private land is considered permanently protected if it is deed restricted or has a conservation restriction. Reading has recorded 32 conservation restrictions, most of them within the past ten years. Reading's most recent open space purchase, in January of 2007, is what has become the Mattera Conservation Area. This property was purchased through supplemental state funding and a generous donation by a private citizen. The parcel features a log cabin, which is used for conservation programming by Town committees and which can be rented by private parties. A significant open space partner in Reading is The Reading Open Land Trust, Inc. ROLT preserves land in its natural state: wetlands, open lands and lands of historical significance. Since its founding in 1979, the Trust has acquired over 68 acres of open land. ROLT received a significant donation in 2007 from 99-year-old Benjamin Nichols (now deceased) who donated his family's colonial era wood lot to the Trust. "Chapter 61" properties are a special category of temporarily protected private land. These parcels, managed as open space, receive a property tax break in exchange for the granting of the right of first refusal to the town if the parcel is sold. Chapter 61 lands generally have significant open space potential. Since Reading's first Open Space and Recreation Plan were written (1995) the Town has lost two of its four Chapter 61 lands. Spence Farm (6+ acres) and Longwood Poultry Farm (35+ acres) (both Chapter 61A agricultural) both opted out of their Chapter 61 status and are now major housing 12/13/12 Draft 25 developments. The Lester land (10+ acres, Chapter 61 forestry) and Meadowbrook golf course (139 acres, Chapter 61 B recreation) remain under Chapter 61 protection. Unprotected open space includes Town-owned land controlled by other departments (schools, housing, cemetery), land owned by other state and federal agencies (MBTA, Camp Curtis Guild), and other privately owned land. These lands are not protected from development. Camp Curtis Guild, 275 acres of which is in Reading, is the largest of these. Girl Scout Camp Rice Moody, eight acres, is also worth noting. It abuts three open space parcels between Birch Meadow Drive and Grove Street. An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation of handicapped accessibility of all conservation and recreation sites is included as Appendix G. Also included is the Designation of an ADA Coordinator and the Board of Selectmen policies relative to the ADA in Appendix F. 12/13/12 Draft 26 ~G3 Open Space 'Town Boundary L.....i CommonweaAh of Mass. PROTECTED & RECREATIONAL Streams ,5C/ 3(,,, Municipal OPEN SPACE -Ditch - Land Trust Culvert Non-Profit READING, MA Lakes, ponds 8 rivers Private 2012 (:j~j Conservation Restriction Section 6 Community Vision A. Description of Process In January 2012 the Town Manager assigned the update of Reading's Open Space and Recreation plan to a staff working group consisting of the Conservation Administrator, the Recreation Administrator, the Staff Planner, and the GIS Coordinator. An on-line survey, Open Space and Recreation Survey, Town of Reading, 2012 (Attachment A-1) was created. The survey was launched in time for Reading's Friends and Family Day, a major community fair held on June 16, 2012. Staff and volunteers were on hand to promote the survey. One hundred flyers were handed out urging people to respond to this survey as well as two other surveys, the Town Forest Survey and the Housing Production Survey. Two tablet computers were available for fair-goers to take the survey on the spot. The survey was also publicized on the Town's website, in a digital newsletter, in two local print newspapers, and in an on-line paper. Open space and recreation groups were encouraged to publicize the survey to their members. These include Walkable Reading, a local group dedicated to making the town more pedestrian-friendly, Friends of Reading Recreation, a family oriented recreation group, the Cities for Climate Protection Committee, as well as the Conservation, Recreation, Trails, and Town Forest committees. The Recreation Department sent an email notice to over 4,000 email addresses, and a notice of all three surveys was posted in Town Hall and included in a weekly employee newsletter. Finally, an intern spent parts of eight days in the Town Forest during the first two weeks of July asking walkers to fill out the Town Forest and Open Space surveys on a tablet or to do so at home. A public meeting was held on October 30th, 2012 (see Appendices H - Public Meeting Minutes and I - Public Meeting Presentation). The meeting was widely publicized including emailing those survey respondents who asked to be notified. The goal of the meeting was to elicit the community's vision of what the Town's open space and recreation assets could be, what our needs are, and how we might get there. The Staff Planner facilitated the discussion. About two dozen people attended. Other on-going studies that have informed the community vision, include a Town Forest Natural Resource Inventory & Conservation Vision being finalized by the Town Forest Committee and the Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Services and the Reading Housing Production Plan being finalized by the Planning Division. A Town Forest survey and a public meeting about the Natural Resource Inventory provided valuable insight into the Town's largest open space resource. A draft of the Open Space and Recreation Plan - 2012, will be circulated to town boards and officials for comments. Comments will be incorporated into the final document and will help shape the community vision. 12/13/12 Draft 27 5657 B. Statement of Open Space and Recreation Goals Looking back at the 2007 Open Space & Recreation Plan (draft), two topics stood out: first, angst over the loss of the last two farms in Town and with them the lost opportunity for new playing fields and open space and, second, a strong sense that conservation areas were underutilized, poorly maintained and poorly publicized. Five years later residents seem to have moved past the loss of open space and simply want more of everything! The desire for more playing fields and playgrounds and for more conservation areas and trails is still there, but so is the desire for a variety of new recreation facilities such as bike trails, a splash park or outdoor pool, a dog park, picnic areas, and community garden space. Figure 6.6.1 Which conservation & recreation facilities are most needed in Reading? 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% I 20% 10% - 0% - 24%23022%22%21% 14%14%13012% 10%10%10% 8%: t 1_ o, v, tQ a5 0 5 0, 5 6. S 5 5 o to to o a~ to Jc a e~ ~~~o ta eo ego `ea op oo~ cof yea a\o \~o o~ a1 o-a oo,QoaQr\~ aa~ oo~Qe\`. ~a da aco \c~a`g `go o<1 \~~a S\ea~L~a\\~ ~a~eQ J,ca ro 5e Q` r` 5\ or a` 5Q 5r ~~0 5 ~~e oe~ O de Qw` yea Jc a~aw`e~ ~eQoSe ` h ro o` vs; a F v a Lo 'Ile Q``c. `oF ~`J~aoo~ o\`\QOc O ■ Percent of repondents Source: Open Space and Recreation Survey Town of Reading 2012 A need is also expressed in the survey for accessible trails and neighborhood parks and, in comments, for more open space on the west side of town. The west side is where the farms have been replaced by 365 apartments, condos, and townhouses (536 at completion). Another 424 apartments, condos and townhouses are being developed along the Town's southern border. (These new residents are under-represented in the survey - only nine respondents said they live in this type of housing.) As a matter of equity, one of the community's goals should be to provide recreational opportunities for apartment/condo/townhouse dwellers who don't have back yards, for those who don't have a car or who prefer to walk, and for seniors and individuals with disabilities. 12/13/12 Draft 28 /G Survey comments call for connections between open spaces, and for safer walking routes. These desires along with the interest in community gardens, a dog park, and a splash park all suggest that community connectedness be added as an open space and recreation goal. Finally, resource protection, for wildlife habitat and watershed protection, and preservation of community character remain goals just as they were in 2001 and 2007. To summarize, Reading's open space and recreation goals are to have and maintain a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons and for those opportunities to be distributed throughout town, to provide physical connections and community connectedness, to protect natural resources, and to preserve the character of the town. C. Consistency with the 2005 Master Plan The Town of Reading Master Plan was developed by Master Plan Advisory Committee and adopted in 2005. The plan is a vital tool which captures the community's vision and allows for thoughtful planning into the future. The Master Plan was structured into three major sections which evaluate Reading's history, identifies proposed community goals/objectives and includes a proposed action plan on how to best achieve those goals. The objectives identified for Open Space and Recreation were: 1) Create path systems connecting schools, open space, and neighborhoods; 2) Acquire more land for playing fields, a family picnic area and pocket parks; 3) Make public aware of the importance of public and private conservation land and open space; 4) Re-consider the Community Preservation Act; 5) Develop new sources of recreation funding, apply for grants and self-help funds and create a Friends or Stewardship program to help maintain open spaces; The goals outlined in this plan as detailed in Section 8 below all support these objectives in the Master Plan. As mentioned in the previous section above, the goals for open space and recreation are themed around the maintenance of existing land and facilities, acquisition of new land/facilities, and development of physical connections between these lands while preserving the strong character of the town. 12/13/12 Draft 29 C (i 3q Section 7 Analysis of Needs A. Summary of Resource Protection Needs Reading's acceptance into the MWRA has taken much of the strain off of the Ipswich River. The river's base flow is no longer impaired due to pumping from Reading's water supply wells. The Tier 1A sites in North Reading are approaching final remediation and, since Reading is no longer pumping from its Ipswich River well fields, pollutants from these sites no longer threaten our water supply. Protecting the headwaters of the Ipswich, Aberjona, and Saugus rivers remains a top resource protection priority, however. The high amount of impervious surface area in town causes runoff, which in turn causes streambed erosion and flushes contaminants into our surface waters. The town's storm water fee provides revenue to help maintain storm water infrastructure and provide incentives for storm water best management practices. Wetlands, which provide wildlife habitat and which act as buffers against flooding, are stressed by development. The town needs to continue to work with property owners and developers to protect wetlands resources. Acquisition and conservation restrictions are tools that the town should continue to use. Vernal pools should be protected by these mechanisms as well. Recent anti-regulation sentiment among some elected officials and members of the public threatens to weaken or eliminate the local Wetlands Protection Bylaw. The Town's challenge will be to continue to protect its wetlands resources if this happens. Reading recently lost some of its regulatory protection due to the delisting of the spotted turtle by the state's Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP). Habitat for the spotted turtle and other vernal pool species are still protected under the Wetlands Protection Act, the local Wetlands Protection Bylaw, and the Rivers Protection Act. Wildlife habitat is increasingly fragmented by development. Reading should prioritize land acquisition and conservation restrictions that provide wildlife corridors. The southern half of town is particularly fragmented and has seen large residential and commercial development since the previous Open Space Plan. A wildlife corridor that used to exist along the western border of Town has also been significantly reduced by residential development. The Ipswich River Greenway, from Route 93 on the west to Bare Meadow Brook and Haverhill Street on the east, is intact as a wildlife corridor and riparian buffer. Completion of the greenway trail system - if it occurs - should not be allowed to negatively impact wildlife habitat. The demolition of the water treatment plant offers the opportunity for an active recreation area as well as a resource protection challenge. Vernal pools flank Strout Avenue and the area is habitat for the endangered Blue Spotted Salamander. 12/13/12 Draft 30 ~G V Development of this area should not be allowed to negatively impact wildlife habitat. Also along Strout Avenue, the Town Compost is an area of high vehicle activity. It should be managed in a way sensitive to the surrounding natural resources as recommended in the Town Forest Natural Resources Inventory & Conservation Vision." The shoulders of Strout Avenue and Grove Street are crumbling and should be rebuilt to protect wetlands and vernal pools. Management of our conservation lands is an increasingly critical need. While trail maintenance has improved in the last five years, maintenance of conservation areas in general has not. Regular mowing of Bare Meadow and the Lobs Pound Mill site is no longer occurring. The growing in of the edges of the meadows at Bare Meadow Conservation Area is of particular concern. This is rare habitat in Reading and historically has been the site of the American woodcock's dramatic spring courtship display. The woodcock is listed in the State Wildlife Action Plan. The Town also has no plan for control of invasive species. The worst offenders are glossy buckthorn, Japanese knotweed, garlic mustard, oriental bittersweet, purple loosestrife, and phragmites. Regular users of the Town Forest, Biller Conservation Area, and Bare Meadow have noted a dramatic conversion from a relatively open under-story to an inhospitable buckthorn jungle. Japanese knotweed chokes all entrances to Pinevale and lines the edges of Birch Meadow Drive as one approaches our playing fields. The Town Forest Management Plan makes this recommendation: Although it is a daunting and somewhat overwhelming task, it may be prudent to begin to address the control of some of these species in order to slow their spread. One strategy to consider is to focus initially on the smaller occurrences along the trails in the interior of the Town Forest, especially in the white pine and red pine plantations and slowly work out towards the exterior of the property. Using various combinations of physical removal, repeated cuttings, and/or the prudent use of herbicides such as Round-Up should bear positive results, although it will be a never-ending endeavor.12 B. Summary of Community's Needs Demand for recreation programs and facilities by Reading residents continues to be strong judging from survey responses and from the number of volunteer groups dedicated to open space and recreation. Some of these needs can be met by better maintenance or the enhancement of existing facilities or lands, and some of the needs will simply go unmet unless additional land is acquired and funding allocated. The availability of the open field at the site of the former water treatment plant has prompted new or renewed interest in a dog park, community gardens, and a picnic area or pavilion. The Town Forest survey elicited interest in managing the field as meadow habitat, something Reading has little of, and in leaving it as an open field for dogs to " lbid, pp. 19-20 Z Forest Management Plan, completed by Philip B. Benjamin, CF, 2010, p. 47 12/13/12 Draft 31 56,q 1 play in. This is a rare chance for the community to envision something new, although a concept plan for the site calls for two practice fields. The community's needs, broken down into several broad categories, are discussed below. (Comments from the Open Space & Recreation Survey 2012 are included in italics.) Need for Active Recreation Areas 1 think many positive changes have been made in town (updated facilities at high school, tennis courts, new playgrounds at elementary schools), but there is still room for improvement.. Just over half of survey respondents are satisfied with the quality and quantity of recreation space for children and youth in Reading (54% satisfied with the quality and 56% satisfied with the quantity). Satisfaction is slightly lower for recreation space for adults (51% satisfied with the quality and 48% satisfied with the quantity). In terms of field use, active field space demand continues to increase. Youth and Adult organizations alike have been forced to creatively schedule practices/games to accommodate the needs of the community. The Recreation Committee has worked hard to protect the space that is currently available for use as well as investigating ways to create space within the space. Auxiliary lighting was added to the Birch Meadow softball field to extend play into the evenings especially in the fall. Collins Field at Parker Middle School was converted to a synthetic field in 2009. The Town is also investigating the possibility of a new field located at the site that formerly housed the Town's Water Treatment Plant. The Town has also programmed capital funding for FY16 to replace the Coolidge Middle School field with synthetic turf. Youth are the main users of the fields. Each organization would likely want more space if it were available. Many youth play multiple sports in multiple seasons. Interestingly, this has forced organizations to work together on scheduling. For instance, in the spring Reading Youth Lacrosse runs games only on Sunday to accommodate those players that play baseball on Saturday. The Recreation Committee is exploring ways to develop multipurpose facilities to expand recreational opportunities and encourage appropriate use of other facilities. Demand will continue to climb as encouragement to get out, stay active and prevent obesity is a goal. In some cases programs will need to at some point cap enrollment. A following specific active recreation facilities hold moderate interest to survey respondents: Outdoor pool - 31 % Playground - 24% Athletic fields - 22% 12/13/12 Draft 32 ✓G q-z, Survey comments include specific requests and suggestions including: • Interest in a splash park, skate park, and street hockey rink • Concern with the loss of Imagination Station • Dislike of the restrictions at Memorial Park • Desire for more shade in parks and playgrounds • Concern that skating areas aren't maintained well enough in the winter and are wasted space in the summer • Uncertainty about field location and rules • Concern about the maintenance of some parks, courts, and fields The desire for an outdoor pool and a splash park are consistent with SCORP-reported demand in the Northeastern Region.13 SCORP ranks swimming third (after road biking and playground activity) in the need for recreational facilities in our region. Need for Passive Recreation Areas Reading is on the right track with open space, but should look to acquire more. 1 love the Town Forest and spend many memorable mornings walking there with the dog. Many of the Town's passive recreation needs can be met by better trail maintenance and publicity. The Trails Committee and scouts have improved some trails. A nascent trail adopter program has potential to institutionalize trail maintenance. The Town Forest is in danger of over-use (87% of survey respondents use it), Bare Meadow and Mattera get moderate use (41 % each), and Kurchian Woods with its newly completed boardwalk and newly blazed trails in arguably underused (27%). Targeted trail building and maintenance could spread use throughout town and more equitably meet needs. Respondents to the Open Space Survey are most interested in the following passive recreation facilities: Hiking trails - 38% Conservation areas - 33% Neighborhood parks - 28% Accessible trails - 26% Picnic area / pavilion - 22% Community gardens - 21% Top priorities for open space amenities include completing the Ipswich River Greenway, building a fishing platform projecting into the Ipswich River in the Town Forest, building an "esker connector" boardwalk in the Town Forest, and building a West Side Trail to connect the Longwood Conservation Area, Johnson Woods, ROLT's Boyd Lot, and the " MASSACHUSETTS OUTDOORS 2006: STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Figure 26, p. 50 12/13/12 Draft 33 Xavier/Aberjona River Conservation Area. The latter would be a valuable addition to the underserved southwestern part of town. Need for Information and Accessibility Conservation areas need to be better advertised, mapped, and introduced to the public with guided walks, etc. Better information about conservation areas needs to be developed and shared with residents. There have been significant improvements in signage, trail blazing, and maps in some conservation areas since the 2007 draft plan. Nevertheless, many of the survey respondents expressed frustration with the lack of information or easy access to trails. Trail maps are available on the Town's website and the website will soon be upgraded to make it easier to keep content current. This is an opportunity to try again to create an easy-to-use resource for recreation and conservation news and information. Better access to open space is also a community need. Massachusetts Outdoors, the Massachusetts Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), states that 20% of Massachusetts' households contain someone with a disability 14. By providing access for the disabled, we will be providing better access for seniors and folks pushing baby strollers as well. Access improvements have been made to both playgrounds and trails since the previous Open Space Plan. The playground at Wood End Elementary School is fully accessible, and ADA compliant playgrounds were installed at Barrows, Joshua Eaton and Killam Elementary Schools and Washington park. There is a 400 foot accessible trail from the Mattera parking area to an accessible wildlife viewing platform overlooking Bare Meadow, and the Lobs Pound Mill site features an accessible trail to a fishing area. The Trails Committee works with scouts to insure that trail structures have no steps up or down or gaps that would make them less friendly to walking-impaired or visually-impaired individuals. Lack of parking is an access issue as well. All conservation areas with trails have dedicated or on-street parking; some have dedicated handicap parking spaces. Therefore this is a need that can be solved largely with better information. The Town Forest is the exception. Most users drive to the Town Forest and most park on Grove Street and walk in along Strout Avenue. Traffic to and from the compost, including DPW trucks, creates a hazard to pedestrians, bikers, and dog walkers. The Reading Town Forest Natural Resources Inventory & Conservation Vision addresses this issue at length. " Ibid p. 21 12/13/12 Draft 34 , q SG Need for More Pedestrian and Bike Friendly Connections Between Areas Encourage safe sidewalks and bike paths. Reading streets are hazardous for walkers, especially senior citizens. The desire for more bike trails and bike lanes is the strongest need expressed by survey respondents: 51% of respondents listed this need. Efforts must be made to develop bike and walking routes between protected areas to allow residents better access to enjoy and appreciate both the developed and the natural areas of Reading. Bike routes to attractions in neighboring towns (e.g. Lake Quannapowitt and the Ipswich River Park) and to commuter rail are also needed. Meeting these needs has the added benefit of improving residents' health and reducing the number of cars on the road. Reading residents' desire for bike trails and lanes is consistent with an analysis found within SCORP of 160 Open Space and Recreation Plans approved since 2001. The analysis states: Community demand was highest (66% or 112 plans) for paved trails for a combination of walking, running, jogging, biking, or skating.' Walkable Reading's 2007 survey of adults (Appendix L) indicates that high traffic volume and a lack of sidewalks are the main obstacles to more walking and biking. Need for Community Connectedness 1 would like to see better investment in the open field. A dog park? A baseball field? Something that would act as a congregation point for reading residents to meet and get to know each other. [From the Town Forest survey in reference to the field at the former water treatment plant.] Whether fulfilled by a splash park, a dog park, a playing field or playground, residents seek community connectedness. Solutions as simple as more picnic tables and benches at existing facilities will help satisfy this need. The Town should continue its strong push to build more sidewalks as well to connect neighborhoods. In addition, a variety of groups have sprung up to support playground revitalization, to provide family recreational opportunities, and to make Reading more walkable. All provide community connectedness. The following are some of the groups dedicated to meeting the open space and recreation needs in the community: Town Committees Trails Committee Town Forest Committee " [bid p. 55 Private Groups Reading Open Land Trust (ynlww.rolt.ora) Friends of Readinq Recreation 12/13/12 Draft 35 SG q,< I (www.forr1867.ora) Conservation Commission Reading/North Reading Stream Team (readinanorthreadinostreamteam(@hotmai1.com ) Recreation Committee Walkable Reading (www.walkablereadino.ora ) Cities for Climate Protection Friends of Reading Tennis Program Committee httn://www.readinatennisoDen.com/main.htmI Friends of Washington Park https://sites.aooale.com/site/forrwashinatonoark/ resource-center Friend of the Tot Lot Reading Boosters Concern for Loss of Community Character When we originally moved to Reading in 1950, the Town's population was approximately 10,000. In the past 60+ years, development throughout many areas of the Town has changed the "feel" of the Town not for the better, although probably inevitable. In order to experience some of the rustic pleasures which were once available within the Town, we now tend to seek such pleasures elsewhere than in Reading. Although the survey did not ask directly which landscape and aesthetic features residents wish to see preserved, survey comments reveal the community's sense of loss over changes to the character of the town. Dog Management Needs Twenty three percent of respondents would like to have a dog park in Reading - something that wasn't even asked about in the 2007 survey. Figure 7.B.1 shows a steady increase in the number of dogs in Reading; up 36% since 2002. 12/13/12 Draft 36 5c,q~ Figure 7.B.1 Number of Licensed Dogs in Reading YEAR # OF LICENSED DOGS 2002 1,867 2003 1,892 2004 1,904 2005 1'1,929 2006 1,919 2007 2,055 2008 2,115 2009 2,186 2010 2,187 2011 2,365 2012 2,538 Source: Town Clerk's Office The Town Forest survey revealed both the enthusiasm of dog walkers for open space (the Town Forest in particular) and the concern of others over unruly dogs and over dog waste. Town parks are seriously polluted with dog feces. The Town will need to address dog management over the next five years. Appendix E is an example of "green dog" regulations; a second example can be found in the Town Forest Natural Resources Inventory available on the Town's website.ts Annual dog licensing by the Town provides an opportunity to disseminate rules and information and, if necessary, fund a dog program. Need for Land Acquisition and Funding More open space should be preserved. Too much building and development and over crowding. Johnson woods was a mistake to not keep as open land..... There is not enough Town owned land to meet the desire for more recreation and conservation facilities, therefore land acquisition is a community need. Willingness to fund land acquisition is mixed. When asked what the Town should concentrate its efforts on, only 11 % said "acquiring additional land" (4% for recreation land and 7% for conservation land). Fifty two percent believe that the Town should place equal emphasis on maintenance and acquisition, however. 10 Reading Town Forest Natural Resource Inventory & Conservation Vision, Sept. 2012, Elizabeth Newlands, Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Service. 12/13/12 Draft 37 SG`~~ The Town should concentrate its efforts on: Maintainine Place equal emphasis on maintenance & acquisition 52% current recreation and open pace areas 37% Acquiring additional recreation land 4% Acquiring additional open space 7% Seventy percent of survey respondents felt that the purchase of open space should be a standard part of the Town's capital plan. Only 44%, however, would be willing to pay more taxes to purchase land for recreation and conservation. Asked if they would support the adoption of the state's Community Preservation Act (CPA), which would place a 1 to 3 percent surcharge on real estate transactions to fund open space acquisition, affordable housing, and historic preservation, just 46% said "Yes", but another 27% said "Maybe". In other words 73% might support the CPA. (See Appendix C for background information on the CPA.) Grants are a valuable, but sporadic source of funding. A recent LAND grant application to purchase parcels abutting Bare Meadow and Mattera Conservation areas and a PARK grant application to renovate the Birch Meadow tennis courts were both unsuccessful." On the other hand, two state Recreation Trails Grants were received (2008, 2011) totaling over $29,000. A patchwork of grants, donations, volunteer labor, and Town funds were used to renovate the Mattera Cabin for public use (see Appendix K). A table of grant resources can be found in Appendix J - Ipswich River Greenway Feasibility Study. The Town allocates no annual funding to land acquisition, open space maintenance, or trail building. Regular funding is a community need. C. Management Needs, Potential Change of Use "The need for additional staff to manage the Town's conservation areas has become clear." So begins this section of the 2007 Open Space & Recreation Plan. Since then " CPA communities won the majority of State Land grants in 2012, 95% of the total funding. "CPA provides communities with a local funding source for the required match, giving them a leg up when it comes to applying for grants like this one." httD://www.communitvr)reservation.ore/news/345 and Appendix C page 13. 12/13/12 Draft 38 5 GL4g the position of Conservation Administrator has been cut from full-time to 23 hours per week. The Administrator's time and the Conservation Commission's time are almost entirely taken up by regulatory requirements. Management of Reading's conservation lands is simply not happening. Management plans were written years ago for two of our conservation areas, Sledge Woods and Marion Woods (both purchased with Self-Help funds). Plans need to be developed for the remainder of the sites including boundary surveys, signage, invasive species management, and plans for trail development and maintenance. The Trails Committee and Girl Scouts have completed sporadic invasive species removal projects. Mowing of Bare Meadow and the Lobs Pound Mill area has lapsed, while mowing at Castine Field has been overly-aggressive, violating an agreement between DPW and the Conservation Commission. Coordination between departments is needed. The Trails Committee has absorbed much of the demand for additional trails, signage, and maps. Coordination between the Conservation Commission, Trails Committee, and Town Forest Committee, however, could be improved. Scout projects in particular receive inconsistent permitting and supervision. A related management challenge is that scouts complete trail projects, but do not provide ongoing maintenance. Thus conservation areas are frequently spruced up, but quickly fall into disrepair once again. The Trails Committee launched an Adopt-A-Trail program in 2008 that has never really gotten off the ground. As stated previously, the Town provides no funding for trails building or maintenance. The Town offers no conservation programming (with the exception of occasional walks led by the Library or the Trails Committee). Unlike the Recreation Division, Conservation collects no user fees so has no funds to use for programming, supplies, or equipment. (The Conservation Commission does have a revolving fund - typically with a balance of less than $2,000 - funded by developers to be used at its discretion.) Master plans have been developed for most of the Town's parks (see Appendix M). The Recreation Department has three full-time staff and hires camp staff in the summer. Demand is always high, but staff meet it with a year-round calendar of classes, teams, and events. Activity fees cover activity costs and partially cover staffing and facility maintenance. The Recreation Division pays close to $20,000 per year to supplement the park division with an extra seasonal staff to help keep up with the maintenance and growing recreation needs of the community. During the summer of 2012 both West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis were detected in mosquitos in Reading. Lyme disease is another insect-borne disease found in Reading. Management plans for parks, fields and conservation areas should assess these health threats. At a minimum, signage should educate residents on how to minimize exposure. Change in the use of the open field at the site of the former water treatment plant is one of the Town's biggest open space opportunities - and challenges. The Town Forest 12/13/12 Draft 39 Natural Resource Inventory and Conservation Vision recommends allowing the field to revert to wet meadow for habitat; a plan developed by the Recreation Division envisions practice fields. Town Forest survey respondents also suggest developing the field as a dog park, as community gardens, or as a picnic area. A public meeting planned for October 2012 will allow the public to weigh in on the use of this area. It is important to remember that each developed facility puts a burden, large or small, on the surrounding neighborhood and on the environment. The Town should be especially sensitive to the Grove Street/Strout Avenue neighborhood as it contemplates redevelopment of the water treatment plant area. Traffic, wetlands and vernal pool impact, and water use (for irrigation) will all have to be weighed against the desire for playing fields, Town Forest access, and parking. The Town should be vigilant in the event that either of the remaining Chapter 61 lands (Meadow Brook Golf Club and the Lester land) becomes available. Camp Curtis Guild (Massachusetts Army National Guard) and Camp Rice Moody (Girl Scouts of Eastern Massachusetts) may also someday be available for reuse. It is worth noting that the Town has no acquisition funds set aside and no quickly-accessible source of funding available should one of these properties come on the market. The Town is in the process of selling several open space parcels (e.g. parcels on Lothrop Road and on Audubon Road) that could have become neighborhood parks. The Town should be cautious in selling even small parcels; each site should be reviewed for its potential to fill gaps in parks and open space. Pocket parks are great facilitators of community connectedness. 12/13/12 Draft 40 /G 5 C> Section 8 Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives detailed below were derived from the Survey on Open Space and Recreation in the Town of Reading 2012, from the town's previous Open Space and Recreation Plans, from the public meeting held in October 2012, and from the many reviewers of the draft version of this plan. Five open space and recreation goals have been identified. These goals are discussed below. Objectives, or concrete ideas for accomplishing each goal, are listed under each. 1. Maintain and enhance existing open space for passive recreation Reading has a significant amount of open space with trails suitable for walking, running, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Interest is strong, but funding is limited and residents complain that they don't know where the trails are or that there is insufficient parking and poor trail conditions once they get there. Maintaining and enhancing our existing open spaces is the most cost effective way to meet residents' needs. Objectives: A. Publicize existing trail systems. B. Maintain and improve trails, trail structures, signage, and parking at conservation areas. Create new trails where possible. C. Continue development of the Ipswich River Greenway. D. Seek funding for maintenance and improvement. E. Equitably distribute open space opportunities in all parts of Town and provide access to people of all abilities. 2. Maintain and enhance existing recreation facilities and programs Reading has an extensive inventory of fields, playgrounds and facilities for the use of the public. Many areas have been renovated recently by way of playground restoration, reestablishment of field limits or replacement of key field components. This has been done mostly in accordance with master plans that have previously been developed and accepted by the Town's Board of Selectmen. To continue to enhance these facilities, money will need to be set aside. This should be looked at during the capital improvements process and areas should be prioritized. Objectives: A. Focus on development of holistic master plans for each park. B. Prioritize items on the master plans to reflect the town's needs during the capital planning process. C. Watch trends in the recreation industry for new innovative ways to enhance our facilities. 12/13/12 Draft 41 S D. Equitably distribute recreation opportunities in all parts of Town and provide access to people of all abilities. 3. Make Reading pedestrian and bicycle friendly, improve connections, encourage climate protection and personal health Open space and recreation facilities are resources bring residents together and create a sense of community. One way to strengthen the community is to develop viable connections between these open space areas, recreation areas and the surrounding neighborhoods. Establishing these connections through pedestrian and bicycle facilities will improve the town neighborhood network, encourage healthy living and reduce the reliance of automobile usage. Objectives: A. Develop walking and biking tails between open space and recreation areas. B. Improve and encourage walking and biking to school. C. Delineate bike lanes through the painting of lanes or implementing roadway "sharrows". D. Provide legal rights of way between neighborhoods to and from new subdivisions and commercial development/redevelopment adjacent to public land. E. Work with adjacent communities to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to public spaces and to commuter rail. F. Encourage use of open space resources for health. 4. Protect open space for wildlife habitat and watershed protection The natural environment plays an important role in defining the character and identity of Reading. Open space protects habitat for plants and animals and protects our rivers and streams. It also provides corridors for wildlife, buffers between neighborhoods, and reduces flooding. Objectives: A. Actively manage conservation areas. B. Educate the public on habitat and watershed issues. C. Monitor environmental threats imposed by development within and outside of Reading. D. Conserve water and manage stormwater. E. Acquire additional open space for wildlife habitat, wetlands protection, and aquifer protection. v 12/13/12 Draft 42 G~ S 5. Preserve the character of the town Reading residents mourn the loss of open space whether it is lands they once hiked or vistas that no longer exist. Open fields, pine woods, stone walls, and country lanes are fondly remembered. The town strives for the look and atmosphere of a New England village even as its residents enjoy the amenities of suburban living. Acquiring privately held land to maintain as open space is one strategy towards preserving the look of the town. Enhancing opportunities for families and individuals to interact is a strategy for preserving the family-friendly character of the town. Objectives: A. Designate more scenic roads. B. Use Smart Growth tools to shape new development. C. Use subdivision control ordinances to retain landscape features such as stone walls. D. Develop pocket parks. E. Build community connectedness into new and existing facilities. 6. Develop a strong financial plan and seek new sources for funding Reading will need to be mindful of the open space and recreation plan as budgets are developed for the future. A financial plan is critical to converting opportunity into success. A. Search and apply for self-help grants. B. Develop priorities for items in the plan and place them on the capital improvements budget and review annually. C. Seek funding for projects through private benefactors, interest groups and fund raising. D. Continue to look at models such as the Community Preservation Act to provide a regular funding source for open space and recreation development. 12/13/12 Draft 43 3 SG Section 9 Five-Year Action Plan - 2013-2017 The Five-Year Action Plan detailed below lists the goals, objectives, and actions proposed by the Town of Reading. The Open Space & Recreation Action Plan map shows current protected and unprotected open space as well as "Land of Concern". Land of concern includes Town-owned lands proposed for sale or redevelopment, and Chapter 61 or other state and private properties mentioned in this report that the Town might be interested in acquiring. It also includes privately owned areas shown in Map 8: Habitat & Watersheds as important habitat.18 Several areas are also included that include habitat, wildlife, or potential trail corridors contiguous to Town-owned land. Most of the lands of concern are not specifically mentioned in this plan, nor are they on any list of desired acquisitions. Rather they are areas that the Town should be vigilant in watching should they come up for sale, development, or redevelopment. Abbreviations for Boards, Committees and Commissions: BOS = Board of Selectmen and its staff/liaison CC = Conservation Commission and its staff/liaison CPDC = Community Planning & Development Commission and its staff/liaison DPW = Department of Public Works FC = Finance Committee RC = Recreation Committee and its staff/liaison HC = Historical Commission and its staff/liaison DPW = Department of Public Works and its staff/liaison HA = Housing Authority and its staff/liaison TC = Trails Committee and its staff/liaison TF = Town Forest Committee and its staff/liaison TM = Town Meeting SD = School Department SC = School Committee Goal 1: Maintain and enhance existing open space for passive recreation Objectives Actions When/Who/Funding Publicize existing trail systems. Update Town website Quarterly/TC, CC, TF Maintain and improve trails, trail structures, signage, Write articles for town newsletters & local papers Conduct regular trail Quarterly/TC, CC, TF Quarterly / TC, TF, trail " These areas include NHESP certified vernal pools, Priority and Estimated Habitat, BioMap Core Habitat, and BioMap Supporting Natural Landscapes. 12/13/12 Draft 44 G S and parking at conservation maintenance areas. adopters Seek individuals or groups Ongoing / TC, CC, TF, trail to do one-time projects. adopters, Scouts. Funding source: Scouts raise own funds; local businesses. Create new trails. Seek individuals or groups Ongoing / TC, CC, TF, trail to do one-time projects adopters, Scouts. Funding source: Scouts raise own funds; local businesses. Continue development of Seek grants to build Ongoing / TC, CC. Funding Ipswich River Greenway. boardwalk source: state and private grants. Acquire private parcel Ongoing / CC. Funding: between Marion Woods LAND grant or private and Rt 28. grant. Explore ways to cross Ongoing / DPW. Discuss Route 28 safely. with Mass Highway. Address use conflicts in Meet with user groups, Ongoing / TF Town Forest formulate & post rules Improve Town Forest Explore alternatives, Year 2 / BOS, DPW, TF. parking improve roads and/or Funding: Town funds parking areas Seek funding for Budget for trail creation & Annually / FC, BOS, TM maintenance and maintenance. Funding source: Town improvement. budget Apply for grants. Annually/ CC, TC, TF. Funding source: various Equitably distribute open Prioritize new trails in Ongoing / TC, CC space opportunities in all lesser-served parts of town parts of Town and provide and near apartment access to people of all complexes 12/13/12 Draft 45 s abilities. Develop "West Side Trail" linking Longwood Cons. Area, Johnson Woods, Boyd Lot, & Xavier Cons Area Ensure that trail structures meet ADA standards Year 2 / TC, CC. Funding: ROLT, Johnson Woods developer? As needed / TC, TF, Scouts 2. Maintain and enhance existing recreation facilities and programs. Objectives Actions When/Who/Funding Focus on development of holistic master plans for each park. Develop committees for each park, advertise Annually/ BOS, RC, CPDC Prioritize items on the master plans to reflect the town's needs during the capital planning process. Watch trends in the recreation industry for new innovative ways to enhance our facilities. Equitably distribute recreation opportunities in all parts of Town and provide access to people of all abilities. Assign costs to components of the plan, meet with finance committee to discuss needs of open space plan Read industry periodicals, As available RC, DPW, TC, attend conferences TF, CC Develop needs assessment As needed RC, CC for active and non-active groups. Annually/ CC, FC, TC 3. Make Reading pedestrian and bicycle friendly, improve connections, encourage climate protection and personal health Objectives Actions When/Who/Funding 12/13/12 Draft 46 ..SG _j Develop walking and biking tails between open space and recreation areas. Improve and encourage walking and biking to school. Delineate bike lanes on roadways through the use of lane painting or implementing "sharrows" Work with adjacent communities to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to public spaces and to commuter rail. Encourage use of open space resources for healthy living. Review filings, solicit public input, submit for grants, contact property owners. Solicit public input; publish walking/biking routes to schools; public outreach. Work with DPW and BOS during roadway planning. Investigate opportunities during roadway resurfacing / reconstruction projects. Develop liaisons and collaborate; work with regional planning organization Work with Health Department and school department on outreach. Annually, CC, BOS Annually, RC, BOS Annually, DPW, BOS Annually, CC, BOS Annually, RC, HD, SD 4. Protect open space for wildlife habitat and watershed protection Objectives Actively manage conservation areas. Educate the public on habitat and watershed issues. Monitor environmental threats imposed by development within and outside of Reading. Actions Prepare management plans Write articles for local papers Attend Development Review Team meetings Protect habitat surrounding Establish & permanently Town Compost and "tree mark boundary of use When/Who/Funding Ongoing / CC Quarterly / CC As needed / Conservation Agent Year 1 / DPW, CC, BOS 12/13/12 Draft 47 ~GS7 nursery" Conserve water and manage stormwater Permanently protect tax title parcels with habitat or open space value Acquire additional open space for wildlife habitat, wetlands protection, and aquifer protection. areas Clarify allowed uses of, e.g. Year 1 / DPW, BOS asphalt dumping? Establish run-off controls Continue the town's water conservation and stormwater management Year 1 / CC Ongoing / DPW programs. Evaluate tax title parcels, transfer Conservation Year 1 / CC, BOS Seek grants and gifts of land Ongoing / BOS, CC. Funding: state & private grants, Town funds?, CPA? 5. Preserve the Character of the Town Objectives Actions When/Who/Funding Designate more scenic roads. Use Smart Growth Tools to shape new development. Use subdivision control ordinances to retain landscape features such as stone walls. Develop Pocket Parks Work with town citizens and Annually, CPDC the CPDC. Encourage development within existing smart growth districts. Support amendments/expansion of smart growth districts in the future. On going, CPDC, Planning Division. Review plans; comment at public hearings. Appoint study group; identify locations, evaluate 12/13/12 Draft 48 As filed, CPDC Annually, BOS, DPW, CC, RC SCS6 funding. Build community connectedness into new and existing facilities. Ensure facilities are safe and welcoming for all users. Provide benches, water fountains, and shade trees to encourage use. On going. RC, DPW 6. Develop a strong financial plan and seek new sources for funding Objectives Actions When/Who/Funding Search and apply for self- help grants. Develop priorities for items in the plan and place them on the capital improvements budget and review annually. Seek funding for projects through private benefactors, interest groups and fund raising. Continue to look at models such as the Community Preservation Act to provide a regular funding source for open space and recreation development. 12/13/12 Draft Search internet and Mass.gov site for grant info; submit grants List items in plan on spreadsheet; Rec Committee and Cons Comm review; Request time on Fin Com. agenda Publicly acknowledge the needs of the plan; identify key players and garner support; solicitation letters Educate the citizens Town Meeting and referendum 49 Annually/RC, CC, BOS Annually/RC, CC, FC On going/RC, CC As available/RC, CC, CPDC, BOS 5-6-0 Open Space Ipswich River Greenway Commonwealth of Mass. 414%II► Existing Municipal OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Proposed - Land Trust ACTION PLAN X -Trail Non-Profit READING, MA streams ,A`,`_µ; Private 292 - Ditch „l Conservation Restriction Culvert t' Land of Concern Lakes, ponds & rivers f ' Lend e pswich psw,chion needed to complete p\`), i I River Greenway H Pedestrian light needed ( NORTH m.. Proposed boardwalk section BILLER FAI B NN to safely cross Rl ZB ollpswch Ri-Greenway pCFONSERVATIONAR READING I RLOBS POUND .-rte `PF o \ N ^ management Bar. Meadow 'Esker Connegor' proposed by IT'S MILL SITE -T T plan needed Town Forest Natural R...urw IARIDS MATTERA r'X UJ Inventory & Conservation Mason WATER WOODS s " ANDERSON ON LJ r Y. DEPARTMENT / '+f r 'MEADOW f o LAND ~.K rBARE ."N.. 7 7- F.ihirg plallorm proposed pE s EAOOWr 1y j y waY Feaadin, study ti r .BANBOaN' roFk `~4 r 1 . ` 4/ '"f1~ by Green Field i I TOYWJ. t ~ . \5 I . J ? ~ C / 1Y yl, "J'_ {a s \ FORES former wete toerof v + sr ' ~yq`'~ CEDARMP ~ tPVN~ • sr1 o, r . r e 0 a71 EN' -ytv awtin ro ` D -v EMETD treatment plant ♦ ;s+L t . WOOD EN C TOWN '•Y.. X M \ ELEMENTARY LESTER EMETERYOh +0., X FOREST ♦ r I SCHOOL jIAND$ I. WATER F X R tCH 91) GO_ALE Tar tllla percal'. evaluate for ~ DIVIDENCE f f. DEPARTMENT •j 'MEADOW 'F\ OUERALO H transfer to COnservepon w+ AND' Town Compost n1'AYr NICHOL KURCMIAN f 4'3 Parking for TownX D F s+' 7* f WOOD L•T WOOD9r \.LUCY A 4'y R F f A' Forcs17 y: • • • • 1 9R' 0\ 1 s v ii iH.w:. Environmental \ MEADOW SLEDGE n~Y / X SCHNEIDER ueT rr review needed BNWK r WOODS 1' IFIENE NN ` T.„„„~ WOOD6 A~", GOLF CLUB _ ICE POND'.' \ 4i f CH 1) f CONSERVATION qr Stroh Avenue 8 LgNp~ -y+k. a FPP Grove Street'"` Parking issues R 1~ s' AMP fM 1S~^t \ 4~ yam' 1 ; 1 - l ~ READI AT b ' -ik.1 -.ir RB J W KIEL)AM ` LVER6 GUrtILD , i. a 3^,yyaAlp "X7p_ f ~fl ELEMENTARY !!l REVOLVER•CLl1B t t z ~7\ J r^ ti P.1uSCHOOBURBANK ICE 3F"R x .Y YMOA e!'w... r FORESTGtEN 'W. rARENA. 1,tC . j { COOLIDGE~r CEMETERY \ f "'TtrW°✓ tl1 f 81RCH MEADOW v i_ p MIDDLE / ✓`rv .t ` N ~ l`'EEL,EMENTARYS t° T■{~ Sy 4 F"v 0 MOfj REVAVNVATER ; .,CHOOLP y{6` HOOL- I ✓~r 4~'' y_ iZe PAROELRISDEPT GAMPpRI,CE:r CHARLES WLAN e` Q BIRCH SOUTH Z / . ,y CEMETERY t CEDAR 4d Oe xMOODY MEADOWd ra { / € 41 PHI PARK t. 4 p~ SWAMP W O ~G l1q 'West Sitle Trell INS ERTV 5 _ "ti.n_\C f TIMBERNECK ,"~J connachons needed :~~1n ,}W/'"RO ~-'\7 ftiSWAMP `A Z PITMAN ✓ a i.' ( ! P - l AU6TIN' DICEN-< PARCEL ~y~ PREPT MAILLET KAVIER/ABERJONA SOHOOL' ~SOMMIE98 p : 8 t'" ndd{ V', RIVER s _ MORGAN LAND'4 ~l MEMORIAL rP ~eC QLAUREL'HILL' PARK wyp Sjj ,y, l ~ r B TMELIN BIRD^^^LLLPy D CEMETERY }'I } t f PETER \ L T .P . a SANCTUARY 'l~ in dI I. S in N ♦ e r 12a PIACE a ~-u-Mpl~ \ e 3 l ..w r t a, NSS~~i ~f Na,' Ca C u' ,BUNT b r d ROOK Y' > 9L ay $ MEMORIAL s r tl Y;~ lv° .S •"i \ a-6 S ~ .~-I 4'V PPRK e: T. S x Ir xl \ ELEMENRARYS f. S*i MIDDLE SCHOOL -ENS; .C ONGWO ' S~. j. SSWAMP L Z '-ipT CONtSER~VA,fIno 'EA SCHOOL .rST 4 I. ISLAND,, et WASHINGTON Johnson Woods I~ PARK - undercarvad 1 r f• ,~i`w" .~3t 2U ,1-,,.' towntwuse8 'y- {pn~ "CC \~1yyy%, AY, LAKE condo residents .;,t ~yY s (V0.' ha Z ~ (ry± ,.A Y °j O~ :C!'f QUANNAPOWIT)' N X \ Iwe4~y~~pCI~ " PINw:E~V.rtAL^E "V g'q;, ija.'j1~ V: \ JOSHUA EATON - r"" \C'e S` A WOBURN I ~`SCHOOL~ f \ S ~3''n , rJ z B.. EN:PI~ S..,n t. \ a P WAKEFIELD a~ " 'W Reatirp C.-. r~ r j N apartment PQ T t` O 5A rasMlents ~ O , RGES f , S!• P ' PARK A 0 1 000 2,000 Map by Town of Reading O Feet Date 12110/12 Data from Town of Reading and MassGIS Reading Woods 'Land of Concern includes lands mentioned 0 300 600'=" y" -undeserved STONEHi., M In 2012 Open Space & Recreation Plan Meters 1 townh-ri., conao a plus important habitat areas. epanmant ssidents :4 Data are for planning purposes only. Sic- Section 10 Comments Distribution List: Board of Selectmen Conservation Commission Community Planning and Development Commission Recreation Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Section 11 References Town of Reading Public Documents and Data Assessor Records and Plans At Wood End, Reading, Massachusetts, 1644-1994: A Pictorial History, 1994. Conservation Division Records and Plans Conservation Assessment of Conservation Lands Engineering Division Records and Plans Geographic Information System Land Bank Committee Records and Plans Master Plan, 2005 Open Space & Recreation Plan, 1995 Open Space & Recreation Plan, 2001 Open Space & Recreation Plan, 2007 (draft) Planning Division Records and Plans Recreation Division Records and Plans Killam Field Master Plan Washington Park Master Plan Joshua Eaton School Master Plan Barrows Elementary School Master Plan Memorial Park Master Plan Birch Meadow Complex Master Plan Water Division Records Zoning Bylaws Reading Subdivision Regulations MassGIS data layers and metadata Open Space and Recreation Plan Survey 2012 Publications Chapter 61 B Open Space and Recreational Land: Current Use Tax Program, Paul Catanzaro, et al., The Trustees of Reservations, no date, httD://www.thetrustees.ora/hci/Iibrarv/CH61 B final 1.Ddf 12/13/12 Draft 50 67 0 Commonwealth Connections: A areenwav vision for Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, no date. hfr)://www. mass.oov/dcr/stewardship/areenwav/Ddfs/connections. Ddf Communitv Forests: Needs & Resources for Creatina & Manaoina Communitv Forests, Trust for Public Land, March 2011 Conservation: An Investment That Pavs. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space, Trust for Public Land, July 2010 The Conservation Finance Handbook, Trust for Public Land, June 2004 Conservation and Land Use Plannina Under Massachusetts' Chatter 61 Laws: A Primer for Cities. Towns. and Conservation Oraanizations, by Stacey Francese and Jay Rasku, Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust, Inc.; Second Revised Edition, November 2007. httD://www.ashburnhamconservationtrust.ora/Ddf/Mount Grace Ch61 Info.ndf Conservina our Common Wealth: A Vision for the Massachusetts Landscape, prepared by The Land Conservation Center of the Trustees of Reservations, 1999. Creatina Greenwavs: A Citizen's Guide, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Greenways Program, (no date). httD://www.mass.oov/dcr/stewardshiD/areenwav/creatinaareenwavs.htm Doina Deals: A Guide to Buvina Land for Conservation, The Trust for Public Land, Land Trust Alliance and The Trust for Public Land, 1995. The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation, Trust for Public Land, March 2007 Environmental Handbook for Massachusetts Conservation Commissioners. Nineth Edition, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, revised 2006. The Forest Stewardship Source Book: Information and Services for Massachusetts Woodland Owners, Massachusetts Forestry Association and Massachusetts Forest Stewardship Program, 2012 The Health Benefits of Parks, Trust for Public Land, November 2006 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation ReDort Card., Ipswich River Watershed Association and Massachusetts Audubon Society, August 2002. Land Conservation Options. A Guide for Massachusetts Landowners, Essex County Greenbelt Association and The Trustees of Reservations on behalf of the Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, October 2001, 5th revised edition. Losina Ground: Bevond the Footprint, Massachusetts Audubon Society, 2009, 4th edition. hfr)://www.massaudubon.ora/losinaoround/download.Dho 12/13/12 Draft 51 ~G~ Massachusetts Conservation Restriction Stewardship Manual: A Handbook for Land Trusts and Conservation Commission, Massachusetts Audubon, March 2006, http://www. massaudu bon. ora/PDF/land/CRManualFinal. pdf Massachusetts Outdoors 2006: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2006. httD://www. mass.aov/eea/docs/eea/dcs/massoutdoor2006. Ddf Our Irreplaceable Heritaae: Protectina Biodiversitv in Massachusetts, Henry Barbour, Tim Simmons, Patricia Swain and Henry Woolsey; Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Mass. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Massachusetts Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, 1998. Readina the Land: Massachusetts Heritaae Landscapes. A Guide to Identification and Protection, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, no date, http://www.mass.aov/dcr/stewardship/histland/readina the land.Ddf Technical Guide to Forest Wildlife Habitat Manaaement in New Enaland. Richard DeGraaf, et al. University Press of New England, 2007 Trails Guidelines and Best Practices Manual, Department of Conservation and Recreation, State of Massachusetts, updated March 2012. httD://www.mass.aov/dcr/stewardship/areenwav/docs/DCR auidelines.Ddf Internet Sites of Interest Private, Non-Profit Mass. Association of Conservation Comm. httr)://www.maccweb.ora/ The Trustees of Reservations httr)://www.ttor.ora/ The Trust for Public Land httr)://www.tDI.ora/ Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition hfD://www.massiand.ora/ The Nature Conservancy httr)://www.nature.ora/ The Vernal Pool Association Ipswich River Watershed Association Saugus River Watershed Mystic River Watershed Community Preservation Coalition New England Wild Flower Society Public Open Space and Dog National Trust for Historic Preservation Rails to Trails Conservancy Mass. Bicycle Coalition Reading Open Land Trust httr)://www.vernalr)ool.ora/ hftr)://www.ir)swichriver.ora/ httr)://www.sauausriver.ora/ www.mvsticriver.ora/ www.communitVDreservation.ora/ httD://www.newfs.ora/ www.Detnet.com.au/oDensr)ace httD://www.nationaltrust.ora hftD://www.railtrails.ora hfD://WWW. massbike.ora/ httD://ROLT.ora 12/13/12 Draft 52 6- l Government Town website: www.readinama.aov Reading Recreation Division httD://www.readinorec.com Massachusetts Home Page httD://www.mass.aov/ Executive Office of Environmental Affairs hfD://www.mass.aov/envir/ Department of Conservation & Recreation www.mass.aov/dcr Mass. Historical Commission www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/ Metropolitan Area Planning Council hfD://www.maDc.ora/ Massachusetts Watershed Coalition hfD://www.commonwaters.ora/ Mass Geographic Information Systems httD://www.mass.aov/mais/ Natural Heritage & Endangered Species httD://www.mass.aov/d%vele/dfw/nhesD/nheso.htm Mass. Fish & Wildlife httD://www.mass.aov/dfwele/dfw/ Public Access to Waters of Mass. www.mass.aov/dfwele/Dab/index.htm Mass. Open Space, Recreation, & Conservation Resources httD://www. mass.aov/eea/arants-and-tech-as sistance/auidance-technical- assistance/open-space-resources 12/13/12 Draft 53 S~ INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF MELROSE. THE TOWN OF WAKEFIELD AND THE TOWN OF SAUGUS AND THE TOWN OF READING DIRECTOR OF THE VETERANS' SERVICES DEPARTMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated as of this day of , 2012 ("Agreement") by and between the Town of Saugus, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at Town Hall, 298 Central Street, Saugus, MA 01906 acting by and through its Board of Selectmen ("Saugus"); the Town of Wakefield, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at Town Hall, 11 Lafayette Street, Wakefield, MA 01880 acting by and through its Board of Selectmen ("Wakefield"); the Town o Reading, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading MA 01867 acting by and through its Board of Selectmen ("Reading"); and the City of Melrose, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176, acting by and through its Mayor, the Honorable Robert J. Dolan, with the approval of its Board of Aldermen ("Melrose") WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Saugus, Wakefield, Reading and Melrose desire to share the benefits and costs associated with a Veterans' Services District; and WHEREAS, each of the parties has obtained authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 4A; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree under seal as follows: 1. Veterans' Services District. During the Term of this Agreement, as defined below, Saugus, Wakefield, Reading and Melrose shall assume their respective shares of the costs associated with a Veterans' Services District ("District"). Specifically, the parties shall share the services of a Veterans' Services District Director ("District Director") and the District Veterans' Services Officer ("District VSO"). Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as AAnpendices A-E, inclusive, are documents describing the anticipated structure of the District. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the date of execution hereof, and shall expire on June 30, 2014, unless earlier terminated as set forth herein. On or before May I` of each year during the Term, the parties shall review their contractual relationship, the terms of which are set forth herein, to ensure that this Agreement continues to satisfy the needs and objectives of each community. 3. Identitv of District Director and District VSO. a ests of the inettfnbeH4 Distr-iet VSO . The parties shall share the services and costs of the incumbent District Director, Ryan M. McLane, MPA, and the incumbent District VSO, Andrew DelRossi Biggio. Any successor to either the District Director or District VSO shall be hired through the standard personnel practice of Melrose in consultation with Saugus, Wakefield, seI and Reading. 4. Compensation. Melrose shall pay the salary and benefits of the District Director and the District VSO. Saugus, Wakefield, and Reading shall each contribute their respective one-quarter (1/4) shares of the associated costs for these positions by paying to Melrose a variable sum, as required by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, per fiscal quarter during the Term, each payment to be due and payable within fifteen (15) days after the commencement of such fiscal quarter (i.e., after 7/1, 10/1, 1/1 and 4/1). Melrose shall adjust the compensation it pays said positions as it may be required to do in accordance with any collective bargaining agreements and standard personnel practices which impact upon the District staff, both managerial and labor, and shall give prompt written notice to Saugus, Wakefield and Reading of any such adjustment. Saugus, Wakefield and Reading shall adjust their quarterly payments accordingly. In the event that any collective bargaining agreement requires Melrose to make a lump sum payment to either of the aforesaid positions reflecting a retroactive salary increase during the Term, Melrose shall promptly give written notice thereof to Saugus, Wakefield and Reading and each of Saugus, Wakefield and Reading shall, within sixty (60) days thereafter, pay Melrose one-quarter (1/4) such amount to the extent that the retroactive pay period includes any part of the Term hereof. For Fiscal Year 2013, the payments to be made by Saugus, Wakefield and Reading to Melrose shall be in accordance with Appendix A attached hereto. In connection with this Agreement, Melrose, Saugus, Wakefield and Reading shall each separately employ an individual for the position of Veterans' Assistant who shall be employed to perform veterans-related services in their respective communities. Said Veterans' Assistant shall be required to work a minimum of eighteen (18) hours in the employing community's veterans' services office on a weekly basis. The costs and benefits associated with employing this Veterans' Assistant shall be the sole responsibility of the community employing said individual. 5. Other Collective BareaininL Agreement Benefits. Melrose shall provide the District Director and the District VSO with all benefits to which they are entitled under applicable collective bargaining agreements and standard personnel practices. Ret All parties agree to allow the District Director and the District VSO to enjoy such vacation, sick days, personal days and other leave as they may be entitled to receive under such agreements and standard personnel practices of Melrose. No party shall make any demand on the District Director or the District VSO, or take any action with respect to the District Director or the District VSO that is in violation of their rights under such agreements, practices or applicable legislation. 6. Retirement and Workers' Compensation Benefits. The District Director and the District VSO will be members of the Melrose Contributory Retirement System. Upon retirement, Saugus, Wakefield and Reading will be assessed a share of the cost of pension plans reflecting any concurrent time the District Director or the District VSO spent working for Saugus, Wakefield and Reading Saugus hereunder pursuant to applicable Massachusetts General Laws. At the end of each fiscal year during the Term, Saugus, Wakefield and Reading shall reimburse Melrose for its workers' compensation costs associated with the employment of the District Director and the District VSO, such reimbursement to be equal to the product of Saugus's, Wakefield's and Reading's contribution to the salaries for said positions during such year multiplied by the rate paid by Melrose for workers' compensation insurance for the District Director or District VSO for such year. Saugus, Wakefield and Reading shall also reimburse Melrose for its health insurance, life insurance, and Medicare costs associated with the District Director and the District VSO, said reimbursement to be equal to the proportion of Saugus, Wakefield and Reading contribution to the total compensation package of the District Director and the District VSO. 7. Duties. The District Director shall perform his duties as required by the respective local laws and regulations of Melrose, Saugus, Wakefield and Reading. The District Director and the District VSO shall 2 5ez work primarily in the office spaces provided by Melrose, Saugus, Wakefield and Reading and shall maintain regular, public office hours in Saugus, Wakefield, Reading and Melrose, such office hours to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 9. Indemnification. Melrose shall hold Saugus, Wakefield and Reading harmless from any and all claims related to employment or employee benefits, collectively bargained or otherwise, made by the District Director prior to the commencement of the Term of this Agreement. Saugus shall indemnify and hold harmless Melrose, Wakefield and Reading and each and all of their officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the District Director or the District VSO of their duties in or for Saugus including, without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the District Director or the District VSO while in or performing services for Saugus. Similarly, Melrose shall indemnify and hold harmless Saugus, Wakefield and Reading and each and all of their officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the District Director or the District VSO of their duties in or for Melrose, including without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the District Director or District VSO while in or performing services for Melrose. Similarly, Wakefield shall indemnify and hold harmless Saugus, Melrose, and Reading and each and all of their officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the District Director or the District VSO of their duties in or for Wakefield, including without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the District Director or District VSO while in or performing services for Wakefield. Similarly, Reading shall indemnify and hold harmless Saugus, Melrose, and Wakefield and each and all of their officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the District Director or the District VSO of their duties in or for Reading, including without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the District Director or District VSO while in or performing services for Reading Such indemnification shall include, without limitation, current payment of all costs of defense (including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, court costs and related expenses) as and when such costs become due and the amounts of any judgments, awards and/or settlements, provided that (a) the indemnifying party shall have the right to select counsel to defend against such claims, such counsel to be reasonably acceptable to the other parties and their insurers, if any, and to approve or reject any settlement with respect to which indemnification is sought; (b) each party shall cooperate with the others in all reasonable respects in connection with such defense; and (c) no party shall be responsible to pay any judgment, award or settlement to the extent occasioned by the negligence or intentional misconduct of any employee, agent, official or representative of any other party other than the District Director or the District VSO. By entering into this Agreement, none of the parties has waived any governmental immunity or limitation of damages which may be extended to them by operation of law. 10. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by any party for any reason or no reason on thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties. No such termination shall affect any obligation of indemnification that may have arisen hereunder prior to such termination. The parties shall equitably adjust any payments made or due relating to the unexpired portion of the Term following such termination. 11. Assienment. No party shall assign or transfer any of its rights or interests in or to this Agreement, or delegate any of its obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other parties. 3 Se 3 12. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, or if any such term is so held when applied to any particular circumstance, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, or affect the application of such provision to any other circumstances, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision were not contained herein. 13. Waiver. The obligations and conditions set forth in this Agreement may be waived only by a writing signed by the party waiving such obligation or condition. Forbearance or indulgence by a party shall not be construed as a waiver, nor limit the remedies that would otherwise be available to that party under this Agreement or applicable law. No waiver of any breach or default shall constitute or be deemed evidence of a waiver of any subsequent breach or default. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by all parties duly authorized thereunto. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof. 16. Headines. The paragraph headings herein are for convenience only, are no part of this Agreement and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 17. Notices. Any notice permitted or required hereunder to be given or served on any party by any other party shall be in writing signed in the name of or on behalf of the party giving or serving the same. Notice shall be deemed to have been received at the time of actual receipt of any hand delivery or three (3) business days after the date of any properly addressed notice sent by mail as set forth below. a. To Saugus. Any notice to Saugus hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: Scott Crabtree Town Manager Town Hall 298 Central Street Saugus, MA. 01906 or to such other address(es) as Saugus may designate in writing to Wakefield, Melrose and Reading. b. To Wakefield. Any notice to Wakefield hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: Stephen P. Maio Town Administrator Town Hall 1 Lafayette Street Wakefield, MA. 01880 or to such other address(es) as Wakefield may designate in writing to Saugus, Melrose and Reading. 4 !5 P. 1 C. To Melrose. Any notice to Melrose hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: The Honorable Mayor Robert J. Dolan Melrose City Hall 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 d. To Reading. Any notice to Reading hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 or to such other address(es) as Reading may designate in writing to Melrose, Saugus and Wakefield. 18. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, superseding all prior agreements and understandings. There are no other agreements or understandings among the parties concerning the subject matter hereof. Each party acknowledges that it has not relied on any representations by either of the other parties or by anyone acting or purporting to act for any such other party or for whose actions any such other party is responsible, other than the express, written representations set forth herein. 19. Financial Safeguards. Melrose shall maintain separate, accurate and comprehensive records of all services performed for each of the parties hereto. Melrose shall maintain accurate and comprehensive records of all costs incurred by or on account of the Veterans' Services District, and all reimbursements and contributions received from Saugus, Wakefield and Reading. On an annual basis, the parties' financial officers shall jointly review the accounts of the District Director and the District VSO to ensure accounting consistency and reliability. 20. Justification for District Formation per Massachusetts Department of Veteran Services. The parties hereto rely upon the documents attached as Appendices B-E as constituting a rational basis for approval by the Massachusetts Secretary of Veterans Services for the formation of a veterans' services district established in accordance with 108 CMR 12.02(2)(a) through 12.02(2)(f). WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS as of the first date written above. TOWN OF SAUGUS By its Town Manager TOWN OF WAKEFIELD By its Board of Selectmen 5 TOWN OF READING By its Board of Selectmen CITY OF MELROSE By its Mayor c:\Wakefield\IMA-VeteransAgent-Wakefield-Clean8.28.12 6 5 J~, ~0 LIST OF LICENSES 12/12/12 COMMON VICTUALLER LICENSEES Aroma Caf6 607 Main Street Anthony's Roast Beef 216 Main Street Bagel World 323 Main Street Bangkok Spice Thai Restaurant 76 Haven Street Bertucci's Italian Restaurant 45 Walkers Brook Drive Burger King 357 Main Street Cafe Capri 355 Main Street Chili's Grill & Bar 70 Walkers Brook Drive Chinatown Cafe 672 Main Street Christopher's Restaurant 580 Main Street Cookies-N-Cream 2 Haven Street Colombo's Pizza and Cafd 2 Brande Court Cup Cake City 137 Main Street Dandi-Lyons 1331 Main Street Dunkin' Donuts 273 Salem Street Dunkin' Donuts 454 Main Street SCI COMMON VICTUALLER LICENSEES (Continued) Epicurean Feast 55 Walkers Brook Drive Fuddruckers 50 Walkers Brook Drive Green Tomato 42 High Street Gregory's Subs & Deli 162 Main Street Grumpy Doyle' 530 Main Street Hot Spot in Reading 85 Haven Street Jimbo's Famous Roast Beef & Seafood 454 Main Street Last Corner Restaurant 49 High Street Longhorn Steak House 39 Walkers Brook Drive Mandarin Reading Restaurant 296 Salem Street McDonald's 413 Main Street Meadow Brook Golf Club 292 Grove Street Meadow Brook - Snack Bar 292 Grove Street Oye's 26 Walker Brook Drive P & S Convenient Store 287 Lowell Street Pizza World 583 Main Street ,~~2 COMMON VICTUALLER LICENSEES (Continued) Quiznos Sub 505 Main Street Reading House of Pizza 1321 Main Street Reading Ice Arena Authority 51 Symonds Way Reading Overseas Veteran's Inc. 575 Main Street Reading Veteran's Association 37 Ash Street Richardson's Ice Cream 50 Walkers Brook Drive Ristorante Pavarotti 601 Main Street Romano Macaroni Grill 48 Walkers Brook Drive Bistro Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Bistro 107 Main Street Starbucks Coffee 288 Main Street Starbucks Coffee 24 Walkers Brook Drive Swiss Bakers 32 Lincoln Street Town Pizza & Deli 648 Main Street Haven Seafood Market 591 Main Street Venetian Moon 680 Main Street Zinga Reading 50 Haven Street 3 AUTOMATIC AMUSEMENT LICENSEES Fuddruckers 50 Walkers Brook Drive Reading Veteran's Association 37 Ash Street Reading Overseas Veteran's, Inc. 575 Main Street ENTERTAINMENT LICENSEES Bangkok Spice Thai Restaurant 76 Haven Street Bertucci's Italian Restaurant 45 Walkers Brook Drive Bistro Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Bistro 107 Main Street The Boland Group 50 Walkers Brook Drive Cafe Capri 355 Main Street Chili's Grill & Bar 70 Walkers Brook Drive Colombo's.Pizza and Cafe 2 Brande Court Fuddruckers 50 Walkers Brook Drive Grumpy Doyle's 530 Main Street I-Max Theater 50 Walkers Brook Drive Jimbo's Famous Roast Beef & Seafood 454 Main Street Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Mandarin Reading Restaurant 296 Salem Street S~_l ENTERTAINMENT LICENSEES - cont. Meadow Brook Golf Club 292 Grove Street Oye's 26 Walker Brook Drive Reading Veteran's Association 37 Ash Street Reading Overseas Veteran's Association 575 Main Street Ristorante Pavarotti 601 Main Street Romano's Macaroni Grill 48 Walkers Brook Drive Venetian Moon 680 Main Street CLASS I. II AND III MOTOR VEHICLES LICENSEES Gallery North, Inc. (Class I) d/b/a Honda Gallery 88-98 Walkers Brook Drive ECars of New England Inc. (Class I) 281 Main Street 128 Tire, Inc. (Class II) 459 Main Street Brown's Auto Repair (Class II) 35 Lincoln Street Reading Auto Sales (Class II) 550 Main Street Reading Foreign Motors, Inc. (Class II) 4 Minot Street RMP Mass (Class II) Reading Motors 1337 Main Street r Reading Square Auto Body, Inc. (Class II) 9 Chapin Avenue Reading Square Shell (Class II) 749 Main Street North Reading Auto & Recon, Inc. (III) d/b/a Gray's Towing 4 Minot Street JUNK LICENSE CTC Gold Refinery 75 Haven Street TAXI AND LIVERY LICENSEE Paul's Sedan Service 40 Orange Street Dilsh An Perera Sapphire Livery 1230 Main Street Abdollah Hosseini Abby Transportation 211 Main Street, Unit 2 LODGING HOUSE LICENSEE 83 Hamden Street .5~( Board of Selectmen Meeting November 14, 2012 The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. in the Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Stephen Goldy, Vice Chairman Ben Tafoya, Secretary Richard Schubert, Selectmen John Arena, James Bonazoli, and Office Manager Paula Schena. Discussion/Action Item Annointments to the Town Manaeer ScreeninH Committee - Stephen Goldy noted that many interviews are scheduled so they have to keep to a 15 minute timeline for each interview. The Board interviewed Bill Brown. He noted he has been a resident of Reading for 80 years, has served on numerous committees, has been a Town Meeting Member for 45 years, he is a cabinet maker who went to the Vocational School and he was able to build his own house from the ground up. Mr. Brown indicated he is volunteering for this position because he loves civics. The Board interviewed David Greenfield. Mr. Greenfield noted that he is applying as the Finance Committee representative. He participated in the DPW Director screening. He is employed as a risk manager and feels the Town needs another Manager with the same qualities as our present Town Manager. The Board interviewed Jacqueline Carson. Ms. Carson indicated she is a social worker by trade and is the Chief Executive Officer of Peter Sanborn Place. She has been a resident of Reading for 16 years. She has recruiting and managerial experience. She noted that Reading is healthy, but that can change on a dime without the right leadership. She feels the Town needs a different type of leadership with the select Boards and Department Heads playing a stronger role. The Board interviewed Mark Dockser. Mr. Dockser noted that he has been a resident for 16 years, a Town Meeting member and is a member of the Finance Committee. He noted he would like to see the Town grow and he feels the Town Manager plays a key role in making that happen. James Bonazoli asked Mr. Dockser if he is looking for someone like the current Town Manager and Mr. Dockser indicated not a "snapshot." He would like to see more outreach to get people involved. He feels the Town needs someone who's comfortable being out in the Town, not behind the desk all day. The Board interviewed Michael Giacalone. Mr. Giacalone noted that he is a certified accountant with extensive background in the business world. He also served on the Chamber of Commerce. James Bonazoli asked what characteristics he would be looking for beyond the business side and Mr. Giacalone indicated he would like to keep the baseball programs going. 6a/ Board of Selectmen Minutes - November 14. 2012 - Dase 2 The Board interviewed Brian Snell. Mr. Snell noted he is an attorney and Town Meeting Member. He is involved with the Reading United Soccer Club, basketball, and he serves on the Council on Aging in North Reading. He served on the school council and on the screening committee for a new principal at Parker Middle School. He was also a hiring manager at Fleet. The Board interviewed Brenda Sousa. Ms. Sousa indicated she is a Human Resource Director and she deals with all levels of hiring. She will be able to help the team determine the right person for the position. Richard Schubert asked Ms. Sousa if she had any exposure to government roles and Ms. Sousa indicated she did not have direct exposure, but she views the Town Manager as the Chief Executive Officer and the skills are transferable. Richard Schubert asked Ms. Sousa about her understanding of Reading as a community and Ms. Sousa noted she watches the meetings on RCTV and finds it very interesting as to how the Town government works. Ms. Sousa noted she will look for someone who is a leader, willing to invest their time and energy in Reading, fiscally responsible and a team worker putting residents first and foremost. The Board interviewed Rob Spadafora. Mr. Spadafora noted that he has been a resident for 40 plus years, is a School Committee member, is legal counsel for a medical device company, and he is involved in the hiring process. He has also served on two separate Superintendent Search Committees. The Board interviewed Marsie West. Ms. West noted she is currently a member of the Reading Municipal Light Board. She served nine years on the Finance Committee and Audit Committee. She has hired people in teams as large as 70 people. The Board interviewed Steven Sadwick. Mr. Sadwick noted that he was the Community Development Director in Stoneham and is now in Tewksbury. He served on a Town Manager Search Committee and was Chairman of the Personnel Review Board. He is currently the Town of Reading's representative on the MAPC and the President of the Massachusetts Planners Association. He was involved in hiring a Building Commissioner, Health Director, Finance Director, and DPW Superintendent. Ben Tafoya asked if there was any chance he would come to work in Reading and Mr. Sadwick indicated no. The Board interviewed Andrew Grimes. Mr. Grimes noted he has been a resident since 1996, served nine years on the Finance Committee and has been a Town Meeting member since 1997. He served on the Municipal Building Committee and on the Library Board of Trustees. He noted that the current Town Manager keeps everything running smoothly but has not pushed for something outside the box. He runs things very tightly and his stamp is on everything. The Board interviewed Camille Anthony. Mrs. Anthony noted she always thought she would want to do this. She noted that the current Town Manager has molded the Town and she wants someone with the same agenda. ~~Z Board of Selectmen Minutes - November 14. 2012 - cage 3 The Board members discussed their willingness to serve on the Committee. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafova to glace the following names into nomination as the Selectmen's representatives on the ad hoc Town Manager Screening Committee with a term expiring June 1. 2013: Ben Tafova and James Bonazoli was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Tafova seconded by Schubert to nlace the following names into nomination for the following representatives on the ad hoc Town Manager Screening Committee with a term expiring June 1. 2013: Superintendent of Schools John Dohertv and Department Head James Cormier was annroved by a vote of 5-0- 0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Bonazoli to appoint Mark Dockser as the Finance Committee representative on the ad hoc Town Manager Screening Committee with a term expiring June 1. 2013 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. There was much discussion about the at-large applicants and Selectman Schubert indicated he is interested in having some female perspective on the committee since the Board of Selectmen are all males. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafova to appoint Brenda Sousa as one member of the public at large on the ad hoc Town Manager Screening Committee with a term expiring June 1. 2013 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Tafova to appoint Jacaueline Carson as one member of the Dublic at large on the ad hoc Town Manager Screening Committee with a term expiring June 1. 2013 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to adiourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m. was annroved by a vote of 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ~w3 1--16 605 Schena, Paula From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments L/c Bo's Sent from my iPhone Pete Begin forwarded message: Hechenbleikner, Peter Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:10 AM Schena, Paula Fwd: Verizon ROS Video Channel Notice 2012 EOY Sample Customer Notice.v1.docx; ATT00001.htm From: "Frere, Mary Louise" <marv.l.frere@verizon.com> Date: November 16, 2012, 2:19:34 PM EST To: Undisclosed recipients:; Subject: Verizon FIGS Video Channel Notice Dear Municipal Official: This is to notify you of programming related changes to Verizon's FiOS TV services as fully described in the attached sample customer notice. Please be advised that on or after December 31, 2012, the below channels will be removed in order to streamline and consolidate FiOS TV programming. Blackbelt TV 319 E Blue Highways TV 246 Youtoo (American Life) TV 243 Mav TV (SD) 318 Mav TV (HD) 598 Halogen TV 287 We realize that our customers have other alternatives for entertainment and our goal is to offer the best choice and value in the industry. Verizon appreciates the opportunity to conduct business in your community. Should you or your staff have questions please contact me. Mary L. Frere Senior Staff Consultant - NOS Video Verizon Communications 125 High Street Boston, MA 02110 617-743-4119 1o--, L..1G QoS Fax: (781) 942-5441 Website: www.readin ma. ov PUBLIC WORKS (781) 942-9077 December 11, 2012 ASBESTOS REMOVAL ADVISORY Please be advised, on Monday, December 17, 2012, our contractor Joseph P. Cardillo & Son will begin removing Asbestos Sewer Pipe in your area. Removal work will be limited to portions of Tennyson Road, Whittier Road, and Browning Terrace. During the removal process all necessary state and federal requirements and standards will be adhered to. In order to provide the utmost safety to the public and workers, Joseph P. Cardillo & Son will have on site a fully contained disposal facility and decontamination tent for the workers. All Workers in direct handling of the asbestos will be in full Hazmat suits; this should not be cause for alarm, it is only for the workers safety. It is important to know that all measures are done in strict accordance with the law to ensure proper and safe removal of this material. Please know that you are in no danger and that public safety is the Town and Contractor's highest priority. During this process we ask that you respect all warnings and signs and allow the Contractor to follow their procedure and remove the asbestos in a safe manner. Thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions please contact the Department of Public Works Engineering Division at 781-942-9082. Yours truly, fry T. Z: ge Director o u is Works Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 q6 q L 3os Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:44 AM To: 'Geoffrey Coram' Cc: Reading - Selectmen; Schena, Paula; Cormier, Jim; Delios, Jean; Martel, Justin; Robbins, Richard; Zager, Jeff; Zambouras, George Subject: RE: school zone signs on Birch Meadow Drive Yes the Board of Selectmen approved the removal of the flashing signs. A school zone sign would be redundant and confusing and would not add anything from a regulatory viewpoint. The key is that there is a uniform 20 MPH speed limit on the entirety of the road - no question, no confusion, no ambiguity.. Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readinRma.sov email townmanagerCa)ci.readins.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at htto://readingma-survev,virtuaItownhaI1.net/survev/sid/7c8844ebldecd098/ -----Original Message----- From: Geoffrey Coram Imailto:sicoram(@vahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:39 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Reading - Selectmen; Schena, Paula; Cormier, Jim; Delios, Jean; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Martel, Justin; Robbins, Richard; Zager, Jeff; Zambouras, George Subject: Re: school zone signs on Birch Meadow Drive Hi, Peter, I recall this discussion, that the 20MPH should apply not only when school is in session, but also when sports are going on. However, most if not all of Birch Meadow Drive was already 20MPH before 2008; there was/is a 20MPH sign right after John Carver turns into Birch Meadow. The flashing lights were some distance further along and added an additional reminder to motorists. Did the selectmen approve removal of the flashing lights? Is there a reason we would not also want a school zone sign and/or lights to remind motorists? Thanks. -Geoffrey q Gl On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:16 AM, "Hechenbleikner, Peter" <ohechenbleiknerPci.read ine.ma.us> wrote: > Geoffrey > The Board of Selectmen approved the existing regulation about 2 years ago. The existing restriction of 20 MPH at all times is more restrictive than a school zone would be. A school zones establishes a speed zone only during school, or if part of the regulation "when children are present". The existing 20 MPH speed zone is permanent 24/7, and is preferable because the area is so busy all the time, not only with children, but with all sorts of activity. > Peter I. Hechenbleikner > Town Manager > Town of Reading > 16 Lowell Street > Reading MA 01867 > I/c Board of Selectmen > Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: > Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. > Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. > Friday: CLOSED > phone: 781-942-9043 > fax 781-942-9071 > web www.readinema.eov > email townmanaeer9ci.readine.ma.us > Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at > httr)://readinema-survev.virtua[townhaI1.net/survev/sid/7c8844ebldecd098/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey Coram rmailto:eicoramCMvahoo.coml. > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:46 PM > To: Hechenbleikner, Peter > Cc: Reading - Selectmen > Subject: school zone signs on Birch Meadow Drive > Hi, Mr. Hechenbleikner: > Some time ago (I just checked my e-mail archive, and it was apparently back in 2008!), there was a meeting of the selectmen, at which they were considering changing the school zones near the Birch Meadow School. As I recall it, some of us attendees supported the expansion of the school zone on Forest St., but I expressed reservations about extending the school zone along Birch Meadow Drive, because this would have involved removing the flashing light indicator of the school zone. (I wanted one of those signs with radar, like they have at Wood End, but you said they were too expensive.) The selectmen indicated that they would consider this further, and I thought that we (at least the principal and/or the school safety committee) would be informed if they made further decisions. 2 q&2 - > I was astonished this afternoon to find that there is now *no* school lone indication along Birch Meadow Drive at all! neither when approaching from Main St. nor from John Carver Dr. I can't even find where the flashing lights used to be. I asked Mr. Sprung, and he said he had not heard anything about this. > Shouldn't there be at least a sign indicating a school zone? There was some question of perhaps a sign that said "speed limit 20 when children are present" but all that I saw were a few regular "speed limit 20" signs. > Thanks. > -Geoffrey Coram > 31 Ridge Road 3 c ~3 Hechenbleikner, Peter ~ (.f From: Burns, Greg Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:10 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Re: 52 Sanborn Street The fine is $50.00 per day. In the past I have given extensions if the responsible person is diligently moving forward addressing the issues. Greg Chief Gregory J. Burns Reading Fire Department 757 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 (P) 781.944.3132 (F) 781.942.9114 7El atna1dimmurzo Please let us know how we are doing -fill out out- brief customer service survey at: htto://readinama- survev.virtualtownhall.net/survev/sid/7c8844ebl decd098/ From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:05 AM To: Burns, Greg Subject: RE: Re: 52 Sanborn Street It sounds like you have done what you could. What is the penalty if they do not comply? Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday. Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readinoma.oov email town manaoer 0ci.readinct.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at hftD://readincima-survev.virtualtownhall.net/survev/sid/7c8844eb1 decd098/ From: Burns, Greg Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:41 PM 6111 To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Re: 52 Sanborn Street Peter, We have issued a Notice of Violation of Order for School House Condominiums property located at 52 Sanborn Street. The Order requires the fire pump to be repaired by December 14, 2012. Lieutenant Jackson has been working with the Management company for several months to get this pump repaired or replaced and it has not been corrected. To give you some background, a fire pump increases the pressure and amount of water available for the sprinkler system and standpipe system under fire conditions. In May we became aware there was a problem with the fire pump and we required repairs to be made. In July we found the sprinkler (this building has a partial sprinkler system) and standpipe system would not flow any water under fire conditions. We required emergency temporary repairs to be made and they were completed. In an effort to save the condominium association from spending money unnecessarily, Lieutenant Jackson suggested they hire a fire protection engineer to review the water supply available for the building and this was done. The engineer examined fire flow information and determine there was sufficient water for the sprinkler system only but not for the standpipe system. On October 22nd we were told by the Management Company the fire pump was ordered and there was a six to eight week lead time. In November we were informed by the sprinkler contractor the pump has not been ordered. It is our impression the Condominium Association or Management company does not want to do the work. We had no alternative but to issue the order. Greg Chief Gregory j. Burns Reading Fire Department 757 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 (P) 781.944.3132 (F) 781.942.9114 7PUm[Pri1'L7LlEn v. {m, Please let us know how we are doing -fill out our hrief customer service survey at: httD://readinama- survev.virtualtownhall.net/survev/sid/7c8844ebl decd098/ From: Jackson, Paul Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:05 AM To: Burns, Greg Subject: Re: 52 Sanborn Street Chief Please review the attached violation of order letter. As you will note I have given only 10 days to correct before fines will be assessed were as the original Notice of Violation goes back to May 23, 2012. Please advise on issuance of this order. Paul D. Jackson 2 e~d v L-jc. 6 z) s- Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:17 AM To: 'Geoffrey Coram' Cc: Reading - Selectmen; Schena, Paula; Cormier, Jim; Delios, Jean; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Martel, Justin; Robbins, Richard; Zager, Jeff; Zambouras, George Subject: RE: school zone signs on Birch Meadow Drive Geoffrey The Board of Selectmen approved the existing regulation about 2 years ago. The existing restriction of 20 MPH at all times is more restrictive than a school zone would be. A school zones establishes a speed zone only during school, or if part of the regulation "when children are present". The existing 20 MPH speed zone is permanent 24/7, and is preferable because the area is so busy all the time, not only with children, but with all sorts of activity. Peter 1. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 I/c Board of Selectmen Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.read insma.Rov email town manaeer ci.readine.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at httD://readinRma-survev.virtualtownhall.net/survev/sid/7c8844ebldecd098/ -----Original Message----- From: Geoffrey Coram jmailto:g!coram0Dvahoo.coml, Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:46 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Reading - Selectmen Subject: school zone signs on Birch Meadow Drive Hi, Mr. Hechenbleikner: Some time ago (I just checked my e-mail archive, and it was apparently back in 2008!), there was a meeting of the selectmen, at which they were considering changing the school zones near the Birch Meadow School. As I recall it, some of us attendees supported the expansion of the school zone on Forest St., but I expressed reservations about extending the school zone along Birch Meadow Drive, because this would have involved removing the flashing light indicator of the school zone. (I wanted one of those signs with radar, like they have at Wood End, but you said they were too 1 qe, ( expensive.) The selectmen indicated that they would consider this further, and I thought that we (at least the principal and/or the school safety committee) would be informed if they made further decisions. I was astonished this afternoon to find that there is now *no* school zone indication along Birch Meadow Drive at all! neither when approaching from Main St. nor from John Carver Dr. I can't even find where the flashing lights used to be. I asked Mr. Sprung, and he said he had not heard anything about this. Shouldn't there be at least a sign indicating a school zone? There was some question of perhaps a sign that said "speed limit 20 when children are present" but all that 1 saw were a few regular "speed limit 20" signs. Thanks. -Geoffrey Coram 31 Ridge Road 2 q.C 2 L L b0C. BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION VF71i Richard A. Davey, MassDOT Secretary and CEO and MPO Chairman Karl H. Quackenbush, Executive Director, MPO Staff December 7, 2012 N O N Mr. Stephen Goldy C-31 Chair, Board of Selectmen, Town of Reading 16 Lowell St. 0 Reading, Massachusetts 01867 1 Dear Mr. Goldy: N Re: Development Process and Milestones for the FFYs 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is beginning the process of developing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014-17. This letter identifies important milestones for TIP development and highlights municipal responsibilities in this process. The major milestones in this year's schedule are listed below. Those that municipalities are responsible for completing are indicated in the list by an asterisk • Identify new TIP Contacts December 21 • Complete Project Funding Application Forms February 1* (formerly called Project Information Forms) • Complete project evaluations March 1 • Submit municipal feedback on project evaluations March 19* • Post First-Tier List and staff recommendation March 28 • Discuss First-Tier List and staff recommendation with MPO April 4 & 18 • Release draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP for public review May 2 The first step in this process, identifying the TIP Contact, is important, as this is the person who will be responsible for communicating, on behalf of the municipality, directly with the MPO staffs TIP Manager in the development of this important document. Enclosed is a full schedule for the TIP development process. The TIP is a short-term capital program that funds transportation projects in the Boston region. The MPO conducts an annual process to prioritize these q r) State Transportation Building • Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150 • Boston, MA 02116-3968 Tel. (617) 973-7100 • Fax (617) 973-8855 • TTY (617) 973-7089 • www.bostonmpo.org transportation investments. This year's process for developing the TIP will be similar to last year's; however, there is an increase in the time provided in the schedule for members of the public and the MPO to consider the staff recommendation before the MPO votes on endorsement of the TIP. Our goal is to endorse the final TIP on June 27, 2013. - The MPO will host TIP-Building Workshops on December 11, 2012, in Quincy and December 13, 2012, in Everett at which MPO staff will explain the steps of . the development process, focusing on the responsibilities of municipalities' TIP Contacts. Two MPO information sessions will also be held, at the State u° Transportation Building in Boston, on January 9, 2013, and one discussion topic will be the TIP development process. We strongly encourage all municipalities to send a representative to at least one of these sessions. Municipal representatives are also invited to attend and participate in all MPO meetings. Please send information regarding your municipality's TIP Contact to Sean Pfalzer, TIP Manager. You may contact him at spfaizer@ctps.org or 617-973- 7107. Sean can also answer any questions you may have regarding the TIP and its development. Additional information is available on the MPO website as well, at www.ctps.org/tip. Sincerely, Karl H. Quackenbush Executive Director KQ/SP/sp Encl. ~Y q TIP Development Schedule for the FFYs 2014-17 TIP December 7, 2012 The following list of milestone dates outlines the main activities of the FFYs 2014-2017 TIP process and the parties responsible for them. If you have any questions, please contact Sean Pfalzer, MPO staff TIP Manager, at spfalzer@ctps.org or 617-973-7107. December 7, 2012: MPO sends letter to Municipal CEOs requesting that they identify the TIP Contacts for the FFYs 2014-17 TIP development process. December 21, 2012: Date by which the Municipal CEOs should provide TIP Contact information to the MPO TIP Manager. December - January: MPO staff conducts informational public meetings on the TIP development process and schedule. At the TIP-Building Workshops, MPO staff will outline the steps in the development process and focus on the responsibilities of TIP contacts. At the MPO Open Houses, one discussion topic will be an overview of the TIP development process. • December 11: TIP-Building Workshop -Thomas Crane Public Library, Quincy (9:00 AM) • December 13: TIP-Building Workshop - Everett City Hall (9:00 AM) • January 9: MPO Open House - Suite 2150, State Transportation Building, Boston (two sessions, 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM) December 7, 2012 - February 1, 2013: Municipal TIP Contacts update TIP-related information: • Update Project Funding Application Forms for priority projects (updates should be completed online) • Make requests regarding new projects that the municipality wishes to have added to the Universe of Projects (requests should be submitted to TIP Manager) December 7, 2012 - February 1, 2013: MPO staff compiles background data on. projects' infrastructure condition, anticipated benefits, and development status based on MassDOT's Road Inventory, MPO's Congestion Management Process, and MAPC land use data. February 4 - March 1: MPO staff evaluates projects using TIP criteria March 4 -19: Municipalities review evaluations and provide feedback to MPO staff q0 March 28: MPO staff submits First-Tier List of Projects and the staff recommendation to the MPO. The First-Tier List contains projects that rank high in the evaluations and can be made ready during the span of the TIP. The staff recommendation proposes projects (programmed and new) to be funded with available target funding. April 4 - May 2: MPO discusses First-Tier List and staff recommendation at MPO meetings May 2: MPO votes on Draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP for public review May 6 June 4: Public reviews and provides comments on the Draft TIP June 27: MPO takes action on the Draft TIP ~ TIP- and UPWP-Building Workshops Roll up your sleeves and help build next year's plans for transportation in our region. Attend the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) TIP- and UPWP-Building Workshops. The Boston Region MPO is beginning to develop its annual programming documents, the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014 - 2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and FFY 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Everyone is invited to learn about the processes and to get involved in building the next TIP and UPWP. The TIP establishes which highway and transit projects in the 101 cities and towns of the Boston region will receive federal funding during the next four years. The UPWP establishes the federally funded transportation-planning programs and studies to be conducted in the region during a given fiscal year. Both of the currently active documents can be reviewed at www.bostonmpo.org. Meeting Information Tuesday, December 11 -Quincy ® 9:00-10:30 AM Thomas Crane Public Library 40 Washington St. Quincy, MA 02169 • Accessible from Quincy Center Siationviattre-Redline; a1Mtd Colony commuter rail lines, and MBTA bus routes 210 through 217, 220, 221, 222, 225, 230, 236, 238, and 245* Thursday, December 13 - Everett 9:00-10:30 AM ® Everett City Hall, Kerverian Room 484 Broadway, Everett, MA 02149 • Accessible by MBTA bus routes (direct) 97, 104, and 109, and (nearby) 110 and 112* At the workshops, staff from the MPO will discuss the background, steps, and schedule for building the documents and will explain how and when input on projects to be funded is needed. * For schedule information go to www.mbta.com or call 1.800.392.6100 TTY 617.222.5146 Meeting locations are accessible to people with disabilities and via public transportation. Assistive listening devices are available at the meeting site. Every effort will be made to provide other accommodations, such as materials in accessible formats or languages, or interpreters in American Sign Language (ASL) upon advance request. Please contact the Central Transportation Planning Staff at 617.973.7100 (voice), 617.973.7089 (TTY), 617.973.8855 (fax), or publicinformation@ctps.org. ~S